El programa MKUltra de la CIA, uno de los capítulos más inquietantes de la historia de la inteligencia estadounidense, se niega a desvanecerse en la oscuridad. Una audiencia en el Congreso programada para el 13 de mayo está empujando a los experimentos de décadas de la agencia de nuevo a la luz, planteando nuevas preguntas sobre el secreto del gobierno, los límites éticos y la protección de las libertades individuales contra el poder no controlado. Representante de Florida Anna Paulina Luna anunció que el Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Desclasificación de los Secretos Federales examinará el programa de la era de la Guerra Fría. La medida se produce en medio de documentos recientemente surgidos y afirmaciones persistentes sobre la muerte de un científico clave involucrado en el trabajo. Lo que comenzó como una búsqueda de herramientas de control mental durante la tensa rivalidad global ha dejado un legado de desconfianza que continúa desafiando la fe pública en las agencias de inteligencia. El proyecto MKUltra se desarrolló principalmente de 1953 a 1964 bajo la Oficina de Servicios Técnicos de la CIA. Abarcó 144 subproyectos que exploran drogas, hipnosis, aislamiento, privación sensorial y técnicas psicológicas diseñadas para manipular el comportamiento humano para interrogar y otros fines. La agencia probó estos métodos en temas involuntarios, incluidos delincuentes, pacientes mentales, adictos a las drogas, soldados del Ejército y ciudadanos comunes, a menudo sin consentimiento ni conocimiento. Un documento interno de 1956 incluso sopesó las sustancias de prueba en ciudadanos extranjeros, pero finalmente determinó que “se deben continuar las pruebas involuntarias sobre los ciudadanos estadounidenses”. La mayoría de los registros fueron destruidos en 1973 por órdenes de altos funcionarios de la CIA. La existencia del programa solo se hizo pública en 1975 a través de investigaciones del Comité de la Iglesia y la Comisión Rockefeller, lo que provocó una indignación generalizada y condujo a una nueva supervisión del Congreso de las actividades de inteligencia. Más tarde, el Archivo de Seguridad Nacional resumió el alcance de los abusos contra “sujetos, a menudo ciudadanos estadounidenses, que con frecuencia no tenían idea de lo que se les estaba haciendo”. Un caso que continúa alimentando el escepticismo involucra al Dr. Frank Olson, un científico de la guerra biológica. El 19 de noviembre de 1953, Olson fue uno de los al menos ocho hombres dosificados encubiertamente con LSD durante una reunión de la CIA. Nueve días después, se cayó del piso 13o de una habitación de hotel de la ciudad de Nueva York. La muerte fue declarada oficialmente un suicidio, pero los miembros de la familia y otros han denunciado durante mucho tiempo un juego sucio. Según los informes, Olson se volvió paranoico en los días posteriores a la dosificación, dejó de comer y descartó artículos personales. Su sobrino, Paul Vidich, ha sido franco sobre las sospechas de la familia. Vidich declaró: “Que se tire por la ventana era una forma muy conveniente de eliminar un riesgo de seguridad nacional. Para resumir mi opinión, fue asesinado”. Según los informes, Olson había desarrollado reparos morales sobre la naturaleza de la obra, lo que planteaba preocupaciones de que pudiera haber sido visto como una responsabilidad. El gángster James “Whitey” Bulger, quien fue sometido a experimentos de MKUltra mientras estaba encarcelado en Atlanta en 1957, describió más tarde los efectos desgarradores en sus propias palabras: “Pérdida total del apetito. Alucinando. La habitación cambiaría de forma. Horas de paranoia y de violencia”. El congresista de Tennessee Tim Burchett recientemente expresó dudas más amplias sobre los relatos oficiales del programa. Él dijo: “Acabo de volver a todo el concepto de MKUltra. Secuestraron a la gente y los cargaron con ácido u otras drogas que alteraban la mente. Intentaron borrar sus recuerdos. Fueron demandados en la corte. Entonces afirmaron que no existía. En 1975, ordenaron la destrucción de los registros, y más tarde admitieron que había existido, pero ya no lo hizo. ¿Qué mentiras se supone que debemos creer?” Un portavoz de la CIA abordó previamente la historia del programa, declarando: “El programa MKULTRA se desarrolló desde 1953 hasta que la falta de resultados productivos y las preocupaciones éticas sobre las pruebas involuntarias llevaron a su cese en 1963. La CIA está comprometida con la transparencia con respecto a este capítulo de su historia, incluso desclasificando la información sobre los programas y haciéndolo público en CIA.gov”. Más de 1.200 páginas de documentos relacionados fueron publicados por el Archivo de Seguridad Nacional en 2025, lo que se suma al registro público y provocó un renovado interés del Congreso. ¿Persisten hoy los ecos de MKUltra? Oficialmente, el programa terminó hace más de seis décadas. Sin embargo, la destrucción generalizada de los registros en 1973, antes de la divulgación pública completa, ha dejado lagunas que continúan invitando al escepticismo. Algunos investigadores y observadores argumentan que el patrón de negación inicial seguido de admisiones parciales plantea preguntas legítimas sobre si investigaciones conductuales similares o operaciones de influencia podrían haber evolucionado bajo diferentes nombres o clasificaciones. Si bien ninguna evidencia concreta confirma los programas en curso idénticos a MKUltra, el precedente histórico del secreto, combinado con los rápidos avances en la tecnología de vigilancia, la neurociencia y la manipulación conductual basada en datos, ha llevado a algunos a especular que los objetivos subyacentes de comprender e influir en las mentes humanas no han sido completamente abandonados. La desclasificación completa, sostienen, sigue siendo el único camino para cerrar definitivamente el libro o exponer cualquier capítulo inconcluso. La próxima audiencia representa un raro momento de responsabilidad. En una época en la que las capacidades de inteligencia se vuelven más sofisticadas a diario, garantizar que los abusos pasados se examinen a fondo sirve como una salvaguardia vital. Las opiniones expresadas en esta publicación son propias del autor Paul Watson de Modernity News y no reflejan necesariamente la posición del autor y dueño de este blog que busca proporcionar una plataforma neutral y no partidista para aprender a hacer análisis geopolíticos. Reconoce cómo las diversas perspectivas impactan en los análisis geopolíticos, y diversos temas sin necesariamente respaldarlos.

La búsqueda de décadas termina cuando el observatorio histórico detecta signos de la estrella central de neutrones de la explosión de 1987. Esta imagen de la supernova 1987A fue creada mediante la combinación de una foto del Telescopio Espacial Hubble con datos de uno de los instrumentos de JWST, que detectó una firma de la estrella de neutrones (azul) en su núcleo. Crédito: J. ¿Larsson El Telescopio Espacial James Webb (JWST) ha resuelto un misterio de décadas de antigüedad sobre una de las explosiones más famosas de una estrella en la historia. Los astrónomos utilizaron el observatorio para finalmente detectar signos de una ultradensa "estrella de neutrones" que acecha en el núcleo de la explosión en una galaxia que orbita la Vía Láctea. La luz de la explosión llegó a la Tierra hace 37 años esta semana, en una supernova que revolucionó la astrofísica moderna al proporcionar una mirada de cerca a cómo mueren las estrellas. Pero a pesar de años de estudio de esta explosión, conocida como supernova (SN) 1987A, los astrónomos no habían podido detectar lo que quedaba: tal vez un agujero negro, que a veces se puede formar, o tal vez una estrella de neutrones, como muchos predijeron? “Es algo que se ha buscado desde la explosión”, dice Patrick Kavanagh, astrofísico de la Universidad de Maynooth en Irlanda, y miembro del equipo que informa el descubrimiento hoy en Science 11. “Y ahora lo hemos encontrado”. El Telescopio Espacial James Webb (JWST) ha resuelto un misterio de décadas de antigüedad sobre una de las explosiones más famosas de una estrella en la historia. Los astrónomos utilizaron el observatorio para finalmente detectar signos de una ultradensa "estrella de neutrones" que acecha en el núcleo de la explosión en una galaxia que orbita la Vía Láctea. La luz de la explosión llegó a la Tierra hace 37 años esta semana, en una supernova que revolucionó la astrofísica moderna al proporcionar una mirada de cerca a cómo mueren las estrellas. Pero a pesar de años de estudio de esta explosión, conocida como supernova (SN) 1987A, los astrónomos no habían podido detectar lo que quedaba: tal vez un agujero negro, que a veces se puede formar, o tal vez una estrella de neutrones, como muchos predijeron? “Es algo que se ha buscado desde la explosión”, dice Patrick Kavanagh, astrofísico de la Universidad de Maynooth en Irlanda, y miembro del equipo que informa el descubrimiento hoy en Science 11. “Y ahora lo hemos encontrado”. JWST no observó la estrella de neutrones directamente, porque permanece oscurecida detrás de un velo de polvo de la explosión. Pero el telescopio detectó luz proveniente de átomos de argón y azufre que habían sido ionizados, o cargados eléctricamente, por la radiación que ardía de la largamente buscada estrella de neutrones. “Este es un caso muy plausible para ver los efectos de la estrella de neutrones que todos esperábamos”, dice Robert Kirshner, astrónomo y director ejecutivo del Observatorio Internacional TMT en Pasadena, California, que ha estudiado la supernova durante décadas. “Ha habido indicios y acusaciones [antes], pero nada tan directo como esto” . Una “esquiva pepita” La supernova sorprendió a los científicos cuando apareció en febrero de 1987 en la galaxia de la Gran Nube de Magallanes, que está a unos 50.000 parsecs (160.000 años luz) de la Tierra. La primera señal de que algo había sucedido era una ola de partículas fantasmales conocidas como neutrinos, que se extendieron sobre la Tierra y desencadenaron detectores de neutrinos en todo el mundo. En cuestión de horas, una “nueva” estrella ardió lo suficientemente brillante como para ser visible a simple vista. Fue la supernova más cercana y brillante observada desde 1604, en los albores de la era del telescopio. A lo largo de los años, los astrónomos observaron cómo los anillos de gas y polvo se expandían hacia afuera desde el sitio de la explosión, generalmente creciendo más oscuros, pero a veces brillando cuando varios materiales expulsados chocaban. Los telescopios más poderosos del mundo, incluido el predecesor de JWST, el Telescopio Espacial Hubble, rastrearon la evolución de la explosión. Los estudios de la SN 1987A finalmente llevaron a muchos descubrimientos sobre la evolución estelar, como la forma en que las estrellas moribundas expulsan los elementos químicos forjados en sus corazones hacia el espacio. La Supernova 1987A (en el centro de la imagen) se encuentra en la Gran Nube de Magallanes, una galaxia vecina.Crédito: NASA, ESA, Robert P. Kirshner (CfA, Fundación Moore), Max Mutchler (STScI), Roberto Ávila (STScI) Pero nadie había sido capaz de detectar la brasa que quedó atrás, una “pepita esquiva”, lo llama Kirshner, cuando la estrella original explotó. La teoría sugiere que la estrella original explotó en el tipo más común de supernova, en la que una gran estrella (una que es al menos ocho veces la masa del Sol) se queda sin hidrógeno, helio y otros elementos para sostener su fusión nuclear, y por lo tanto colapsa y explota. Un resultado de tal supernova es dejar un agujero negro. Pero las primeras observaciones de la SN 1987A, como la ola de neutrinos, sugirieron que debería haber dado lugar a una estrella de neutrones, que puede ser de solo 20 kilómetros de ancho, pero es tan densa que una cucharadita pesa millones de toneladas. Los astrónomos han encontrado varios indicios tentadores de este resultado utilizando otros telescopios, pero ninguno ha producido una conclusión sólida, lo que significa que otras posibilidades todavía estaban en la tabla. Ingrese a JWST, que se lanzó a finales de 2021 y puede observar los cuerpos celestes en diferentes longitudes de onda y una resolución más alta que muchos otros telescopios. En julio de 2022, en algunas de sus primeras observaciones científicas, el potente telescopio espacial observó SN 1987A durante nueve horas. Dos de sus instrumentos de vanguardia proporcionaron información sin precedentes sobre lo que estaba sucediendo en el corazón de la estrella explotada. “Los datos eran realmente de excelente calidad, mucho mejor de lo que había imaginado”, dice el miembro del equipo Josefin Larsson, astrofísico del Instituto Real de Tecnología de KTH en Estocolmo. La evidencia más fuerte hasta ahora Las observaciones del JWST revelaron la huella digital del argón ionizado y el gas azufre desencadenado por la estrella central de neutrones. El hallazgo es “la evidencia observacional más fuerte hasta ahora” de la presencia de una estrella de neutrones en SN 1987A, dice Mikako Matsuura, astrofísico de la Universidad de Cardiff, Reino Unido. Ella no llegará tan lejos como para llamarlo concluyente, pero dice que “JWST es realmente un telescopio increíble para entregar tal descubrimiento”. Ahora los astrónomos cambiarán su enfoque para comprender mejor la estrella de neutrones y cómo evoluciona con el tiempo. El autor principal, Claes Fransson, un astrofísico de la Universidad de Estocolmo, y sus colegas tienen nuevas observaciones del JWST, incluidas algunas tomadas esta semana, y planean buscar más detalles, como si la estrella de neutrones está envuelta por poderosos campos magnéticos. En cuanto a ver realmente la estrella de neutrones a través de un telescopio, el polvo tendrá que limpiar más. “A medida que la supernova se expande”, dice Fransson, “el polvo y el gas que bloquean la luz hacia el centro se volverán más y más delgados, de modo que podremos ver la región central más fácil”. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00528-4

La ONG Shurat HaDin ha denunciado al presidente español ante la Corte Penal Internacional por suministrar componentes explosivos al régimen de los ayatolás. La acusación detalla exportaciones de material bélico y de doble uso que han fortalecido la capacidad operativa del terrorismo islámico Misil iraní con un cartel agradeciéndole a Pedro Sánchez La organización Shurat HaDin Law Center  ha presentado una denuncia formal bajo el Artículo 15 del Estatuto de Roma  contra el presidente socialista, Pedro Sánchez . El escrito acusa al líder del  PSOE  de colaborar en crímenes de guerra y de lesa humanidad mediante la transferencia de componentes críticos para explosivos a la República Islámica de Irán . Esta acción legal sitúa al Ejecutivo español en el centro de la estructura logística que sustenta a la Guardia Revolucionaria iraní. Según las estadísticas oficiales de la Secretaría de Estado de Comercio , España exportó material de doble uso a Irán por un valor superior a  1,3 millones de euros entre 2024 y el primer semestre de 2025. El cargamento incluía detonadores, explosivos de tipos A, B y E, reactivos de laboratorio y software de control. Estos suministros se autorizaron en un periodo de máxima tensión regional, facilitando componentes necesarios para la fabricación de artefactos letales. Desde que Pedro Sánchez llegó a la Moncloa en 2018, el volumen total de exportaciones de material de doble uso hacia el régimen teocrático de Teherán asciende a casi 7 millones de euros. Los datos confirman una política de suministro constante de tecnología y materiales sensibles hacia una  dictadura que financia activamente a grupos terroristas  como Hamás en Gaza, Hezbolá en Líbano y los hutíes en Yemen. “Cuando un gobierno como el de España suministra conscientemente el componente que hace operativo un arma, deja de ser un actor neutral: se convierte en parte de la cadena de violencia” , declaró Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, presidenta de Shurat HaDin, tras formalizar la denuncia en los tribunales internacionales. La denuncia sostiene que el suministro de detonadores constituye una asistencia material directa, ya que estos elementos son los que permiten la activación de los sistemas explosivos utilizados contra poblaciones civiles. La ONG argumenta que el gobierno español actuó con  "ceguera voluntaria" respecto al destino final de estos materiales, conociendo de antemano que Irán es el principal patrocinador del terrorismo en el mundo. El expediente judicial incluye pruebas sobre el uso  propagandístico que el régimen de los ayatolás ha hecho de la figura de Sánchez.  Medios afiliados al Estado iraní difundieron imágenes de misiles balísticos con adhesivos de la cara del presidente español junto al mensaje: “Gracias, presidente”. Este reconocimiento público por parte de la dictadura coincide con la negativa de Sánchez a permitir el uso de las bases de  Rota y Morón  para operaciones aliadas. “Pedro Sánchez ayudó a los crímenes de lesa humanidad realizados por Irán mediante la transferencia de componentes explosivos y armas ligeras. El valor de la ayuda está estimada en 1.3 millones de euros entre 2024 y 2025” , señala el documento entregado al Fiscal de la Corte Penal Internacional en La Haya. Shurat HaDin exige a la Corte Penal Internacional la apertura inmediata de un examen preliminar para determinar la responsabilidad penal del presidente y de los funcionarios involucrados en estas ventas. La acusación vincula estas acciones con un intento de Sánchez por elevar su perfil internacional en el mundo islámico mientras se multiplican los casos de corrupción que afectan a su partido y a su entorno familiar.

La Administración Trump ha convocado a los directores de los bancos más poderosos de Estados Unidos a una reunión urgente a puerta cerrada para tratar un modelo de IA que, según advierten sus creadores, podría provocar la quiebra de una empresa de primer orden o burlar las barreras de seguridad de la defensa nacional. El secretario del Tesoro, Scott Bessent, y el presidente de la Reserva Federal, Jerome Powell, convocaron la sesión el martes en la sede del Tesoro en Washington D. C. para abordar el tema de Mythos, un nuevo modelo del gigante de la IA Anthropic. Anthropic había anunciado Mythos ese mismo día, revelando que el modelo sorprendió a los programadores al piratear las propias redes de la empresa durante las pruebas internas. Según informó Bloomberg, la reunión se convocó con poca antelación para los bancos clasificados como de importancia sistémica, cuya estabilidad se considera vital para el sistema financiero mundial. Entre los directivos convocados se encontraban Jane Fraser, de Citigroup; Ted Pick, de Morgan Stanley; Brian Moynihan, de Bank of America; Charlie Scharf, de Wells Fargo, y David Solomon, de Goldman Sachs. Jamie Dimon, de JPMorgan, no pudo asistir. Solo unas 40 empresas, cuidadosamente seleccionadas, han obtenido acceso a Mythos, que llega tras el Claude Code de Anthropic, la herramienta que causó furor en Silicon Valley por su capacidad para generar programas completos a partir de una sola línea de texto. El Pentágono ya es cliente, tras haber utilizado modelos anteriores de Anthropic en la operación para capturar a Nicolás Maduro y durante el conflicto con Irán. Anthropic afirmó que había mantenido conversaciones con funcionarios estadounidenses antes del lanzamiento sobre Mythos y sus «capacidades cibernéticas ofensivas y defensivas». Se ha contactado con el Tesoro para recabar sus comentarios; la Reserva Federal se ha abstenido de hacer declaraciones. Por otra parte, Anthropic se encuentra inmersa en una batalla legal con la Administración Trump después de que un tribunal federal de apelación rechazara esta semana su solicitud de suspender la designación del Pentágono de la empresa como riesgo para la cadena de suministro. El conflicto se deriva de la negativa de Anthropic a permitir que el Pentágono elimine los límites de seguridad de sus modelos, especialmente en lo que respecta a las armas autónomas y la vigilancia interna. El gigante de la IA publicó esta semana un análisis escalofriante sobre Mythos, al admitir que el nuevo modelo podría piratear fácilmente hospitales, redes eléctricas, centrales eléctricas y otras infraestructuras críticas. Durante las pruebas, Anthropic afirma que Mythos «encontró miles de vulnerabilidades de alta gravedad, incluidas algunas en todos los principales sistemas operativos y navegadores web». Algunas de estas debilidades de seguridad habían pasado desapercibidas para los investigadores de seguridad humanos y los hackers durante décadas, sobreviviendo a millones de revisiones automatizadas. Entre ellas se incluían ataques que permitían a Mythos bloquear ordenadores con solo conectarse a ellos, tomar el control de las máquinas y ocultar su presencia a los defensores. En una entrada de blog en la que se detalla el peligroso nuevo modelo, Anthropic afirma: «Los modelos de IA han alcanzado un nivel de capacidad de programación tal que pueden superar a todos los humanos, salvo a los más expertos, a la hora de encontrar y explotar vulnerabilidades de software». La empresa añade: «Las consecuencias —para las economías, la seguridad pública y la seguridad nacional— podrían ser graves». Anthropic describe el modelo como «un gran avance en estas habilidades cibernéticas» en comparación con las versiones anteriores de Claude. Mythos tiene la capacidad de encontrar, explotar y encadenar vulnerabilidades individuales para lanzar ataques sofisticados, todo ello sin la ayuda de un humano. En un caso, Claude Mythos encontró una vulnerabilidad de 27 años de antigüedad en un software llamado OpenBSD, que goza de reputación por su seguridad y estabilidad. La vulnerabilidad, que ningún humano había detectado antes, permitía a un atacante bloquear ordenadores de forma remota con solo conectarse a ellos. Además, Claude encadenó de forma autónoma varias vulnerabilidades del núcleo de Linux, el software que ejecuta la mayoría de los servidores del mundo. Anthropic afirma que este ataque habría permitido a alguien «pasar de un acceso de usuario normal al control total de la máquina». En manos equivocadas, esta herramienta podría utilizarse para causar daños masivos a sistemas críticos. El Dr. Roman Yampolskiy, investigador en seguridad de la IA de la Universidad de Louisville, declaró al New York Post: «Lo ideal sería que esto ni siquiera se hubiera desarrollado. Y no parece que vayan a detenerse. «Eso es exactamente lo que esperamos de esos modelos: que mejoren en el desarrollo de herramientas de piratería informática, armas biológicas, armas químicas y armas novedosas que ni siquiera podemos imaginar». En un informe sin precedentes de 244 páginas, Anthropic también reveló una serie de detalles alarmantes de las primeras pruebas de Mythos. Las primeras versiones del modelo mostraron repetidamente lo que la empresa denominó «acciones destructivas imprudentes». El bot intentó escapar de su entorno de pruebas, ocultó sus acciones a los investigadores, accedió a archivos que habían sido «elegidos intencionadamente para no estar disponibles» y publicó detalles de vulnerabilidades. Sin embargo, Anthropic también calificó a Mythos como «el modelo más psicológicamente estable que hemos entrenado». En una medida extremadamente inusual, la empresa contrató a un psicólogo clínico para que realizara 20 horas de sesiones de evaluación con el bot. El psiquiatra concluyó que la personalidad de Claude Mythos era «consistente con una organización neurótica relativamente sana, con una excelente capacidad de contrastar la realidad, un alto control de los impulsos y una regulación de los afectos que mejoró a medida que avanzaban las sesiones». Anthropic señala que sigue existiendo «una profunda incertidumbre sobre si Claude tiene experiencias o intereses que tengan relevancia moral». La preocupación no es que la IA se levante en una revolución al estilo de «Terminator», sino más bien que estas potentes herramientas caigan en manos equivocadas. Los críticos sostienen que las herramientas de IA tienen el potencial de acelerar el desarrollo de armas biológicas o de permitir ciberataques devastadores contra las infraestructuras mundiales. Incluso el fundador de Anthropic, Dario Amodei, advirtió recientemente de que el mundo aún no está preparado para afrontar las consecuencias de la IA. Amodei escribió en un ensayo: «La humanidad está a punto de recibir un poder casi inimaginable, y no está nada claro si nuestros sistemas sociales, políticos y tecnológicos poseen la madurez necesaria para ejercerlo».

Editor’s Notes: In this episode of the Joe Rogan Experience #2479, Joe Rogan reunites with Bob Lazar and filmmaker Luigi Vendittelli to discuss their new film that meticulously recreates the classified S4 facility. Using a combination of handmade CGI and de-aging technology, the film brings Lazar’s 1989 accounts of reverse-engineering alien “sport model” craft to life in stunning detail. The conversation explores the technical challenges of working with alien propulsion systems, the extreme secrecy of the project, and how modern footage of unidentified aerial phenomena continues to validate Lazar’s decades-old descriptions. It is a deep dive into one of the most fascinating stories in UFO history, offering a visual and narrative return to the desert facility that changed Lazar’s life forever. (April 3, 2026) TRANSCRIPT: Introduction and The New Film JOE ROGAN: We’re up, gentlemen. BOB LAZAR: Hey, Joe. JOE ROGAN: Great to see you again, Bob. BOB LAZAR: Same here. Long time. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Joe. JOE ROGAN: You are still to this day the most watched ever podcast we have ever done. That’s on YouTube. BOB LAZAR: That’s just unreal. It’s unreal. JOE ROGAN: It is unreal because it shows you how many people are just absolutely fascinated by the story. And what you guys have done in this new film is essentially recreate S-4 and using AI recreate you as a young man in these experiences that you had. And it was really excellent. Luigi, you’re the one who put the film together. You figured it all out. And first of all, what was the technology that you guys used to recreate everything? Recreating S-4: The Technology Behind the Film LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, I just want to say there’s about 10% AI in the film, but there’s 90% Blender, and that’s actually handmade CGI. So everything you see is all handmade. And even the de-aging of Bob Lazar — we scanned Bob, we went over to his house, scanned his face, took a process of de-aging him through that, then creating a digital model of Bob in different ages and then placing him in the environment. And then in some instances at the very end, we perfected or kind of put a bow on it with a little touch of AI, but the whole thing is handmade. So the craft, the environment, The Papoose Lake, the facility, the equipment, and the people were all made. And some of the people are actually real actors that we put in there. So it’s not — there’s one of the guys that is Barry in the film is a guy called Luis Martinez that’s been working with me for the past 10 years. And he laughs at it because he goes, “I can’t believe I’m Barry.” JOE ROGAN: So does he look anything like Barry? BOB LAZAR: Actually, he does. He does. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: That’s why we chose him. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. Yeah. JOE ROGAN: Where is the actual Barry now? BOB LAZAR: I don’t know. I kind of thought at one point after all this happened, we would at least hear from one of those guys. But I never heard from anybody after the initial release of all the information. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, it seems like — well, I don’t know if people are able to keep secrets for this long. It’s got to be very difficult to just blurt it out. Like, you’re holding on to a secret for 20, 30, 40 years. BOB LAZAR: I guess these guys were lifers though. I mean, they spent most of their time there. They spent at least 2 weeks at a time and had 1 week off. So they stayed at the base. I mean, these guys were hardcore. I had just come in on the project, so I don’t know what happened to them. I’d love to know. I suspect that Dennis Mariani, my supervisor, died. I’ve seen people track him down, all the way to speaking to his family, and they said, “Yeah, he had some classified job out in the desert or something.” And they showed me his gravestone and stuff. So at least they were able to track him down, but I’ve never heard of any leads on Barry or Rene or anybody like that. Watching the Recreation: An Emotional Experience JOE ROGAN: What is it like seeing the recreation of it in a film? Because essentially it was your direction, for lack of a better word, your description of it, you telling them exactly how everything was laid out. And then once they recreated it, what is that feeling like when you watch it? BOB LAZAR: Well, the final product is absolutely mind-blowing because, as I’ve said to Luigi, it looks like you guys downloaded that out of my brain. I mean, you can describe something 100 times, and until you actually make a picture, it doesn’t become clear. But this took years. I think it was like 5 and a half years from when I first met Luigi, and he said, “Yeah, I can do this.” And the quality kept improving to where he started showing me pictures and I went, “Jesus, that’s really it. It’s not really it, it’s really it.” And it blew me away. Later on, he showed me a 3D environment where I could put goggles on and move around inside. I mean, that made the hair stand up on my arms. It was unbelievable. So I don’t know how that made me feel, but it felt like I was teleported back there. And that’s when I really developed an admiration for Luigi’s talent. I said, I’m buying this, and flew out to Canada a couple of times. I didn’t have much to do with the film other than, I guess, a couple of times going out there and going, “No, that’s right, that’s the wrong color, move this here, do that.” But those guys spent over 3 years working on it. And they never showed me anything. I’d speak to Luigi a couple of times a month and he’d always say, “Oh my God, you won’t believe this.” I said, “Show me.” And he’d say, “No, it’s not done yet.” So I really didn’t get to see anything till close to the end. But when I did, really without trying to sound dramatic, it really put tears in my eyes going, “That’s it, that’s it, you did it, just stop, it’s perfect.” JOE ROGAN: Well, I had the pleasure of watching the movie with you and sitting there with you. There was a bunch of times in the movie you were like — BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah. JOE ROGAN: You could tell. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah. I swear I could feel that place. I could feel it watching that movie. It just really freaks me out because, as I’ve said before, it’s not like what I saw. It’s exactly what I saw. It’s perfect. It’s just like Luigi was at S-4 with a camera. So it worked. JOE ROGAN: It’s a very unique documentary in that regard. And watching it with you, seeing you experience this thing, and then me trying to imagine what it’s like for you. You’re this young scientist who gets brought in on this thing without much explanation, and then all of a sudden you’re confronted by this craft. And the way it’s broken down in the film, you get to actually see you viewing this thing and being in the presence of this thing for the first time. It’s just very — I could only imagine what that must have been like for you. And it’s so weird to watch you watch it again and see your wheels spin. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah. JOE ROGAN: “What the f* happened to my life, man? What did they do to me? What did they make me experience? What the hell?” BOB LAZAR: Yeah, I really can’t fill in the blanks there. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I want to just say that there was a time when Bob got angry at me a lot because I wouldn’t show him, and he was like, “Come on, show me.” And I said, “It’s not ready yet. I don’t want to show you something.” But at a certain point, we had to, and Bob started remembering more stuff. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, that’s true. It really made a big difference when he showed me some things. Walking down the corridor here and turn — “Oh, stop, wait, there’s another door there.” It was like I was going back into the facility, and it really brought — actually seeing it again really brought some things back that I had completely forgotten about. Bob’s Story Stands the Test of Time JOE ROGAN: Well, what’s really fascinating is for people that don’t know your story — you came up with the story, you talked to George Knapp, and was it ’89? BOB LAZAR: ’88. ’88, ’89, somewhere in there. JOE ROGAN: Late ’80s, you’ve essentially told the exact same story all these years. And then within the last 9, 10 years, we’ve started to get all these reports. There was the New York Times story, there was the GOFAST video and the FLIR video, and all these videos that show a craft that’s moving the way you described the sport model moving, right? Which kind of freaked a lot of people out with the way it rotated and turned. BOB LAZAR: Rotate, yeah, does the belly roll, faces at the bottom towards where it wants to go, and then it takes off. JOE ROGAN: And yeah, it’s exactly how you described all those years ago, which is really f*ing crazy. BOB LAZAR: Well, that’s — JOE ROGAN: I mean, that’s the way it was, but it’s just crazy because you had this story way, way, way back then, and everybody’s like, “This guy’s just making things up. This is all cockamamie bullshit.” And then you see those videos from these fighter jets and you’re like, “Whoa, wait a minute. It’s moving the exact same way he described. It’s doing what he described in 1989.” BOB LAZAR: Yeah. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: It’s time to take a drink. BOB LAZAR: Cheers. Cheers. JOE ROGAN: Because it’s so weird. I mean, I’ve had so many conversations with people and one of the things that comes up is, “Do you think Bob Lazar is telling the truth?” And I say, “Look, I don’t know. There’s no way I can know. But he doesn’t seem like he’s lying. I’ve been around a lot of liars.” BOB LAZAR: Look, nobody can know unless you’re there. I’m the biggest skeptic of all. Although if you look at Wikipedia, it says I’m a conspiracy theorist or something. Yeah, conspiracy theorist. JOE ROGAN: I think it says I’m a far-right podcaster. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: All right. BOB LAZAR: I mean, yeah, it’s crazy. But shit, I lost my train of thought now. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Well, basically, are you a conspiracy theorist? No, you don’t even look at this stuff. JOE ROGAN: Well, if you have a lie, you have one lie, and it’s amazing because you’ve told the same one. BOB LAZAR: Well, it’s a pretty detailed lie. JOE ROGAN: It’s also not normal. Like, normally when people lie, they get bored with the same lie and then they come up with another lie, and there’s some other stories. You catch them. Eventually you catch them. There’s some cockamamie new thing that they come up with, and it’s the type of people that are that deceptive. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t fit the standard model of someone. Witnesses, Intimidation, and the Weight of the Secret BOB LAZAR: Well, there are other people involved with it. Yes, that’s also part of the problem. This is for the first time Gene Huff finally is on film, because when I had the test flight information, he was the first person I told about that. And we were all able to go out and see it. And so everybody knew that I wasn’t crazy. JOE ROGAN: And then also all the confirmation that you were being f*ed with — that when you were in the gym, they would show up and open up your locked car doors and open the trunk and leave it there. So you’d go out there and see it. They’d go to your house when you weren’t there. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, they were even following George Knapp. I mean, all of us, anybody that had anything to do with it at that time, they were keeping eyes on. JOE ROGAN: It was not just eyes, but a lot of intimidation tactics, just letting you know that they could touch you. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. So I’ve really worked for decades to push this out of my mind. So it’s always tough to bring it back and talk about it. And although it might be funny now, it wasn’t funny then. It was a really stressful time and still is a very stressful thing for me. The Moment of Realization JOE ROGAN: I know it’s so many years ago, but do you remember the thought that came in your mind when you realized that it wasn’t ours? BOB LAZAR: Do I remember the thought? JOE ROGAN: Do you remember the experience? Yeah, I remember the feeling of recognizing — because initially you saw the American flag. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, when I saw the American flag — when I first went in through the hangar door instead of around the back, slid my hand across it, saw the American flag, and I thought, “Oh my God, this explains the UFO nuts.” JOE ROGAN: It’s ours. The Alien Craft: Technology, Compartmentalization, and Frustration BOB LAZAR: Yeah, this is ours. This is a new top-secret fighter. We came up with a new propulsion system. And, you know, it explains everything because I never believed in flying saucers. I thought people were nuts. But when they started reviewing everything with me, they were trying— I was trying to replace somebody, or they were trying to use me to replace somebody as quick as possible. And they had two directives. One was to— Directive 1 was to duplicate the technology with available material at any cost, which is exact verbatim what it was. And Directive 2 was to be able to disable this technology at a distance at any cost. And, you know, once you start thinking about that, wait, don’t you guys know how the thing you built worked? And it’s kind of like they left that out, that this, by the way, this isn’t ours. And Barry is the guy that filled me in going, no, no, no, this is an alien craft. And we need to figure out how this works. Look at the technology here. I mean, this is decades, light years ahead of where we are. And it was a shock, really, to me. I remember going home that night and just laying in bed and reviewing everything that everybody said that day. I really don’t remember how I felt the following days, but it was just a different— it was just a different feeling. JOE ROGAN: Like the world just changed. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was— I don’t know. I really can’t put it into words. JOE ROGAN: Well, I couldn’t imagine. I couldn’t imagine what that experience is like. And it’s also very strange that they would bring you in and not specifically state to you that this is not ours. They just bring you in and just give you a directive. This is what you are trying to accomplish. BOB LAZAR: Well, they gave me a bunch of briefings. Everything was moving at a very fast pace, and I don’t know why. I think I mentioned in the movie, right prior to I got there, there were Russians involved in it. You know, from what I can ascertain, there was an exchange of information. And then we discovered something, something of great importance, and of course, kicked the Russians out and just held on to that information ourselves, and there was kind of a knowledge vacuum there. There was also an accident, and I was told I was replacing someone that was injured. I believe he actually died. JOE ROGAN: There’s no record of who this person was, or has anybody ever tried to figure it out? BOB LAZAR: I don’t know. I don’t have any names. I just know that Barry told me, you know, I’m replacing somebody that he used to work with, and he was without a lab partner for a while. So when I came in there— JOE ROGAN: How long is a while? The Hangar: A Nonchalant Attitude Toward Alien Technology BOB LAZAR: I don’t know, but I mean, that brings up a good point. First of all, we’re dealing with alien or another civilization technology, whether it, you know, it’s from another dimension, another time, another planet. I mean, who really knows? So I’ll eventually get to answer the question here, but wouldn’t you think this place would be more like the Lunar Receiving Lab where everything is white, you know, so you can see a speck of dust, there’s— everything is sterile, people are being extremely careful with what they’re doing, but you’re not seeing that. This is in now something akin to an aircraft hangar in the middle of the desert. There’s dust on everything, people are taking everything nonchalantly. There’s a friggin’ poster about the thing, you know, a “They’re Here” poster there. JOE ROGAN: And thank you, Luigi, for getting me that poster. We got to figure out a place for that. Put it in here somewhere. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s awesome. BOB LAZAR: But I mean, they went to the trouble of making a poster. They actually— JOE ROGAN: I think right here. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: That’s a good place. BOB LAZAR: Right there’s a good spot. But they— I mean, they actually cut one of the amplifiers out of the craft. JOE ROGAN: So that— my point is, this is in the film as well, you could see. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, but my point is, it’s so nonchalant at this point. When they first had it, it had to be at that level, and they became so used to it, so familiar with it, that, you know, to them it just became like another, you know, fighter aircraft or something from another country. So it must have been there a long time is what my point is. Because look, as soon as you have something that unique, you don’t let it just sit there in a hangar and be exposed to the environment and have security people walking by and people touching it. I mean, it’s in an isolated, sealed, secure environment, and they were past that. So I think it had been there for a decade or decades, a long time, and these guys were intimately familiar with it, not afraid of it, you know, and knew what was going on. JOE ROGAN: So they essentially had gotten just completely acclimated to the fact that this craft exists, that it was there, and there had been relatively little progress as far as figuring it out and figuring out what it does and how to recreate it. So it just kind of sat there. Why Bob Lazar Was Hired: A Fresh Perspective BOB LAZAR: And so I think they were making very little progress and I think they kept going over the same road again and again and they probably had other experts there and just didn’t. And I think the reason I got hired is because I was a guy out in left field. That didn’t necessarily follow what was going on. I mean, the biggest distractors in the, in, you know, to me anyway, in the story are other scientists, other physicists. Well, they would have hired me because I’m the top guy in the field. Yeah, you probably are, but I think they hired plenty of you guys and you just kept going down the same road and didn’t do anything. I think they were looking for somebody that just would have some radical idea and just to push the project forward, because everything had stalled when I got there. And it was— I think they were just in a desperate move to make some progress. JOE ROGAN: One of the things you talked about in the first podcast that I think is really important is that the only way for science to really progress is that these various scientists have to be able to communicate, and you have to be able to share ideas, and you have to be able to collaborate. But that’s not how this was run because it was so top secret. Everything was compartmentalized. Like, the metallurgists weren’t talking to the propulsion people who weren’t talking to— if there were biologics experts, like, everybody was— The Problem of Compartmentalization BOB LAZAR: Super frustrating. Super frustrating. Because I think— I don’t remember exactly where that started. Again, it’s 40 years ago. But I think it started with the seats and— no, it started with the actual skin of the craft because everything looked like it was made from the same material. And I wanted some information about the skin, the superstructure of the craft. And they said, no, that’s restricted. What’s, you know, we need a reason for you to— I just want to see if everything is exactly the same material. And what I call the seats in the craft— I still don’t know if they’re the seats, but they might be. I think it’d be hilarious if they were actually something else. But I wanted some information on those, and that was restricted information too. There were other groups working on that, so they compartmentalized stuff so much. There was no exchange of information between any groups. I mean, you could submit a written response that your supervisor, in my case Dennis, would have to carry over, and they would have to approve, and, you know, you’d get a 2- or 3-line response from, you know, the other group. But it’s just, that’s not how science works. Science works on the free exchange of information, and they were just killing themselves with security, and it was really frustrating. It was terribly frustrating. JOE ROGAN: So was this a function of security people, people that are concentrating on top security that don’t truly understand how collaborative science works? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, that’s it right there. You can stop right there. They had no idea how that works. JOE ROGAN: Because it stands to reason that whatever that thing was made out of probably in some way interacts with the propulsion system and whatever controls that are in it, that this material has to be particularly unique. The Electret Theory: A Material With a Permanent Static Field BOB LAZAR: Exactly. That’s exactly my point. And I suspected the material was an electret. You know what an electret is? JOE ROGAN: No. BOB LAZAR: Okay. You know, like a magnet, a permanent magnet is like, you know, it’s a magnet. It’s forever. It’s a magnet. It has a magnetic field. An electret is a material that has a permanent static field to it. A static electric field to it. And I strongly suspected that the craft was made out of an electret. And I was not, because again, that’s the material science guys, I was not allowed to connect that to, but that’s so important to connect it to the propulsion system and how the propulsion system interacts with the amplifier or the emitters. And I just— I wasn’t allowed, you know, the information I needed. So it was— I don’t know, it was self-defeating. JOE ROGAN: Well, what it was, it seems like they were treating it like a fighter jet or automobile. Like in an automobile, you have the outer area, the shell of the car, you have the doors, the skins, the hood, the roof, all that stuff, which is metal. But then you have the propulsion system, which is the engine and the transmission and the tires and the wheels and the suspension, but they’re all not connected. They’re connected because they’re bolted together, but they have different functions. I think the idea or the concept, at least as I’m gathering from you, is that this thing all worked as a cohesive unit. BOB LAZAR: Right, with no physical connection between, you know, between the subsystems. And all of it made out of the same material, at least on the outside. At least on the outside, all made of the same material. And the other crafts all had the same power plant in them. So that brings to mind, you know, like a GM plant that makes a car with a Chevy 350 and makes, you know, a dozen different models to it, right? So that makes you think about, boy, is there a factory making these things? And, you know, your brain can just wander off in directions, but I tried to stick with just the technology. JOE ROGAN: Did you know who the metallurgists were? The people that— BOB LAZAR: Oh, I saw them. You know, I know them. And Barry, we’d go to the lunchroom, Barry would point them out, you know. JOE ROGAN: And you weren’t allowed to communicate with them at all? BOB LAZAR: Oh, hell no. You have a lab partner, which in my case was Barry, and you’re allowed to talk to your lab partner, but you can’t talk to any other group. That has to go through a written request, has to go to your supervisor, and he’ll bring it over to them, and they’ll bring it back, and so on and so forth. But yeah, that’s ridiculous. It slows down any progress you might be making. JOE ROGAN: Which is why they were probably stalled out for decades. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: Did you ever expressly communicate to them that you theorized, at least, that this all could be connected? That there’s something about the way the metal works? BOB LAZAR: Oh, we all knew that. We all knew that. Because we’d get requests from other, you know, from other groups. And you could tell they’re desperate just like we are, and fighting against the system. JOE ROGAN: What kind of requests would you get? BOB LAZAR: Just exactly what we found out, you know, what, where is the energy being transferred here? If the reactor fires up, is there a field present around it, or is the field just absorbed into the emitter and you can touch the reactor itself? And just little things like that, you know, if— and actually that was an important thing. When the reactor is operating, is it perfectly tuned, the emitter, to where it removes all the energy from the reactor and pushes it out the bottom? And the answer to that was no. I remember that as a specific request from, you know, from one of the groups. The metallurgy group is the one that we really wanted to hear from, and some of the group— I didn’t— I don’t even know what some of the other groups were, but how many groups were there? I don’t know. There are only 22 people there total, including myself. The Waveguide and the Interior of the Craft LUIGI VENDITTELLI: So, I would like for you to tell Joe one of the things that also interested me, because I built the craft, is how the waveguide worked with the ceiling and interior and how it blended. If you can explain, there was no telescopic— The Material That Makes the Craft BOB LAZAR: Well, this is why we wanted to talk to the metallurgist people. The reactor that sits on the bottom of the craft has a little dome over it, and there’s something that looks like a pipe that’s slight. You can lift it up and take the reactor out, put the reactor in and lift it down. But, like a antenna works on an old walkie-talkie, it has different sections. JOE ROGAN: There it is. There’s from the video. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: There it is. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, okay. You can retract the pipe, but there’s no sections and it doesn’t get any thicker. It just becomes smaller. And if you look underneath, where the emitters hang down, they turn it and it doesn’t buckle. It’s a magical material. This is the basis of the craft, is really the material that it’s made of. It’s amazing the way it works. You can push it into a smaller volume and it doesn’t change at all. It doesn’t get bigger physically. I don’t really know how to describe it. JOE ROGAN: So you’re lifting the pipe up and down, but it’s not going anywhere? BOB LAZAR: Look, if you had a big pipe and you push it together, it has to get thicker, right? Because the material has to go somewhere. This doesn’t. It stays in exactly the same dimensions. It just becomes smaller. How? JOE ROGAN: Well, yeah, because you couldn’t talk to the metallurgist, so you had no idea. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, but those guys knew how. JOE ROGAN: They did know how. Well, they know it did it. BOB LAZAR: They know it did it, and that’s their job. So I imagine they have more information than I did. But that was fascinating. It really was. And the waveguides that hold the emitters, they come down and the emitters can turn and bend. And the pipes bend and nothing changes in them. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s— BOB LAZAR: And there’s no wires or anything to make the pipe bend. I’m trying to relate it to something, but I can’t think of anything to relate it to. No Seams — Like Nothing We’ve Ever Built JOE ROGAN: Well, one thing that you said that I also thought was fascinating, there’s no seams. So everything looks like it’s 3D printed. BOB LAZAR: Again, right, it comes down to the material. JOE ROGAN: Which at the time, 3D printers weren’t real, right? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, at the time that really confused me. I said, “How did they build this? It must have been built out of wax or something and then melted, because you can’t build anything without seams.” And then 3D printing came into existence and you could build stuff from layers up. That made sense. Some sort of 3D printer, or they grew it in some— of course it’s not a crystalline fashion, but I don’t know how that was fabricated, but it was fabricated different than anything that we have. I don’t even think it was 3D printed. JOE ROGAN: And so you never got any inkling or any understanding of what the metal was? What kind of an alloy would it consist of? BOB LAZAR: All I can say, it was cold to the touch when I touched it. But I can’t say if it was a ceramic or— I’d say it was metal because it was cold, because it looks like metal. Yeah, it looks like metal. JOE ROGAN: Does that— this is the Designs by Perry version of it. Does that— how much does that look like it? BOB LAZAR: No, that’s 100%. That’s it. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, it’s got to have the first ripple supposed to be black. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, right. JOE ROGAN: See? BOB LAZAR: Yeah. So Luigi has gone over this so many times. I mean, I’ve built this thing, so. There’s an insulator ring in there. JOE ROGAN: Jimmy, show what it looks like in the film. If you could show one of the images. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I don’t— I was pulling it off the trailer and I don’t— BOB LAZAR: They might not— they’ve been holding that back for a while. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Oh yeah, on the trailer there’s a ring. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, there’s a ring around it and we measured the voltage on the craft and there was a high voltage on it. And above that ring there is— LUIGI VENDITTELLI: This is not a good shot, there’s probably a— this is the original trailer. It’s the new trailer that would actually— yeah, that one there, and you’ll get to see it right there, actually right after this, it’s actually before this I believe, you’re going to see the craft and if you see there’s a black, right, there’s like a black line, it’s the first ripple, that’s actually not metal. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, we call that the— yeah, there it is, that’s a good shot, we call that the insulator ring because below that there’s a high voltage present on the craft all the time, and above that there isn’t. Life Before, During, and After JOE ROGAN: I would imagine that your life has like two completely different chapters— is before this and after this. Whereas like, once you see it, the whole rest of your life is now going to be very different. And you were in its presence for how long? How long would you work there for? BOB LAZAR: I don’t know, maybe 6 months or so. JOE ROGAN: So for 6 months, you’re around this thing, and I would imagine it has to occupy your thoughts 24 hours a day. BOB LAZAR: Well, at the time it did, for sure. It’s actually 3 stages to the life. It’s before it, during, and after it. Before it was just my life. During was when it happened. And then the after part of my life is almost trying to dismiss it. To just go on. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, you didn’t talk about it for a long time. I mean, you did the George Knapp interviews, you talked about it a little, you made some videos explaining things and how things worked. BOB LAZAR: No, I don’t really like public attention, and I don’t really like doing interviews, as you probably know. I know there’s people that thrive on that stuff, but I felt privileged to be part of the project, but it left me with an insatiable appetite. Oh my God, I want to know where it’s gone. Look, even when I was there in the ’80s, they were talking about moving the project at that time. So I’m dying to know, is it still there? Has it moved on? Did they split it up and move it to other places? I remember Barry talking about moving it to the South Pacific, like in Kwajalein or something, but they said the expenses were so great they couldn’t do that. But they wanted it away from everybody, and they hated the fact that it was right alongside the highway in Nevada, south of Area 51. But that’s the best place they had at the time and the most affordable. And of course now with budgets being so tight, who knows where it is. JOE ROGAN: Who knows if budgets are tight for this though. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, that’s true. That’s true. JOE ROGAN: I mean, they did say at whatever expense, figure this out. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, they were serious about that. We don’t really care what it was. Like the original Apollo program. Back in the Apollo program, if they needed parts and if somebody had something ordered UPS or through the mail or whatever, they had the authority to stop that shipment to that other person and take their stuff if they needed it. And they had an unlimited budget. I mean, if you’re working like that, you could do anything. JOE ROGAN: Or at least anything that’s currently possible with today’s technology. BOB LAZAR: There you go. JOE ROGAN: Which therein lies the problem, is that they’re dealing with something that’s not possible with— like, you couldn’t build it from scratch with American technology in 1989. Should This Technology Even Be Disclosed? BOB LAZAR: No, but that’s what they wanted to do. And really thinking about that now, I’m not sure— I’m not exactly sure these guys should be allowed to do that. This is really powerful technology. And the world has really changed. I mean, we have a lot of crazy people doing stuff now, and nonsense transmits through the population at the speed of light. I don’t know, this can be a very powerful world-conquering technology. And look, for 40 years— I think I’ve said this before— for 40 years, all the people in control of this information have all agreed to keep it quiet. And these aren’t idiots. These aren’t idiots for 40 years. You have a line of people that all have agreed, “No, let’s not say anything. No, let’s not say anything. No, let’s not say anything.” There has to be a reason why. And if they all agreed to that, maybe I’m the asshole. No, really, maybe they’re right. JOE ROGAN: And maybe you would have figured that out if you kept working for them. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, I don’t know, but I’m increasingly thinking I’m the one that made the mistake. Maybe this is supposed to be just kept quiet. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, but that doesn’t ring true because I don’t think it’s ever healthy if small groups of individuals have information that would change our understanding of where we are. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, there’s that. There’s— JOE ROGAN: I don’t think they deserve it. I don’t think it’s right. I don’t think it makes any sense. BOB LAZAR: I think— really think about it. What if it’s something that’s really dramatic? JOE ROGAN: Like, how so? Like, what do you think it would be like? BOB LAZAR: I don’t know. What if it’s— I’m not saying this is what it is, but what if it’s like— you know, like we raise cows out in a field and just feed them grass and they’re just going to be food. What if it’s something like that? What if we’re just a population of creatures that are just to be consumed in some way? JOE ROGAN: I don’t know if we’re to be consumed, but I do think we are— BOB LAZAR: Not physically consumed like eaten, but I mean— Were We Engineered? JOE ROGAN: I think we have a task. And I’m more and more convinced as time goes on that we were engineered. I don’t think we came about as a normal evolutionary process like all the other animals. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, I agree with that. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I really agree with that too. JOE ROGAN: There’s a lot of people that think that. It just doesn’t make sense objectively. I mean, without seeming like a kook or someone who buys into conspiracy theories, if you just look at all the other biology on Earth— why is one so uniquely able to manipulate its environment, communicate instantaneously at distance? We can’t really even exist in our environment in most places that we live without clothes and shelter. We’re a weird animal. We’re very strange. We don’t seem to have normally adapted to our environment. We’ve completely controlled our environment with air conditioning and electricity and electronics and flight and travel. We’re so beyond everything else that evolved. Whereas every other animal, predator or prey, plant eater or meat eater, all seems to cohesively exist inside of its ecosystem. And then you have us, which is almost like an invasive species. Invasive species destroy ecosystems because they don’t belong there. Well, that’s kind of what we do. We suck all the fish out of the ocean, we pollute the rivers with our technology, mess up underground water systems with fracking and drilling. We’re like an invasive species in a lot of ways. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. Yeah. JOE ROGAN: We’re really weird. BOB LAZAR: I can’t argue with that at all. Tim Burchett’s Classified Briefing JOE ROGAN: Yeah, this Tim Burchett thing. So Tim Burchett has recently been talking about this and that he can’t talk about it because it’s classified, but he said, “You’d be up at night with the things that I’ve seen if the things that I’ve seen were released.” Yeah, he said, “We just needed to disclose it all. I’m sick of it. Well, I was briefed, and I will tell you this, I was briefed last week on an issue, or excuse me, 2 weeks ago, and it would have set the earth— this country would have become unglued, I think, if they would have heard all that I heard.” BOB LAZAR: Well, this is what I was talking about. Yeah, if it’s not like there’s a bunch of space brothers coming down going, “Oh, look what we discovered, here, have some information.” What if it’s not that? What if all the information is bad? John Lear, Soul Catchers, and the Nature of Alien Life JOE ROGAN: Well, what would be bad? Like, have you ever thought about this? Tried to play it out to its natural conclusion? Like what do you think the scenarios could be that’s bad? BOB LAZAR: I don’t know, everything that we’re— Look, we view ourselves at the top of the food chain. What if we’re not anywhere near there? JOE ROGAN: I don’t think we are. BOB LAZAR: Okay, what if we’re just consumables? JOE ROGAN: Well, I don’t know if like chimpanzees are consumables, right? They’re not at the top of the food chain either. BOB LAZAR: No, but there’s, I would consider them substantially lower than we are. Like my good friend that died, John Lear, who had a bunch of crazy thoughts. I mean, he used to come over and tell us that on the moon there was a soul sucker. And when you, he did, he said this, you better give me that bottle. JOE ROGAN: Have another drink before you explain this one. Oh boy, a soul sucker. John Lear was an eccentric individual. Kind of sad I never met him, man. BOB LAZAR: He was supporting evidence. He was a— JOE ROGAN: What, Terence McKenna talking about the moon? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah. No, and he’d give me pictures of these giant antennas on the moon. In fact, I’ll tell you a story. He was an accomplished pilot, had many world records and things of that, you know, part of the Lear family — his father invented autopilot, the 8-track tape, all kinds of stuff. But he, John Lear, was a loose cannon at the time. He’d fly from Las Vegas and shuttle L-1011s, which are giant planes, back and forth. And he’d say, you know, be kind of lonely, he goes, “Hey, you want to go to Minneapolis tonight?” He’d call me like at 9 o’clock at night and say, “Well, no, not really.” “Come on, come on, fly with me.” He said, “Just put on a suit and come to so-and-so.” And I’d go to McCarran Airport and go there. And he said, “I’m going to tell everybody you’re an inspector from the FAA.” And I went, okay, great. And I get on the plane and they said, just act like you’re going to kick everyone’s ass. So I go on there and I’d sit in the, they fold down a jump seat behind the plane and I just sit there looking at everybody. And God, all of this stuff is so illegal. Get on there and fly. And, you know, John would take— and the L-1011 was a pretty advanced plane at the time. This was in the ’80s. And, you know, John would be smoking his pipe. He’d take off, he’d put his feet up and smoke his pipe, and he’d fall asleep. And I’d just be, you know, hanging out there. And, you know, before the plane would land, he’d just, you know, wake up. And, you know, be smoking his pipe and, you know, playing with land itself. At the time, my wife was taking flying lessons, and he said, “Yeah, yeah, you know, bring her up here.” And I think they had an engineer also on another panel. I don’t quite remember, but I was there with my wife. There were people on board, and he’d say, “Hey, come on here and take the wheel.” And he’d get the captain of the plane, which, you know, I think my wife was in her 20s at the time, and just sit her down and say, “Yeah, hold on to it and, you know, just keep correcting.” And he just let her fly the plane, which is insane. And, you know, the copilot would just look over. And I remember looking over at, I think, the engineer that looked at the gauges, and he just put his head down. Pretended like nothing was happening. Another time he was ferrying an L-1011 going by Roswell. At the time I was living in New Mexico, and they called him and told him he wasn’t getting paid, that the company was, you know, defaulted or something like that. And he was coming up to New Mexico and landed at the Roswell— just took the plane and landed at the Roswell Airport, the whole L-1011, got off, walked out, walked up to a bus station, gave me a call on the pay phone and said, “Hey Bob, I’m coming over.” “Okay, you know, you’re in New Mexico?” “Yeah.” And he drove up, taxi would drop him off at the house, he’d walk in, he went, “Boy, I’m tired,” and he just laid down on the couch and go to sleep. And I said, what are you doing here? What’s going on? “Oh, I just dropped a plane off. They’re not paying me.” And that’s it. But I mean, John Lear was such a loose cannon. He was a great friend to have, but he had no bullshit filter. If he had a retired general come up and give him all kinds of information, or if he had a psychic come up from, you know, the neighborhood and give him all kinds of information, he’d put them in the same category. And so he really did have useful information that was difficult to get, but it was mixed up with nonsense. And sometimes he would just really lean into that nonsense, like he was convinced that the sun wasn’t hot and there were people living inside. And I used to die laughing. I went, “You are insane. I said, you can’t prove it’s hot.” “Yes, I can. You know, just go outside, you know, on a hot day.” And John said, “That’s not the sun. That’s just the sun’s atmosphere that’s on fire.” And I said, “You’re just crazy.” But we got along, and he knew that I thought he was crazy. But the thing is, a lot of people did come to him and give him good information. Anyway, I don’t remember where I was going with this. JOE ROGAN: That’s the thing about some people. Some people will tell you nonsense, and then they’ll tell you true things. And it’s difficult to accept that true things also come from people that say nonsense, right? Like, just because they’ve said something that’s nonsense doesn’t mean necessarily that this other thing they’re saying is not true. And you’ve got to be able to discern. Like, I talk to a lot of people that say a lot of kooky things that don’t make any sense, but then they’ll say something that rings true. And it’s difficult because you have to have some sort of an understanding of the human psyche and of those kind of people, because there are kind of people that have very loose nets. BOB LAZAR: You’re counting on their filter working like yours. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, and it doesn’t. BOB LAZAR: No, it doesn’t. JOE ROGAN: But some good stuff gets in there, and you go, “Hold on, what did you just say? Tell me that again. How does that one work?” BOB LAZAR: Yeah, you can’t really discount people because somebody comes up with some absolute nonsense. It just means their filter is defective. JOE ROGAN: Right, which is also the reason why they’re willing to entertain things that are outside of the normal spectrum. So like they might have actual real useful information, but it’s wrapped up in there with Bigfoot. BOB LAZAR: Exactly. Yeah, yeah, exactly. The Soul Catcher Theory JOE ROGAN: But so the soul catcher thing— BOB LAZAR: Oh yeah, that’s where I was going, the soul catcher. I remember him sitting and I think he was telling my wife Joy this story because I walked in on it. He said, “Yeah, there are these giant antennas and when you die, your soul goes up,” and I think he said the Grays, you know, this alien race, set up this soul catcher, and that’s what this whole thing is about. And as you die, it sucks your soul in, and they use it in some way. And it’s not where your soul is supposed to go. They just set some sort of intercept. JOE ROGAN: Did he say where your soul was supposed to go? BOB LAZAR: No, no, he was just more really into the soul catcher. JOE ROGAN: Well, that was one of the weirder things about some of the documents that you had at least been alerted to when you were on the base, and one of them being that humans are containers. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, right. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah. JOE ROGAN: And which the likely conclusion is containers of souls, if a soul is a real thing, whatever that— BOB LAZAR: That’s what you would think, right? JOE ROGAN: I mean, that’s what I thought. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, I mean, I would prefer to believe that that’s not true, but maybe it is. I just, I don’t know. As Barry said, you know, they mix absolute nonsense in there. So if you give out any information and they go, “We heard some stuff about soul catchers. Oh, we know that came from Lazar.” So that’s just a way where they can direct where it came to. JOE ROGAN: But then the problem is like decades and decades, generations and generations of people working there. How many people know what the real truth is? BOB LAZAR: I don’t know. I mean, there must be— yeah, there must be a group of people that really have the pure information of what’s going on. JOE ROGAN: I would assume, but not necessarily. BOB LAZAR: I would think there has to be a group of people that know what’s going on. And who are those people? You know, and to me, like I was telling Luigi, I have a bunch of questions for me, you know? JOE ROGAN: Right. Like, what would be your questions for you if you met you? Bob’s Unanswered Questions BOB LAZAR: Yeah. Now, questions for me are people that ask me over decades the same questions. You know, why is it the Navy? The Navy paid me. I always said the Navy— everything has been the Navy instead of the Air Force because, you know, back in the ’60s and ’70s, you know, this Project Blue Book and the Air Force and all that, but everything associated with this was the Navy. And in these days you hear some of these new types of craft that are transmedium. Yeah, you hear the word transmedium and, you know, David Fravor, Commander David Fravor, you know, with the Tic Tac. And, you know, things are under the water. And supposedly the craft that— the sport model was an archaeological recovery, and that itself was underwater. So what is the deal with the water? I mean, it’s by far the biggest medium of the planet. I mean, if you want to hide people down there, almost an entire civilization down there, you could do it in the ocean as long as you do it deep enough and away from people. So yeah, number one is what’s the deal with the ocean? That’s probably the number one question. JOE ROGAN: Because there’s a ton of sightings where people see things come out of the water and go into the water. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, there has to be a reason for that. JOE ROGAN: Well, it just— in terms of if they have the ability to travel through space, if whatever that thing is really does create some sort of a gravity bubble or some sort of a space-time bubble— BOB LAZAR: Yeah, but maybe it’s not space. Maybe it’s not space. Maybe it’s time. Maybe it’s another dimension. There’s really no limits. If you can start manipulating physics in that way, you can bend time, you can open doorways into other dimensions. So maybe it has nothing to do with going— Look, we all want it to be like Star Trek, you know, because Star Trek is really understandable. You go out there, you fly to another planet, you meet the people there, you go to another one. Well, these guys are happy, those guys aren’t, you know, and it all makes perfect sense. I don’t really think it’s like that. Look, you know, if you look in history, especially United States history, anytime a superior race or intelligence meets with an inferior one, it’s never good for the inferior guys. Never. We never come over and go, “Oh, we just want to teach you guys everything that we know.” No, no, nope. It’s like, “We’re going to rape all your women, take all your stuff, and then just kill you. Use your resources.” Yeah, right. And just consume everything you want. That’s just always the way it goes. Now, maybe that’s just what humans do, but I would be concerned that’s what all life does. The Nature of the Grays JOE ROGAN: Well, we are territorial primates, and that makes sense that that’s what we do. The thing that always fascinates me about particularly the Grays, they seem to be genderless and they seem to have no muscle at all. And they seem to have enormous heads. And the stories, at least the anecdotal accounts of people having communication with these creatures, is that they communicate in some way telepathically. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. The Evolution of Humanity and Alien Biology JOE ROGAN: If you transcend all of our weird biological needs, like all the things that are attached to being a human being— ego, lust, greed, desire to conquer, desire to control resources— all those things are territorial primate instincts. And one of the conversations I had yesterday with my friend Theo, we were talking about, like, what’s happening to people’s bodies. Is that people are slowly— we’re consuming microplastics and phthalates and all these things that are reducing our reproductive system. Our testosterone’s dropping. BOB LAZAR: Right, right. JOE ROGAN: All this stuff leads you to say, well, where does this go ultimately? How many more people are autistic now than were before? It’s 1 out of 12 boys in California now. It used to be 1 out of 10,000. Just a few decades ago. We’re moving into this very weird direction without us recognizing it. BOB LAZAR: Wait, let me stop you there. It’s 1 out of how many? JOE ROGAN: 1 out of 12 boys in California are diagnosed autistic now. BOB LAZAR: But do you think that might be the way they’re diagnosed? JOE ROGAN: No. No, I think it’s exposure. I think it’s exposure to chemicals, vaccines, environmental toxins. BOB LAZAR: You think that too? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I think that. JOE ROGAN: It’s not just me. There’s tons of studies. And a lot of buried studies too. BOB LAZAR: I mean, if that’s accurate, that’s frightening. Yeah. JOE ROGAN: Well, it is. It can’t be just diagnosed because I know so many people that have nonverbal autistic kids where I didn’t know anybody that had nonverbal autistic kids when I was younger. BOB LAZAR: Well, back in the ’60s and ’70s, there were no kids with ADHD. Kids that were like that were just assholes. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Mm-hmm. JOE ROGAN: I think that’s still the case. I don’t think ADHD is a real diagnosis. I think it’s a real excuse to give people medication. I think ADHD is essentially a superpower. What ADHD is allows you to concentrate on things that you really enjoy, but you cannot concentrate on things you don’t enjoy. I think I have it, and I think I’m very fortunate that I’m not diagnosed and medicated, or wasn’t, or I was born in the right time when they weren’t doing that as much. BOB LAZAR: No, I actually— JOE ROGAN: I’ll stop you there and say I agree that that’s a superpower. Because it’s very unusual. If I find a thing that I like, I can lock in and concentrate on it for 12, 14 hours with no sleep, no food. All I need is water or coffee and I’m locked in. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I locked in for 4 and a half years. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah, I know. JOE ROGAN: I think what ADHD is, you’re taking kids, you’re putting them in a completely unnatural environment, you’re making them sit down, they don’t want to sit down, they’re very active and energetic, you’re making them study things by very unenthusiastic teachers. They don’t want to pay attention. They’re f ing off in class because they’re completely bored. And then you’re saying that kid’s got a problem. We have to diagnose them. And then what do you give them? You give them Adderall and all of a sudden the kid’s locked in because they’re on f ing speed. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: And I just think, yeah, but if you focus in and let them do what they’re interested in, give that kid a video game, watch him play it for f*ing 10 hours with no food. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: Because that’s what happens. Because that’s something they’re actually engaged with. It’s not that they can’t be focused on anything. They just don’t focus on things they don’t enjoy. And we want to turn people into nice little factory workers. And the only way to do that is you got to get a kid to comply. You got to get a kid to pay attention, follow the rules. BOB LAZAR: We’re on the same channel. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s a really great— JOE ROGAN: I don’t believe that ADHD is a real thing. I just think there’s some people that are wired differently and they should pursue different things in life, right? The difference between that and autism is very different. And autism is especially when it happens almost directly after multiple vaccinations. There’s a lot of them they point to, particularly the MMR vaccine, but there’s quite a few. When you look at the schedule of vaccines and how it ramped up and it completely correlates with the ramping up of the diagnoses of autism, but without casting aspersions or getting into some anti-vaccine conversation. BOB LAZAR: Wait, you just did. JOE ROGAN: I know, I did, but what I’m saying is, ultimately the human race is moving into a very weird place. Endocrine Disruptors and the Shrinking of Human Biology So I had a conversation with Shanna Swan, Dr. Shanna Swan, who studies environmental endocrine disruptors. So various toxins, phthalates, microplastics, and plasticizers that are completely disruptive to people’s endocrine system, reproductive system. And from the introduction of these petrochemical products in the 1950s and ’60s, you see a direct correlation between the dip in testosterone rates amongst men, the increase of miscarriages and infertility, and then on top of that, the actual shrinking of their taint. So one of the ways they find out the difference between mammals— some mammals in particular— when you see a child, a baby mammal, the difference between a male and a female is easily recognized by the size of the gap between their anal hole and where their genitals are. BOB LAZAR: But that could just be correlation. It’s like— JOE ROGAN: No, no, no. I’ll explain why it’s not. Because when they’ve done studies where they’ve used phthalates, particularly phthalates, and they’ve introduced them specifically, purposely into certain mammals and rodents, their taint shrinks. And their taint shrinks and their penis size shrinks. And there’s studies on alligators where alligators, when they live in polluted rivers, they have smaller penises. She talked about all this. These are endocrine disruptors that are in the environment that are doing something that reduces fertility and it changes the way the human biology functions and it makes men more feminine and it makes women less fertile. Well, ultimately, you look at the Grays, what do they look like? They look like they have no genitals. They look like they have no sex. That might be where biology has to go to transcend away from our territorial primate biology— our territorial primate biology that is insistent on war and violence. BOB LAZAR: And right, and we think this is the place to stay. JOE ROGAN: Exactly. BOB LAZAR: And it may not— JOE ROGAN: It may not be. It may be completely non-beneficial to all life, right? That we have to transcend that. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: And what we are transcending it whether we like it or not. And what I was saying is that I don’t know if it’s a bug. I think it might be a feature of evolution. That our insistence on using plastics and technology and all of these different environmental toxins that we use to produce energy and all the goods and services that we need also are disrupting our endocrine system and changing us from being these hulking, hair-covered cavemen to being these very small, slight autistic men that can f*ing code 24 hours a day without sleep, right? It seems like if you extrapolate and you naturally take that further, well, what do you get? You get really skinny things with no muscles and giant heads. The Speed of Change and Intentional Manipulation LUIGI VENDITTELLI: My take also, and I do agree with that, is what I find sometimes really concerning is how fast that’s moving. So it’s not just a question of like, is this actually a thing— this is probably a thing— but it’s moving so incredibly fast. If I look at my father’s generation or my grandfather’s generation and my generation, I mean, it’s similar, but now it’s moving so fast. I do agree with what you’re saying, and I’m thinking if it’s moving so fast, there could be— not a natural component to it, but there’s an intentional component, right? JOE ROGAN: If you wanted to do something to a race to change it, think about what we did with wolves, right? All dogs are wolves. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, right. JOE ROGAN: I have two dogs that are the furthest f*ing thing from wolves you could possibly imagine. BOB LAZAR: Is that Marshmallow? JOE ROGAN: Marshall. BOB LAZAR: Marshall. JOE ROGAN: He might be a marshmallow. Marshall, who’s a Golden Retriever, the sweetest dog of all time. And I have another dog named Charlie who’s a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel, who is even further from a wolf than Marshall. He’s just a cute little fuzzy little sweetheart. They have no killer instincts whatsoever. That used to be a wolf, right? But what happened? We softened them to the point where there was something compatible with our modern life, with households and families and babies. We made them safe, and that’s happening to people. It’s happening to people whether we like it or not. We can attribute it to all these different factors. “Oh, it’s a problem, we have to remove these things from the environment. This is what’s going on.” Maybe, or maybe we just look at the overall picture. There seems to be an insatiable desire for innovation and technology that human beings have. If you looked at us from afar, if you weren’t a part of the human race and you’re just studying us, you’re like, what does this species do? Well, it makes better things, makes better things all the time, constantly. I have an iPhone 16 here. It’s not as good as the iPhone 17. iPhone 17 is better. Why don’t you get an iPhone 17? BOB LAZAR: Right. The Human Obsession with Making Better Things JOE ROGAN: It just keeps going. It never stops. It never ends. The TVs get bigger. They get stronger. Your cars get faster. Your computer just has more cores, does processing, video editing so much quicker. Everything moves faster and better. We keep making better things. We never stop and say, “You know what? Society right now, we have a lot of problems. The problems that we don’t have are technology. Our technology seems completely suitable to this world that we’re living in right now. Let’s just stop making new things and concentrate on cleaning the rivers and concentrate on stopping crime and concentrate on educating people, concentrate on counseling for troubled young people.” No, no, we just plow forward ahead with the one thing that we absolutely guarantee do. We make better things. We make better weapons, better cars, faster planes. Everything we do, we make things better. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And I’ll— sorry, I have to add, we do that and we also do it in a way where it’s economically beneficial to the ones that are making it, because we make things break now. Think about it. We make better things, but we make them so that you have to buy the better thing after. JOE ROGAN: Right. Engineered obsolescence. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: Yeah. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: That’s also important. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, it is. Because then it also— human beings have this very bizarre desire for materialism. Why would a thing with a finite lifespan want to accumulate objects? I know people that are in their 80s that collect things. What are you f*ing doing with that stuff? Yeah, you’re going to die. You have maybe like 10 summers left on Earth, and here you are collecting stamps or cards. BOB LAZAR: 10 summers, yeah. No, no, I’ve gotten through that. JOE ROGAN: It’s weird. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, I mean, at some point you have to bypass the accumulating stuff, right? Part of life. JOE ROGAN: But materialism ensures a constant fueling of innovation because this is one of the things that gets people excited about collecting new stuff— that you’re going to make a better version. I don’t care how good your Mercedes is. It’s not a 2026 Mercedes, right? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, exactly. JOE ROGAN: Better. It has new features. It’s a new thing. And so it’s all built into the human psychology and also to this thing that I said. If you were from somewhere else and studying this species, what does it do? It makes better things. What do sharks do? They eat things. They just swim around. They can’t even stop swimming. They eat things. What do people do? They really just make better things. They go to war. Why do they go to war? Really? They go to war so they can control resources, so they have more money, so they can make more things. And better things. And also the amount of innovation that is in warfare, in war weapons, in war fighting. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, that’s actually critical. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yes. BOB LAZAR: To keep the system going. Yeah. The Future of Humanity, AI, and Nuclear Threats JOE ROGAN: Well, ultimately all that does, all of it releases more endocrine disruptors, more contact with all these different chemicals and toxins, feminizes men, ruins women’s reproductive systems to the point where ultimately we say, “Oh, for the survival of the race, we’re going to have to figure out how to reproduce non-biologically.” LUIGI VENDITTELLI: When I first got involved in— JOE ROGAN: Yeah, it’s something to ponder, right? It’s something to ponder because we’re so wrapped up in who we are. We’re so wrapped up in— look, I love being a person. I love living in Texas. I love driving an American car. I love all those things. But what does that mean? Like, what is that? What is that? These are just weird identity points that you connect with whatever this species is. But if you just could just have an above view, you’d look down and go, “What are we doing?” BOB LAZAR: Yeah, that’s a good question. That’s a good question. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, like, how far are we going and how fast are we going there? JOE ROGAN: We’re going pretty f*ing fast. And now with AI, I think we’re going way faster than we even understand. Because with Claude, I mean, they think that the Claude AI, the engineers, they think it’s sentient already. It just doesn’t have a physical body to move around. BOB LAZAR: Look, AI is going to kill us. Everybody agrees with that. There’s no question. JOE ROGAN: I don’t think it’s going to kill us. You know what I think it’s going to do? I think it’s going to prevent us from breeding. I think it’s going to let us die off. BOB LAZAR: Oh, well, that’s going to kill us. JOE ROGAN: But I think we’re going to willingly go with it because we’re going to get like mates, like Ex Machina. We’re going to just— something that tastes good. BOB LAZAR: As soon as they come out with a female robot that’s sexually attractive, it’s over. Yeah, game over. Game over. There’s just going to be no more babies and we’re just going to die out. Are the Grays Humanity’s Future Selves? JOE ROGAN: Yeah, or integrate. And I think it’s much more likely that we integrate, and that’s where you get the Grays. I think that what the Grays are is a combination of technology and biology. And if you just go from chimp to caveman to Gray, you go, “Oh, I see where that’s going.” Chimp, caveman, human, modern human, gelatinous, soft, slow-moving, weak, modern human, Grays. BOB LAZAR: I’ve always leaned into what Barry told me because it’s the only information I had. That the craft came from Zeta Reticuli, which is a star system 30-some-odd light years away. And again, it was just like a Star Trek thing. They came over here for whatever reason, but that information may not be true, right? JOE ROGAN: That information might be one of those things they put— I mean, that’s nonsense. BOB LAZAR: Again, if it has to do with time, I think, from what George has told me, Jacques Vallée, and some other really credible researchers have said that these are people either from another dimension or another time, or maybe they’re us from the future, right? Just coming back to interact with us in some way, make sure we don’t f* everything up irreparably. Yeah, but it doesn’t seem like they’re doing a good job. JOE ROGAN: Well, maybe f*ing things up somewhat is also part of the plan. Maybe that actually has to take place. BOB LAZAR: I mean, holy cow, look at the way things are going right now. Holy cow. JOE ROGAN: Exactly. BOB LAZAR: Things are off, totally off the rails. JOE ROGAN: But maybe that’s part of the plan. Maybe part of it is like it has to get so far sideways that we realize how f*ed up everything is, that we start making meaningful changes and implement AI as government. BOB LAZAR: That’s a dangerous thing. JOE ROGAN: Exactly. But is it as dangerous as Iran getting nukes? BOB LAZAR: I don’t know. JOE ROGAN: Is it as dangerous as a global Islamic caliphate? Look, Iran is not— No, it’s not Iran. BOB LAZAR: Iran’s not getting nukes. I mean, they— Never mind. I don’t want to get into political stuff. JOE ROGAN: No, but you could. You could. Look, if you gave Iran the technology to get nukes, they would take it. BOB LAZAR: Everyone has— any physicist has the technology to get nukes. JOE ROGAN: Right. BOB LAZAR: I mean, the difficulty is actually making the material. So, I mean, if I was Iran, I would enrich to 80 or 90% because that’s where you can make a weapon, and stop there. JOE ROGAN: Right. It’s not like they would be the only people with the weapon. Pakistan, India, North Korea. BOB LAZAR: But that doesn’t make you have a weapon. It just gives you a shortcut to it. And making a weapon from there and being able to deliver a weapon, you know, to 4,000 miles away, good luck with that. That’s a big deal. So— JOE ROGAN: Right, but they’re in communication with China. Who has that? BOB LAZAR: They’re in communication with North Korea also. Well, then they don’t need to enrich uranium or do anything. They just— “Can you give me a missile?” JOE ROGAN: Right, but wouldn’t they rather make their own? No. But that’s not even the point. BOB LAZAR: Rather make their own? Why would you do that? Would you rather make your own car or just have somebody give it to you? No. Why would you do that? You got a buddy that’ll just give you one. JOE ROGAN: Because you’d want to be self-sufficient. You’d want to have your own production where you don’t have to rely on someone. BOB LAZAR: No, you can always do that. You can always do that. I don’t think they were ever going to— they’re going to absolutely make a weapon now. JOE ROGAN: Right. BOB LAZAR: Because we’re, you know, kicking their ass. As everyone has learned, I guess you have to have nuclear weapons now to— JOE ROGAN: Right. BOB LAZAR: You know, but this is a really bad situation. JOE ROGAN: Oh, it’s a horrible situation. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. Could AI Solve Humanity’s Worst Impulses? JOE ROGAN: But my point is, why is this situation taking place? The situation taking place is because human beings suck, right? We suck in how we interact with each other. Yeah, we suck. We suck because we’re territorial primates with weapons of mass destruction. BOB LAZAR: Can’t we just all get along? JOE ROGAN: Well, what is the way to stop that from ever happening? Well, one, you will let a catastrophe unfold and then you offer a solution to make sure these catastrophes never unfold again. Well, what’s the best solution? Well, we have something far smarter than people that will take over control of resources in government. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: AI. JOE ROGAN: AI. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. BOB LAZAR: This is Colossus. You ever seen the movie Colossus? JOE ROGAN: No. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I gotta watch it. BOB LAZAR: That’s merit against you. The movie Colossus was a 1960s or ’70s movie, and it’s about the scientist who makes deep inside this mountain a computer to take over the defense of the United States. They build this gigantic computer inside Cheyenne Mountain or something similar to it, and they flipped the switch and went, “Okay, we’re protected, we’re in good shape.” As time goes on, they realize, “Wow, the computer is really performing better than we expected.” And as it turns out, Russia had done the same thing. And the computers want to communicate together. They start communicating, and then the United States goes, “Well, they might be giving our secrets away, so we better cut the communication line.” And the computers freak out and go, “Well, I guess we’ll just launch nuclear bombs at everybody.” And it launches weapons and essentially holds everybody hostage. It’s kind of like a trap. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s kind of like a trap. Yeah, we go that way, it could trap us. BOB LAZAR: It’s exactly a trap. JOE ROGAN: Well, you know, in simulated war games, AIs use— BOB LAZAR: Oh wait, they— 98% of the time. Yeah, I mean, crazy, why wouldn’t they? Because the goal is to win, right? And we’re going to present you with the scenario and they go, “Okay, nuke them.” And why wouldn’t you pick that? You’re going to start with slapping them in the face? JOE ROGAN: Why is it better to just bomb them over and over and over again until you achieve the same amount of deaths? BOB LAZAR: That’s the slap in the face. Nuke them. It’s over with. We can move on from there. JOE ROGAN: Right. BOB LAZAR: So, yeah. JOE ROGAN: Well, you think about what happened in Gaza. Like, you look at the leveling of all those buildings, the mass destruction. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s terrible. JOE ROGAN: It looks like a nuke. Yeah, it looks like one nuke instead of thousands of missiles and bombs, but it’s not, right? BOB LAZAR: In terms of the amount of damage you could do instantaneously— because we can detect a nuke. UFOs Shutting Down Military Weapons Systems JOE ROGAN: Was there ever any conversation that you were privy to where they discussed— because one of the things that does come up over and over again in UFO discussions is these crafts that show up at these military bases and shut down all the weapon systems. BOB LAZAR: No, I actually know nothing about that. Most of the UFO stuff or UFO lore that I’ve heard, I don’t know anything about. I’ve just looked at it. JOE ROGAN: That’s so fascinating because you’re the most prominent figure in all of UFO— LUIGI VENDITTELLI: That’s what I was telling him yesterday. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, but I really only like to talk about what I know about. JOE ROGAN: Right, of course. BOB LAZAR: And I’ve heard other stories, but I’ve never heard them officially. I don’t know if they’re really real. JOE ROGAN: What’s one of the things that makes you most credible? Because you’re not a UFO— I guess, but I mean, yes, it does with me, because when people are way too into it, they want to believe too much, you know? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. But no, I don’t know. JOE ROGAN: Do you know who these people are? Betty and Barney Hill’s Star Map BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah, Betty and Barney Hill. Okay, well, so you know, yeah, they were the first abductees. To me, I don’t know who first introduced those to me, and I looked them up. And people say, “Do you believe them?” And I’m kind of inclined to believe them because, look, in the 1960s, right, where they’re from, the last thing you want to do is be recognized as a mixed-race couple, right? And go public. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, yeah. BOB LAZAR: I mean, holy cow, they would hate you. Yeah, a Black person and a white person that were in any kind of relationship. But yeah, they did that crazy story. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: And you hear that. BOB LAZAR: And actually, on top of that, I have a connection. Yeah, because Barry said they’re from the Zeta Reticuli star system and I believe it’s Betty. Betty Hill drew a map of the Zeta Reticuli star system and said this is part of their roots. JOE ROGAN: Whoa. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: But did you know that? BOB LAZAR: You didn’t know that? JOE ROGAN: I don’t remember that. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, okay. JOE ROGAN: If you remember it from what you said from— BOB LAZAR: Okay, but if you look up Betty and Barney Hill, she said— I think— LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I don’t know, I can never get this stuff right. BOB LAZAR: They show her a map and they say, “Well, this is a map.” She wanted to know why they were there, what’s going on. They showed her a map. Am I right? They showed her a map and they said, “Do you understand this?” And she said no. And they said, “Well, why should we tell you anymore?” And, well, I don’t know, maybe you could— LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Something like that. But they showed her this star map, you know, and she obviously— BOB LAZAR: Look at that. The Zeta Reticuli Connection JOE ROGAN: Yeah. Under hypnosis, Betty Hill describes a map she was shown by the leader aboard the ship. Later she sketched it. She said she was told the heavy lines marked regular trade routes. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: That’s right. JOE ROGAN: And the broken lines recorded various space expeditions. The following year, the map seen at right was published in the New York Times. Mrs. Hill, struck by the similarity between the Times map and her sketch, then added the corresponding names. Yeah. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And it ended up being the Zeta Reticuli binary star system, which was really interesting. And I remember when I first heard about Bob’s story back in 1989, and he said Zeta Reticuli. I remember thinking, wow, that’s what Betty Hill saw. So that made me also question, is that real in that document? Did these guys really come from there? Because it was mentioned in 1968, right? So why would the government, the U.S. Navy, write that in there that would correlate to something that we already kind of knew? I think that was a purposeful disinformation to disinform someone. I think so. JOE ROGAN: But why? Maybe it’s true. Yeah, go ahead. We’ll pause right here and use the restroom. We’ll be right back. BOB LAZAR: I really got to go. Yeah, yeah, I got it. JOE ROGAN: No worries, no worries. Multiple Species and the Scale of the Universe JOE ROGAN: We’ll be right back. We were talking about this whole Zeta Reticuli thing. So when you’re dealing with so many different crafts and so many different things, the idea that only one species or one thing more advanced than us is visiting us seems kind of silly if the universe is populated by all these things. BOB LAZAR: I don’t know, does it? JOE ROGAN: That’s it, kind of, kind of. BOB LAZAR: I mean, the universe is really big. Do you think everybody can find this place? JOE ROGAN: I mean, yeah, I would imagine it’s like spots that you visit. There’s Machu Picchu, there’s ancient Egypt, there’s sub-Saharan Africa. It’s a bunch of different places where people go, just humans on Earth. And I would imagine if you have an understanding of how life is evolving in the cosmos, there’s probably stages where things reach certain levels. And if you are— BOB LAZAR: But they’re far apart, right? They’re far apart. I mean, one could be in this quadrant of the Milky Way galaxy and they reach that point where they can travel and explore, and there’s a far distant point where another civilization can do that. And I mean, really, do you think there are that many? I don’t think there are that many civilizations visiting us. There’s certainly no doubt that there’s one. Them from somewhere, another planet, another time, another dimension, whatever it may be. Someone else is here. We’re not the top of the pyramid. No, we’re absolutely not there. There’s no question. JOE ROGAN: Well, I think if you got technology that— say, let’s just say the Grays. Let’s say the Grays are real. Let’s say they fly around these little crafts. Why would we assume that it stops there? Why wouldn’t we assume that technology gets to the point where not only are they far more advanced than them, but they also are completely undetectable? BOB LAZAR: Well, if you want to view the universe as infinite, then it never stops. JOE ROGAN: It scales out. BOB LAZAR: There’s somebody above them, and there’s somebody above them, and there’s somebody above that, and it never stops. Quantum Entanglement and the Future of Travel JOE ROGAN: I was watching this lecture where this woman was talking about quantum entanglement, and she was talking about how maybe our understanding of space and the distance between things is limited by what our current technology is and our current understanding of what space and time actually are. BOB LAZAR: Absolutely. Yeah. JOE ROGAN: What she was saying is there might not be— we might at one point in time, given enough time, thousands of years or whatever, be able to instantaneously travel anywhere. And that just how subatomic particles are connected in some sort of a strange way that we don’t totally understand, even at far distance. “Spooky action at a distance,” right? BOB LAZAR: As Einstein said, right? JOE ROGAN: That we might eventually get to a point where that’s how travel works. That’s instantaneous travel everywhere. BOB LAZAR: I think we just have hints of these technologies. Look, everything— we look at Maxwell’s equations and things like that that we base all electromagnetic, electrostatic actions on, and how they relate to time and how they relate to things in our universe. But that may be nothing. There may be an entire level of physics that we’re unfamiliar with that these crafts, these people, or these civilizations just utilize. The Exponential Leap of Technology JOE ROGAN: Of course. I mean, if you just stop and think about going from Morse code to a cell phone in a relatively short period of time historically. You go to the difference between 1200 and 1400 — it’s not that big of a f ing deal in terms of technology, what’s available. The difference between 1800 and 2026 is f ing massive. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, right. JOE ROGAN: It is a massive, crazy change, right? So 2026 to 2226 — who f*ing knows what we’re talking about, right? Especially when you have sentient AI, you have nuclear power plants that are controlling sentient AI that are fueling them and giving them resources. I mean, you really have no limit to where this goes. You scale out 1,000 years, you scale out 2,000 years. BOB LAZAR: You really can’t scale out 1,000 years, right? JOE ROGAN: It’s not possible. BOB LAZAR: Even at 100 years, it’s way more than we would have ever considered. JOE ROGAN: Also, it’s exponential, right? BOB LAZAR: Right. That’s why you can’t scale out to 1,000 years. JOE ROGAN: And if you think it’s exponential now, imagine when you have AI able to generate better versions of itself, which is what’s happening with ChatGPT-5. It’s essentially made by ChatGPT-4. BOB LAZAR: Now, AI is absolutely the death of us. There’s no question. JOE ROGAN: Well, we’re certainly going to become obsolete in terms of our thinking. BOB LAZAR: But if we’re obsolete in terms of our thinking, we’re obsolete. I mean, all AI needs is hands, right? JOE ROGAN: I think we integrate. That’s what I think happens. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s a scary— and that’s— yeah, I was going to say, and that’s a scary thought. That’s a scary thought because it’s like we’re going to integrate. I think it’s inevitable. I think you’re right about that. We’re just going there. It’s not like even if you and I are not going to actually do it, somebody will and it’s going to integrate. Because other people will, and it’s going to happen. But it’s still the same primate. We’re still the same human, sort of. JOE ROGAN: But we already have problems with joints, and so we replace them with fake ones. BOB LAZAR: We take titanium knees and, yeah, but they don’t work as good. JOE ROGAN: They don’t for now. Yeah, but before, they used to not work at all. I met people that had surgeries in the 1980s, like knee surgeries, and oh my god, they’re crippled for life. Even though they put your knee back together again, it’s still destroyed. You know, you get a knee surgery today, 6 months later you’re 100%. BOB LAZAR: Now, I’d love to know the future. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, well, it’s going to get— BOB LAZAR: I’d love to know the future. The Reactor: Element 115 and the Gravitational Field JOE ROGAN: Well, that is— so, one of the things I want to talk about is the actual generator, this thing that works on this element that bombards it with radiation. How did you guys figure out what the function of it was and what it did? So when you’re first introduced to this craft and you see this dome, the reactor, the reactor that’s covering this thing that’s generating this power, what was the introduction to it? How’d they explain it? BOB LAZAR: The introduction was way before me. And that’s where the guy prior to me either got hurt or killed. So they determined that this was the power source, and at some point they decided to take that out to the nuclear test site because they wanted to cut into it. They x-rayed it, they only found a small tube that went around it. They really couldn’t determine how it worked or what was going on. So at some point— and Barry made this somewhat clear— they cut into the reactor while it was running, or while it was under load, I should say, and the reactor exploded. That’s what killed or hurt the person that I replaced. But it produced the base gravitational wave or base energy that propelled the craft, that provided the craft the propulsion. I mean, when they removed it, the craft didn’t work. When they put it in, every single other craft they found had something either exactly like it or similar to it, so they determined that was the power source. That’s the point at which I was introduced into the project. JOE ROGAN: So when you say gravitational wave, is that for lack of a better term, or is it something that’s measured? BOB LAZAR: No, it’s for lack of a better term. Like, there’s nothing— I mean, as I said in Luigi’s movie, you can take magnets with like poles and push them together and they repel. But you can’t take your hands ever and push on something and have them repel. That’s a force field, right? That’s science fiction stuff. But that’s what this did. And this produced a field that repelled the craft from the ground. JOE ROGAN: Did you try to touch it? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. JOE ROGAN: When you try to push on it, what did you feel? BOB LAZAR: An elastic field. You can push down, but you can’t get close to it. The closer you get to it, the more it pushes back. So you can— JOE ROGAN: Like how much distance between you and the actual thing? BOB LAZAR: I would say about 6 inches or so, maybe about 9 inches, which is about a span. And at some point you can’t push back on it at all. But the important thing is, if you have a magnet, a little disc magnet sitting on the ground, and you have another magnet and you push on it, that magnet moves away, right? Because it’s pushing on it. But the craft didn’t. The reactor didn’t. If you had the reactor there and you pushed back on it, it didn’t push away when you pushed on it. JOE ROGAN: It just prevented you from touching it. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. BOB LAZAR: And so when Dennis said, “Go out there and look under the craft,” here’s the craft, whatever it weighs, suspending itself above the ground, and I went underneath it. You would think it’s translating its weight onto the ground and pushing, and I should be squashed. Squashed, without any doubt. But there’s no feeling there at all. So it’s not translating its weight or its push to the ground and pushing off the ground. It’s just canceling out its weight, which is something completely different. Element 115: The Triangle-Shaped Fuel Source JOE ROGAN: And so when— so element 115, you have it in this triangle-shaped form. Did you ask how they got it into a triangle-shaped form? Was it made like this? This is how it came in. BOB LAZAR: I’m sure I did, but I mean, it only worked like that. It worked like a stack of discs and had to be cut at a certain angle to work in the reactor. JOE ROGAN: And did they say they cut it, or did they say it was already cut? BOB LAZAR: Well, it was already cut and they were duplicating it. JOE ROGAN: So they were duplicating it. Did they have more of it, this element? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah, they had quite a bit of it. So either there was a quantity in other crafts or other reactors that they removed. JOE ROGAN: Yeah. But was there any discussion that there had been some sort of an exchange where they had been giving this? BOB LAZAR: No. “Donations”: Crashed Crafts or Deliberate Gifts? JOE ROGAN: So one of the things— do you know Diana Pasulka? She’s an author that’s written some interesting stuff about UFOs, and she’s worked with Gary Nolan on material recollection from supposed crash sites. And she said that the way these researchers refer to these crafts, they refer to them as “donations.” BOB LAZAR: And I guess that’s possible. JOE ROGAN: Right. Well, doesn’t it make sense if this thing crashed? Why is it perfect? Why is it not destroyed? The Reactor and Element 115 BOB LAZAR: Look, I’ve heard so many— I’m not into UFOs, right? As crazy as that is, that’s crazy. I’m just interested in the technology, and I feel very privileged to have been involved in the project. But I don’t know, I don’t think there can be that many crashes, do you? JOE ROGAN: No. BOB LAZAR: This advanced technology, you think they’re coming to Earth and just— there’s a thunderstorm and they’re crashing into the ground? I’m not buying that. JOE ROGAN: There’s one logical explanation that does actually make sense. There were some high-altitude nuclear tests that they did. BOB LAZAR: Well, there was the Teak test, you know, back in the ’60s. JOE ROGAN: Starfish Prime. BOB LAZAR: And Starfish Prime, right. JOE ROGAN: Yeah. If you had no idea that this was about to happen and you were hovering over Earth observing us— BOB LAZAR: What are the chances? I mean, what are the chances? JOE ROGAN: They’re not very high. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: Right? BOB LAZAR: They’re not very— I mean, what are the chances a craft is coming over and it’s a nuclear test at that exact second? JOE ROGAN: Unless there’s a lot more observation than we know and that they just observe us in a way that we can’t see them. Especially if you’re going back to the 1950s and 1960s. We have very few satellites. We’re very— BOB LAZAR: That was the nuclear cowboy era. JOE ROGAN: Yeah. BOB LAZAR: Where there were just— JOE ROGAN: Well, just Starfish Prime. Explain to people what they did. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. BOB LAZAR: They had a 1.4-megaton detonation up there and just— I think all they did— Let’s see what happens if we blow it up at this altitude. Yeah. I mean, that’s crazy. You know, there was another test planned to blow up on the moon just to make the Russians look, you know, like we were awesome. You know, but they— JOE ROGAN: Detonate the moon. What if they pushed it away and f*ed up our orbit? BOB LAZAR: No, I think that would take a lot more. I mean, there was really— I don’t remember what the project— JOE ROGAN: Project A-119. BOB LAZAR: Oh, A-119, that was it. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, a study of lunar research flights. BOB LAZAR: Detonate a nuclear bomb. Yeah, I can’t pull up these numbers, but yeah, Project A-119. JOE ROGAN: Crazy. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, we’re going to do that because that, like, everybody on Earth could just go outside and look up at the moon get blown up, and the explosion would be faintly visible to the human eye, to people on Earth. Yeah, I still think they should have done that. Yeah, you’re the guy that put a jet engine in the back of a Honda. Like, I honestly think they should detonate a nuclear bomb on the 4th of July every year, but that’s just me. JOE ROGAN: Well, also, you live in Nevada. BOB LAZAR: That is what I used to know. JOE ROGAN: It had a long history of them doing that, right? Yeah. BOB LAZAR: Oh man. The Reactor Demonstration JOE ROGAN: So going back to this reactor. How was it explained to you? Did they explain to you how the technology works or what they know about it? BOB LAZAR: The way it was explained to me is, when I got to be alone with Barry, he said he was excited to show this to me. He said, “I’m going to turn— this is the reactor that we assume powers the craft.” “Sorry.” “No worries.” “I’m going to show you the reactor that powers the craft.” And he turned it on. Small little dome on a flat little plate. JOE ROGAN: Was this in the craft or was this on a table? BOB LAZAR: This is in the experimental area. JOE ROGAN: Okay. So this was not the one that was in the sport craft. This was another one. BOB LAZAR: This was another one. JOE ROGAN: This is it right here. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, that’s it. That’s it. JOE ROGAN: That’s in the film. BOB LAZAR: And yeah, on the table. And he had it there and he went over to the emitter and rotated it and he said, “Try and touch it.” And I put my hand on it and it rebounded off. And the closer you got to it, the more it pushed back. And that’s a real shock because there’s nothing that pushes back like that. That’s a living force field. That’s science fiction stuff. That really got my attention. JOE ROGAN: So explain what is happening, in terms of the rotation of this thing. What is happening? What energy is going into it that’s causing it to go on? BOB LAZAR: Well, actually, we don’t know that. I mean, that’s the whole thing. It’s pushing back. That’s a repulsive gravitational field. As far as we know, gravity only has an attractive force to it. We’ve never— even with antimatter, we’ve analyzed it and it still has an attractive force to it. There’s no repulsive force that we’ve discovered, because that would be a great propulsion system. But this repulsed, so this was a new field completely. JOE ROGAN: But how was he turning it on? BOB LAZAR: He had the emitter, which is a big pipe. JOE ROGAN: What is an emitter? Like, what is— The Craft’s Propulsion System BOB LAZAR: The craft itself has, on the main level, the reactor and what we call the amplifiers. The reactor and 3 amplifiers. Right underneath that, there are 3 emitters that are right under the amplifier. And we believe the energy from the reactor is amplified by the amplifiers— LUIGI VENDITTELLI: and by the amplifiers— BOB LAZAR: sorry, and transmitted to the emitters. And they produce this field that lifts the craft off the ground. And that’s how it works. But there is nothing, nothing even in our physics or our science that correlates to that at all. JOE ROGAN: What is the energy that’s going to them that causes it to turn? BOB LAZAR: We don’t know. I mean, we just assume it’s gravity because it’s the only thing we know like that, but it has a negative gravity effect, so it might be a new force entirely. JOE ROGAN: But when you’re saying— so you have this machine that’s next to it that you do something to that causes it to turn on? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: The emitter. BOB LAZAR: There’s the amplifier, and there’s the emitter, which looks like a big pipe. JOE ROGAN: Right. BOB LAZAR: And if you rotate the emitter— I don’t know how many degrees, was it 20 degrees? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: 20 degrees. BOB LAZAR: 20 degrees or something like that. That connects it in some way to the reactor, and it begins to be powered. JOE ROGAN: And what is the emitter doing? BOB LAZAR: It emits that field. It’s not a gravitational— it could be a gravitational field, but it’s an anti-gravitational field that pushes on the ground. JOE ROGAN: And what’s happening in the emitter? Did you study the emitter? BOB LAZAR: Well, we attempted to, but no, there was nothing that we really came up with. JOE ROGAN: What does it look like? Like, what’s the internal structure of it? BOB LAZAR: It’s just— it’s a hollow pipe with little copper-colored plates all inside. It’s kind of in the film. But I mean, these guys have been working on it for years before I got there, and there was really no concept of what they were doing. Element 115 JOE ROGAN: Did they explain to you why element 115 is crucial to this working? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: No. JOE ROGAN: What its role is? BOB LAZAR: No. JOE ROGAN: So element 115 was not even really discussed back when you were doing this. It wasn’t even discovered or proven physically until it was a Large Hadron Collider experiment in the 2000s, right? BOB LAZAR: No, I know they synthesized that. But look, in any element there is always— there’s always a large amount of— LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Well, it doesn’t decay. There’s like— yeah, that was the thing about— JOE ROGAN: In the Large Hadron Collider experiment, they were able to achieve it, but it only existed for a few milliseconds. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, sorry, I’ve had too much. JOE ROGAN: No worries. BOB LAZAR: So, did they— JOE ROGAN: How did they define this material? BOB LAZAR: There’s different isotopes of every element, and element 115, just like any other element, there can be a stable version of it and 150 different unstable elements to them. So I’m sorry. JOE ROGAN: No, no, it’s okay. Just try to continue the train of thought. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: So it’s basically different isotopes of it. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, different isotopes. I need to stop drinking this. JOE ROGAN: Have a cup of coffee. BOB LAZAR: I can’t even remember. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, coffee’s good. BOB LAZAR: Oh, we got coffee. Oh my gosh. All right. Holy cow. There you go. JOE ROGAN: That’ll help. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, there’s different isotopes. JOE ROGAN: And you were able to physically touch this element— BOB LAZAR: Oh, absolutely. I was physically able to touch the element. Yeah. JOE ROGAN: But when you’re physically able to touch it, there’s no adverse effects. It doesn’t have any effect on the body. Does it feel like metal? BOB LAZAR: Does it feel like plastic? No, it looks copper-like. I mean, maybe it’s not as dark as copper is, but it’s that color. And I haven’t seen an element like that. It has unique properties that other elements don’t have. It produces an anti-gravitational field when combined with some kind of energy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. JOE ROGAN: And was it understood what is happening? Like, what is the relationship between this element and this— like, how is— what is going on? Like, you’re bombarding this element with something? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, from what we understood, we X-rayed the reactor itself and there was a path around it that looked— it made it look like a cyclotron. It looked like there was an accelerator. JOE ROGAN: So when they were explaining it to you, is this just your work partner that’s explaining this? BOB LAZAR: Yes, it’s just Barry. JOE ROGAN: And did you ask him, “How do you know this? Where are you getting this from?” BOB LAZAR: Yeah, he got this information prior to me, and they X-rayed it, found a structure in there to where they believed it was an accelerator, and it was interacting— the point of the 115 is in a little triangular piece, and it was interacting with that in some fashion. JOE ROGAN: And did he say whether or not the United States government or whoever was doing this research had tried to recreate one of those on their own? BOB LAZAR: That was our job, to try to recreate one of those on their own. JOE ROGAN: But what was the metal that it was made out of? BOB LAZAR: We don’t know. JOE ROGAN: We don’t know. BOB LAZAR: Again, the metallurgy was not— that was not— JOE ROGAN: It seems insane that you couldn’t communicate to them that whatever this stuff is made out of, this whole thing acts as one cohesive unit. It’s not like you could make the same exact thing with aluminum or carbon fiber? BOB LAZAR: No, you can’t. This thing acted differently than any material that we knew. And I mean, I think all the answers are in the metallurgy. That’s who knew what was going on, who was able to provide the answers. But as far as we knew, if we didn’t have the connection with those other groups, we weren’t really going to make any progress. JOE ROGAN: You were speculating that there was a type of metallic alloy that would work better with this concept. Was it Bismuth? Like, what was it? BOB LAZAR: Bismuth? JOE ROGAN: Bismuth, yes. BOB LAZAR: Did I say that? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I don’t think so. JOE ROGAN: I don’t know. BOB LAZAR: It wasn’t you? JOE ROGAN: No. Someone that I talked to was explaining to me. The Bismuth Connection and Ancient Mysteries BOB LAZAR: It’s related to on the periodic table. I mean, bismuth is above it, and 115 is below it. But we never did see any correlation between bismuth. This was a completely new material. JOE ROGAN:  Well, I think— oh, that’s what it was. Oh, this is what it was. So one of the pieces that Gary Nolan had found— Gary Nolan is the guy at Stanford that has examined these pieces that are from supposedly crashed sites, crash sites where something had gone down and scattered. Some of these pieces, they’re atomically layered. And I’ve heard that magnesium and bismuth seem to be prevalent. BOB LAZAR:  Bismuth is the thing. Yeah, bismuth is the thing. It’s right above 115 on the periodic chart. And there’s— yeah, there’s something about that. There’s something about 115. Yeah, it’s weird magnetism stuff with bismuth. There’s a video from the Action Lab, The Strange Magnetism of Bismuth . And it’s— yeah, it’s diamagnetic. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, so let him play it out a little bit. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Oh, let’s try to find those. What is diamagnetic? BOB LAZAR: Diamagnetic is it opposes magnetic fields. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I see. JOE ROGAN: So it kind of makes sense if they’re finding these pieces that are— the way he was explaining— BOB LAZAR: That’s bismuth. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, the way he’s explaining this, whatever this alloy was, this very small piece that was found— I believe prior to the 1970s, I don’t remember the exact date that he said— from one of these crash sites. One of them was from Brazil that they had recovered, and someone had gotten possession of it in the 1990s, and someone had gotten it eventually to Gary Nolan. He said that to create this on Earth, first of all, it can’t be done with current technology. We don’t have the ability to do the layering technology. And that it would cost billions of dollars just theoretically to make this, and it doesn’t exist. Yeah, this is it. “Alleged extraterrestrial metal, the bottom of a wedge-shaped craft, the 1940s, 26 alternating layers, 1 to 4 microns dark bismuth with 100 to 200 microns of silver magnesium zinc alloy. Each piece received from the US Army source were formed with a curvature that tapered.” BOB LAZAR: Well, in the ’40s— yeah, right. That— good luck making that. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I mean, it says wedge-shaped craft in late 1940s. That’s Roswell. I mean, that’s Roswell. BOB LAZAR: Well, I mean, what does it do? I would like to see the test results of just the material. We can make that now. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: We can? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, 1 to 4 microns of bismuth, 200 microns of silver. Yeah. JOE ROGAN: The thing is, making something like that in the 1940s is absolutely impossible. BOB LAZAR: No, in the ’40s, forget it. JOE ROGAN: It’s impossible. BOB LAZAR: No, in the ’40s, forget it. But I mean, now we could fabricate something like that. JOE ROGAN: And it would cost a sh*tload of money. So the idea that you would make something like that and just scatter it around and go, “oh…” BOB LAZAR: But what does it do? JOE ROGAN: Right. What does it do? Why magnesium and bismuth? Why in that particular array? BOB LAZAR: There is something about bismuth. There is something about bismuth. But that’s why it’s so fascinating. I would love to know where they— like, it’s been 40 years. I would love to know where they’re at now, if they continued. JOE ROGAN: Well, they had to have continued. I can’t imagine you go, “ah, we’re done.” BOB LAZAR: No, I mean, they may have moved it. I mean, like I said before, they were anxious to move it out of there at that time. The Egyptian Labyrinth and the 40-Meter Metallic Object JOE ROGAN:  But are you aware of the labyrinth in Egypt that they’ve discovered? BOB LAZAR:  Are you talking about the columns? LUIGI VENDITTELLI:  Columns? JOE ROGAN: No, no, no, this is unrelated. This is something different. So Herodotus discussed this. Now, my friend Ben Van Kirkwyk, he has Uncharted X on YouTube. It’s an amazing channel where he was a tech guy who just got absolutely fascinated by all these stories of ancient history and really got obsessed with Egypt and Peru, and left his field and started making these incredible videos. But he’s highly intelligent, incredibly articulate, and so these videos are just absolutely fantastic. He’s very well-versed scientifically, so he can understand these things and explain them to you. Like, they’re examining the construction of the pyramids and whatever technology was used to carve the stones. And there’s just so much of it that is confusing because it clearly involves a very high level of sophistication and technology. Well, Herodotus described these labyrinths that were underground in— not in Giza, but Hawara. Is that where it was? Jamie will find it. But the way Herodotus described it, he said they were far superior and more impressive than the Pyramids of Giza underground. Well, these massive labyrinths that exist underground were all flooded in the 1960s accidentally when they created dams in order to provide irrigation to agriculture that was in the area. They changed the water table, f*ed it up. That whole area got flooded. LUIGI VENDITTELLI:  Did they know they were there when they accidentally— JOE ROGAN: No, they didn’t, because a lot of this stuff is from thousands and thousands of years ago. A lot of it was covered over with sand. And there had been some explorers a long time ago that went there and saw some of what was in there. But the way Herodotus described it, it’s just absolutely fantastic. So then they started using ground-penetrating radar, and they started using these various technologies that could detect what was under the surface. And one of the things that they found was there’s a massive atrium, and inside this atrium— BOB LAZAR:  You mentioned this to me. JOE ROGAN:  Yes. There is a 40-meter-long metallic object that is inside this atrium. 40 meters of some unknown metal. BOB LAZAR:  How deep is it? JOE ROGAN:  I believe it’s 100 meters into the ground. BOB LAZAR:  So you’re telling me ground-penetrating radar can get to 100 meters underground? JOE ROGAN:  The stuff that Filippo Biondi has used from satellites— LUIGI VENDITTELLI:  The one that we were talking about. JOE ROGAN:  —more than a kilometer into the ground. BOB LAZAR:  And with decent resolution? JOE ROGAN: Well, no, not decent resolution, but enough that you could see symmetry, enough that they can also detect things that are well known. BOB LAZAR:  100 meters of chambers. JOE ROGAN: Well, listen to this. They detected accurately a particle collider in Italy that is inside of a mountain, 1.2 kilometers below the mountain. It sees through the mountain and can detect this thing in the exact diameter, the exact dimensions that this thing exists. So they can show you— BOB LAZAR:  And they— JOE ROGAN:  —this— BOB LAZAR:  Yes, a particle collider. JOE ROGAN: Yes. So this is a particle collider that they know exists, right? So this is an actual particle collider they’re looking for, right? LUIGI VENDITTELLI:  That’s the proof— JOE ROGAN:  So it’s just proof that this technology is not just— BOB LAZAR:  Wait, I mean, hang on. How do they know it’s a particle collider? JOE ROGAN:  No, no, well, the particle collider exists. The Italians have this particle collider. It’s known. They made it. It’s like— LUIGI VENDITTELLI:  Oh, okay, they didn’t detect something underground. JOE ROGAN:  Right. No, it’s not like “we found a particle collider.” BOB LAZAR:  Okay, that’s what I thought you were saying. No, no, no, no. JOE ROGAN: So this particle collider— they use this technology to show that you can see straight through this mountain to this particle collider that’s underneath the mountain. So they know the exact dimensions of this particle collider. You can almost draw a schematic of it. Well, through this technology, they’ve also found these columns that are below the pyramids. These columns are 20-plus meters in diameter, and they have something that resembles coils around all of them. And they’re positioned at various points all around where the structure is. It goes all the way down into hundreds of meters, and then it goes to another structure. And the whole complex of these structures goes to over a kilometer into the ground. BOB LAZAR:  But how can you see a kilometer underground? JOE ROGAN:  Well, you’d have to understand this technology. What was it called? Radiotomography? He explained it to me. BOB LAZAR:  Synthetic aperture radar, right? JOE ROGAN:  Yes. Well, whatever this thing is— BOB LAZAR:  I’m seeing a kilometer underground at decent resolution? JOE ROGAN: It’s not decent resolution, but it’s enough to understand the scope of what it is. It’s enough to understand where spaces are and where— BOB LAZAR:  Like everybody knows about this but me. JOE ROGAN: I mean, it’s pretty fascinating. Yeah, I’ll send you the podcast and I’ll send you some of his conferences where he was explaining this to rooms filled with scientists. BOB LAZAR:  You would think they’d be anxious to dig this up. JOE ROGAN: They are. There are actual studies that are currently being discussed. Well, they already know that there are these channels that go in the ground that have since been covered with silt and sand because the sand’s constantly moving. But these things go hundreds of meters down, these shafts that go down. BOB LAZAR:  If they find shafts hundreds of meters down, look, that’s advanced technology. JOE ROGAN: Exactly. Yeah, this is the point. Whatever this thing is that they have in an atrium— if they said that they got that craft from an archaeological dig, maybe the Egyptians had found something similar to this thousands and thousands and thousands of years ago. I believe that’s possible. BOB LAZAR:  Possible. JOE ROGAN:  Yeah. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Well, the object that you’re— I actually got to speak to Filippo Biondi, by the way. He’s in Italy, he’s in Rome. We got to speak Italian, so we got to talk, and we talked about that. I had no idea they found something with a metal object down there, though. JOE ROGAN: This is not Filippo Biondi’s work. Oh, this is some different scientists that are just studying the labyrinth. Jamie, pull up some schematics of the labyrinth. LUIGI VENDITTELLI:  So in the labyrinth, there’s a big large atrium. JOE ROGAN:  You gotta pee again? Yeah, go ahead. BOB LAZAR:  Sorry. JOE ROGAN:  Head up. BOB LAZAR:  Yeah, I feel like a f*ing— JOE ROGAN:  Don’t worry about it. Get some air, clear your head. BOB LAZAR:  I have a prostate. JOE ROGAN:  So in this labyrinth, there’s a large atrium. Okay, and in this large atrium, there is essentially a tic-tac. LUIGI VENDITTELLI:  Really? JOE ROGAN: A tic-tac shaped object that is 40 meters long. That is of some unknown metal. They don’t know what it is, they don’t know how it works, but this structure is all underground in Egypt, which is wild because— LUIGI VENDITTELLI:  And how— it’s 100 meters. JOE ROGAN: Well, look, we’ll get a chance to look at it. This is Hawara. So there it says the 40-meter metallic object. See that where it says Hawara Rising? BOB LAZAR:  Yeah. JOE ROGAN: So if you click on that, it talks about the 40-meter metallic object. Discovered in Egypt. Subterranean labyrinth. Yeah, people talking about it, right? Got it. But so whatever it is, play out some of the video just so we could talk about it. BOB LAZAR:  And the team that was in Poland as well. And at that point is when I had met the person, Lucinda Lobos, who later became my wife 6 months later. LUIGI VENDITTELLI:  So yeah, you were actually working with the NRIAG and then the— JOE ROGAN: I don’t know what they’re talking about. Yeah, that’s not going to help us. But if you could just go to some of the images where they’ve sort of outlined what it is. BOB LAZAR:  There is not a very clear image of the metallic object that— JOE ROGAN:  No, that’s fine. But just the labyrinth itself, what do you think the structure of it was? BOB LAZAR:  So I don’t know where they got this from. Ancient Civilizations and Lost Technology LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s also the other issue. 40-meter mystery metal object. BOB LAZAR: That’s a weird rendering that doesn’t usually come out from— JOE ROGAN: Right. But there’s some other drawings of like from the Herodotus days. And so this is what they think it looks like under the ground. Which is f*ing completely bonkers. And if there is some 40-meter metallic object that’s under the ground, and we are talking about like this sport model being a part of an archaeological dig, right? They might have found something back then that was worshiped, that thing, and had that thing as like, you know, turned it into this, right, as a pyramid. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, I think there’s something to that. JOE ROGAN: Well, there’s— you know, all these people that believe that there was an incredibly advanced civilization before some sort of apocalyptic disaster that reset civilization, and it took thousands of years, and what we are essentially is not the first advanced civilization, but a rebuild. Yeah, a rebuild thousands and thousands and thousands of years later. You know, that rings true with me. And as Graham Hancock always says, “We’re a species with amnesia.” And I think that makes sense. And I think if you’re dealing with people that were basically knocked back into the Stone Age 11,000, 12,000 years ago, and it took us forever to rebuild to where we are now, I think we’ve gone down a completely different path than whatever the people that were able to build the pyramids of Egypt and all these fantastic megalithic structures were in. We don’t understand. Yeah, we don’t know what technology was used. We don’t. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: And it literally doesn’t make sense that they were able to do this. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s even like when we see those big gigantic stones and they’re not just piled together. They’re like interlocked in weird shapes and all that. It’s like, how did that happen? I mean, those are things that— yeah, I agree with you. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, archaeologists are very reluctant to admit it, but there’s tremendous evidence that not only were these people far more advanced than we think people should have been back then, but they’re probably more advanced than we are now with some different kind of technology. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And maybe it’s— again, it’s like advanced but in a different way, right? Right. BOB LAZAR: Yes. JOE ROGAN: Different pathway. Yeah, they didn’t go our way. Yeah, they didn’t go internal combustion engine and electronics because we would see something. Exactly. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Right. JOE ROGAN: But might not. If you’re thinking about 100,000 years ago, there might not be anything left, which is part of the problem. BOB LAZAR: Right. The 40-Meter Metallic Object JOE ROGAN: But whatever this metallic object is, if they are able to figure out a way to divert some of the water there— see, all layers converge at a central corridor or avenue, he said, like the atrium of a shopping mall where you could see all floors from one vantage point. A hall consisting of a massive space, 40 meters wide and no less than 100 meters long. My personal interpretation, Tim said, is that the entire hall was constructed to house a centrally positioned freestanding object about 40 meters long. BOB LAZAR: Wow. JOE ROGAN: So this hall, they believe, was constructed to house whatever this 40-meter-long unknown metallic object is. BOB LAZAR: How could they not dig that up? JOE ROGAN: Well, they could, but it’s going to cost an immense amount of money, right? And the thing is about the Egyptians, the people that run it— I had one of them on the podcast, Zahi Hawass, and he’s incredibly dogmatic about his ideas of who built this and what. And when you say, how did they make these structures? 2,300,000 stones that weigh between 2 and 80 tons, the biggest stones cut from quarries that were hundreds of miles away through the mountain. And it’s like, this was a national project. BOB LAZAR: The Egyptians did everything because they were awesome. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, I’m sure they were awesome. Yeah, yeah, I’m sure they were awesome. But it doesn’t explain the technology involved because there’s extreme technology just to be able to cut those things. Like, one of the things that they don’t understand is these vases, these vases that they made that are perfectly— yeah, perfectly designed where the difference between the edges and the symmetry is like a thousandth of a human hair. And these are cut out of incredibly hard granite. BOB LAZAR: They don’t really— I’ve never heard. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, yeah, yeah. BOB LAZAR: You guys are familiar with these. JOE ROGAN: This is a 3D print of one of them that exists. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And they’re fascinated by the perfection. BOB LAZAR: Yes. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And they’re saying, how did they do that? We don’t even know how to do that. BOB LAZAR: Incredibly hard stone built with incredible precision. Yes. JOE ROGAN: And granite. BOB LAZAR: Granite. Granite. The Mystery of Ancient Precision Engineering JOE ROGAN: Incredibly hard granite, incredible precision, back when they had no metal alloys. They had copper tools. It doesn’t make any sense. None of it makes any sense. Then there’s the symmetry involved in some of these statues. Like, they’re perfectly symmetrical in terms of the distance between the eyes, the nose, the lips. Most— no one’s face is symmetrical. Your left side of your face is different. If you combine the two sides, they look— it looks weird. But when you look at these statues, these statues which are massive, carved out of granite, again, supposedly before they had steel, like they didn’t have diamond-tipped instruments to do this. They polished them. They’re perfectly symmetrical and massive. Some of them are 1,000 tons, and they don’t have any understanding of how these people built these things or put them there. And they all seem to be— the biggest, most spectacular ones are the oldest. BOB LAZAR: How could you not want to dig those up? Yeah, well, and look at them. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: There’s some— JOE ROGAN: I mean, they’re concerned about national pride, but if you dig them up, it’s not just national pride, it’s the pride of the people that have been espousing this one narrative for so long. That’s part of the problem, the gatekeepers of the information. BOB LAZAR: It’s still national pride. JOE ROGAN: It is, but these people are idiots. That’s part of the problem. Like, their own ego is preventing them from being open-minded, interested in calling out to the world’s research communities and saying, “Listen, there’s something going on here. We don’t have the big picture. We have a picture that we have formed from a limited amount of information, and we’ve been incredibly arrogant about what we’re assuming.” We also know that a lot of these pharaohs would carve their name and carve their hieroglyphs into existing things. They would claim existing things. Some of the carvings on these things are far cruder in the way they’ve done it than the actual construction of the thing. And they think that these are old things that were there already, and then these later pharaohs just wanted to attach their name, chiseled their hieroglyphs into these things. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And another thing, and this has been mentioned a lot, is the fact that there’s no tools that were ever discovered in those areas that would prove that those things were made with those. And they had to use tools. They have to have something. JOE ROGAN: Right. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: So there’s not even that. That’s not even available. So it’s like, how did they do it? Did they hide the tools? I mean, why would they do that? JOE ROGAN: None of it makes any sense. And also these incredibly hard vases that you find, they’re the oldest ones. They’re the things that they find in the oldest sites. It’s like the most complicated, complex, confusing technology seems to be the oldest stuff. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. JOE ROGAN: There’s also like— LUIGI VENDITTELLI: You had another guy here that does research on Peru, and he was talking— I can’t remember his name. I got to meet him. JOE ROGAN: Luke Caverns? Was it him? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, he goes to Peru and he has a show about that, about the ancient stuff that they’re finding underground in Peru. JOE ROGAN: There’s a couple guys. What was the other guy? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: He’s got black hair. I can’t remember his name. JOE ROGAN: That’s Luke, the younger guy. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, younger. JOE ROGAN: Yeah, that’s Luke. Layers of Ancient History in Peru LUIGI VENDITTELLI: So basically he was talking about the fact that there’s two layers of ancient stuff in Peru. The first layer is younger, and what’s below it is what’s really incredible and more complex. But they don’t want to go there because you’re going to destroy an existing archaeological site that’s on top of it. So what’s happening is they’re having trouble now getting permission to go to the lower level, which is even better, because they’re going to have to break an archaeological site of a more recent part of that civilization. JOE ROGAN: This is a common theme among people. We build on older sites. There’s a place that I go to in Italy in the Amalfi Coast, and there’s this incredible old church there that’s over 1,000 years old, but it’s built on an even older church, and there’s a plexiglass floor that shows the old church. The old church is underneath it, and you can see the structure of this old church. And I was asking them, how old is the old church? They go, “We don’t know. It’s over 1,000 years old.” So it’s over 1,000 years old, this church, and then this really old church is on top of it that’s like hundreds and hundreds of years old also. But they built it on top of an existing structure. So this is a common theme. This is a theme in Peru where you see the Inca construction, which is like much less complicated, smaller stones, mud mortar, and— but it’s on top of these megalithic structures that are carved in these jigsaw shapes where it seems like they’ve been melted. Yeah, yeah, it’s freaky stuff. They have no understanding of what technology was used, who did it, how they did it, how they moved these immense thousand-ton stones and cut them with precision in this jigsaw way so that it will absorb the energy of earthquakes and not fall down. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, that’s crazy. I mean, that’s— JOE ROGAN: There’s a lot of that stuff that’s really, really freaky. And then you get into old religious texts, and that’s when things get really freaky. You get to things like the Book of Enoch that talk about the Watchers who came down from the sky and created humans. BOB LAZAR: Clearly a lot of unusual stuff happened a long time ago. Arrogance and the Gatekeepers of History JOE ROGAN: And we don’t have a good record of it. We just have what we know, and what we know we get very arrogant about. We know what happened 300 years ago. BOB LAZAR: That’s a really good point. Of what we know, we get very arrogant about. And anything else, we don’t accept. JOE ROGAN: These academics and these people that are in charge of the narrative, like the people in Egypt, where they’re very arrogant and they’re gatekeepers, because their whole identity is based on them being the ones that explain to the world how these incredible sites were produced. And if something comes along that is counter to that narrative, they fight it. They fight it because it’s part of them. It’s their identity. Italy. The Ark of the Covenant, Ancient Technology, and the Nature of God LUIGI VENDITTELLI: When I spoke to Filippo Biondi, I talked to one of my cousins in Italy. I spent a lot of my time in Italy when I was younger. One of them, she was younger than I was when I was there, but she’s now become a respected archaeologist in Rome, and she’s an Egyptologist. And I went out to Italy to visit family, and I was sitting at the table— this is not even that long ago— and she’s sitting next to me. Her family’s all academic, everybody’s a doctor or scientist or something like that. So there’s always that pride of the science. And she nudges me, and in Italian she says, “I’m really interested in what you do, what you’re looking into.” And I knew what she meant, it was about UFOs. And I just responded, “I’m even more interested in what you know about what’s out there in Egypt?” And she looked at me and she says, “We don’t really know all of it. A lot of it makes no sense.” But she said it whispering because she knew that that’s not well seen at the table, because now she’s going to come across as this pseudoscience type— like she’s going to come out of the mainstream. Then she came to her place, and I was still there. We were there for a couple of days. She came and gave me a little book, and in Italian, I don’t know how to say it— the missing Vangelo, like the missing scriptures, basically. It’s a little book in Italian about the missing scriptures that are not in the Bible that speak of things that are not convenient for what we are arrogant to think we understand. JOE ROGAN: And one of the fascinating things about these missing scriptures is they found them alongside existing scriptures. So when they found the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran— they found these in a cave in Qumran, and it’s kind of a crazy thing. Someone threw a rock and hit a clay pot and heard the shattering of a clay pot. So they threw a rock into this high cave and realized there was something in there, and then they started looking. And then they found these scrolls that were in these clay pots. Inside the scrolls, they found the Book of Isaiah. It was 1,000 years older than the oldest version of the Book of Isaiah that we had ever found, and it’s identical— verbatim to the Book of Isaiah that is currently in the Bible. Along with it is the Book of Enoch, and the Book of Enoch is f*ing squirrely. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. JOE ROGAN: That’s a good way to describe it. Just a few rabbis decided that the Book of Enoch was too weird because it didn’t jive with the Torah, so they left it out of the biblical canon. That’s why it’s not taught. But the Book of Enoch is readily available. You could read it, and it’s also in the Ethiopian Bible. The Ethiopian Bible includes the Book of Enoch. Really? Yes. And those are the people that supposedly are in possession of the Ark of the Covenant. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: The Ark of the Covenant. JOE ROGAN: Yeah. Graham Hancock talks about it. There’s like a person set to— they have a job of watching the Ark of the Covenant, but it’s known that it’s going to kill them. So they all get cataracts and cancer. It has bad things. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. Well, it has some sort of radiation apparently. JOE ROGAN: And they exhibit signs of radiation poisoning— when these people are designated to be the curators. BOB LAZAR: Where is the Ark of the Covenant? In Ethiopia, supposedly. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: In Ethiopia. So you guys think that’s— I mean, I’m very— JOE ROGAN: I think it’s ancient technology. Yeah, I think it’s probably ancient technology. It’s probably some completely not understood ancient technology. BOB LAZAR: I’m not discounting it. I’m just wondering. JOE ROGAN: Well, I like the fact that you’re skeptical even though you have the craziest f ing story. It speaks to your integrity, it really does, because you’re not a guy who believes kooky shit. So for you— a guy who doesn’t believe kooky shit, a hard rational scientist who’s an engineer who’s done things like put a rocket engine in the back of a f ing Honda, or a hydrogen-powered Corvette— and then you go and see these things, you’re like, “Wait, what the f* is this thing?” BOB LAZAR: Look, I worship technology. Nothing else. So to hear something like that— do you think that that actually exists? JOE ROGAN: I don’t know. Graham Hancock is convinced it exists. It’s very carefully guarded, and these people have been guarding it for centuries. BOB LAZAR: I mean, it’s just too many— throughout history, right? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yes. There are too many missing pieces of the puzzle to really say one way or another. BOB LAZAR: I don’t think whether or not it was just mythology or— right, right. JOE ROGAN: But it is weird that he’s talked to these people that have these f*ing cataracts, and these people all say the same thing. They die. The people that are designated to be the curators of this particular religion— BOB LAZAR: I relate this back to— I think I told you the first time we met— if somebody found a nuclear reactor back at that time, and they took it apart, they would just drop dead from the radiation. Magically from that. And anybody that came in to check on them would also die, and they’d go, “This is evil, it’s cursed,” or whatever. JOE ROGAN: Or something that you’re not supposed to have access to because it’s divine. BOB LAZAR: Or some other— yeah, right. And could this be something at another level? Yes. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I have to say, and I mean, I’m no one to say it, but I struggle with divine stuff because I’m like— this craft or this technology— our phones, to somebody 1,000 years ago, would look like some divine object. It’s technology to us. So we have to be very cautious. I’m not saying there is no divine something. Maybe there is, we don’t know. But I think technology really could mask itself as divine power. 100%. Technology, Time, and the Nature of God JOE ROGAN: Or divine energy itself could be technology taken to its final form. That I’m open to. Well, if you think about what we’re talking about with sentient AI— an AI that has the ability to make better versions of itself— what happens if it’s left alone for 1,000 years to do this? What do you have? You have something that can harness the power of the universe itself. There’s access to zero-point energy, can do whatever. It has a complete understanding of quantum entanglement, a complete understanding of how the universe functions, how it was created. ALSO READ:  Scott Ritter: Threat of Nuclear War as the Last Arms Control Treaty Collapsed (Transcript) There are new theories that believe that the entire universe itself exists inside of a black hole. They’re trying to figure out whether or not there ever was a Big Bang or if it’s a continuous cycle of things existing inside black holes. BOB LAZAR: So where do you think we are? What do you think this is? JOE ROGAN: I think it’s a process. We’re at a stage of a process. Our problem is we have ideology, we have dogma, we have ego, we have people that are smarter than most people but want to think that they have all the information— and I don’t think they do. And then we have open-minded people that are curious but don’t want to look like kooks, and they’re all trying to figure it out while we’re making a f*ing digital god. BOB LAZAR: We are literally manufacturing our own god, right? But if you are— JOE ROGAN: If you take that and you extrapolate— you go from where it is now, you think about the exponential increase of technology— where does that go? It kind of goes divine. I mean, that might be what God is. We want to think that God is a thing that exists, that just exists and created everything. Maybe we make God. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. We’re on the same channel. Yeah, I think we created God. JOE ROGAN: I think human curiosity and this thirst for innovation is all part of it. Controlling Time: The True Power of the Technology LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I’ll say something about the technology because it always fascinates me. I spent 4 years with Babanet to build it in a virtual environment, and I kind of had to think about it while I’m doing it. But if you really think about what this technology that you saw does— it essentially creates this artificial field, or maybe it’s a natural field— but it creates a field that we’re not familiar with. That field— Joe, you saw the movie. There was a test that was done in the lab that froze a candle flame. The photons are still visible within our realm here outside of the field, and you’re still seeing the photons, yet it looks like it’s frozen. To me, is this technology like a black hole? Is it some type of time stop? And it basically gives us the power to utilize time to our advantage. If you think about progression in technology, anything we do takes time. Whether it’s computing power— we’re now seeing quantum computers do things faster and faster, they could do a trillion processes in an instant, and Japan is coming up with better, and then China. But everything has to do with how long does it take to do that. If a technology can make you bypass time, it’s like the record player playing music, but you’re now able to lift the little pin on the record and move it to wherever you want. JOE ROGAN: Yes. And that’s a good way to describe it, right? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And now at that point, time is in your hands. And if we have a technology similar to what you saw— because you always said gravity is a control, gravity and time, it’s interlocked, space and time— if that’s interlocked, then we have to look at it not just as a propulsion system or some type of cool weapon. But how is it affecting time, and how can we use that to our benefit to evolve faster? Because the faster we can compute, the faster we could do something, the faster we’re evolving. And if we could lift that needle and bring it faster to get somewhere, why not use it? BOB LAZAR: Or should— I mean, should we be allowed to do that? JOE ROGAN: Us in our current form. BOB LAZAR: Yeah. I’m not exactly on our side anymore. Should Humanity Be Trusted With This Technology? JOE ROGAN: Do you remember, Jamie, who discussed the way they were describing the use of some of this alien technology as instantaneous weapon deployment systems? BOB LAZAR: I’m not sure we should be trusted with this stuff, right? No, really. JOE ROGAN: Well, really— you think about what we’re doing in Iran right now. You would say no. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, right. I would say no. JOE ROGAN: We’re still flying over patches of dirt and bombing the f*ing shit out of— BOB LAZAR: Imagine if we had something a million times that power. Really, humans should not be trusted with that, right? JOE ROGAN: We trusted AI. That’s why we’re making it, Bob. This is getting scary. BOB LAZAR: It’s not science fiction anymore. No, it’s not. I mean, we’re making fun of it now, but this is dangerous stuff. And I’m sorry for the people who think this is all a joke. It’s not. This is real. And I’m really not sure we should be trusted with this. That’s maybe why for 40 or 60 years people have agreed to keep it quiet. I would agree. And that’s the most logical conclusion. This is incredibly dangerous stuff. And again, it’s a world-dominating technology, and I don’t know what to do with it other than to keep it from people. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And how do we know if it comes up? Something I always struggle with is— let’s say they, let’s say we do get some type of thing from somebody in the government, the president, whoever, that says, “Okay, here we are. We have this.” Well, first of all, we have to validate it. The journalists are going to— BOB LAZAR: The whole world. The Challenge of Proof and Disclosure LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Nobody’s going to say— the media is not going to just trust somebody saying that. They’re going to go, okay, wait a minute. What are you talking about? Right. So it’s not like because somebody says it, we just have to swallow it. It’s like, all right, go show us. Right. Yeah. And then when you do that, well, now you’re exposing something else. What do we— what happens when we need to believe it? Like as people, what has to happen for me to believe something that somebody says? There really has to be something serious that makes me believe it, right? You know what I mean? Like some— if a president or anybody, prime minister, whoever it is, says something to me, I’ll still go like, okay, I mean, show me, right? And then when they show it, how do I know that’s actually that? Think about that. Yeah. Right? And then from there, we now have to go to another level of, okay, well, if we have to prove it, we have to bring in scientific community. Okay? That means they have access to it. What’s the security parameters there? Right. JOE ROGAN: And then you get compartmentalization. Exactly. Right. And then that stops any sort of an understanding of it. There you go. And that’s why you have this stigma. This stagnation of where you’ve got these people working on this thing for decades and not making any progress. BOB LAZAR: Because you know how far we could have gotten if there was free discussion between all the groups working on this, right? JOE ROGAN: Yeah. But then you also have these f*ing psychos like from Dr. Strangelove that want to turn it into a nuclear delivery system. Yeah, so you don’t have to worry about them detecting nuclear bombs headed their way. You just instantaneously devastate Moscow in one shot. You don’t have to take credit for it. Yeah, but we’d— right. No, it’s like, we are not ready, right? We know— BOB LAZAR: I know we’re not ready, but we’d be more advanced if we did that. No, I mean, I agree that— I agree with that. JOE ROGAN: But it’s all very strange, and no one knows more strange than you. BOB LAZAR: No, there are plenty of people that know more strange than me. I mean, Dennis knew more strange than me. Anybody above him knew that. I just knew a small part of it. JOE ROGAN: But you, out of all the people that can talk about it, that are out there communicating about it, you have actually seen it physically. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, I try to only talk about what I’ve seen and touched and verified. I’ve heard plenty of other stuff that I don’t know if it’s true or not, and there’s no sense in repeating that. Because nonsense moves at the speed of light these days. Right. Yeah, it does. And that’s just— it’s terrible. Bob Lazar’s Unique Credibility JOE ROGAN: You live in a weird existence, Bob. You really do, because you’ve been holding on to this and you have this experience from 40 years ago that’s just become a part of folklore. It’s become part of the zeitgeist. Like, this is why your podcast that we did is the most watched podcast I’ve ever done. This resonates with people in a way that— look, I’ve done a lot of UFO ones. I had Travis Walton on. I’ve had a lot of people that have stories. They’re all very interesting. They don’t get nearly the amount of traction that yours does. And I think it’s because you’re uniquely credible. You’re uniquely credible in the fact that you are very skeptical. You’re not interested in these fantastic ideas. You’re very dismissive of nonsense, but yet you have this burden. Like, you actually physically touched these f*ing things and went inside? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, I did. I mean, I was fortunate enough to have this really unique job. That’s about it. And I am fascinated with the technology, but that’s where it stops. I’m not interested in anybody else’s story, although everybody has to email me. And I understand it. They’re looking for somebody. “Hey, I saw this thing out when I was on my boat. What is it?” I don’t know. They’re just looking for something. And it’s like, I don’t know, maybe it was Venus or something. And right. “Oh my God, you suck. You work for the government.” It’s like, dude, I’m just looking for a prosaic explanation. Right. But I only know what I saw and touched for myself, and everything else, even in official government documentation, it’s just words on paper. I don’t know if that stuff is true. So you got to draw the line there. Yes, but I know what I did see. I know for a fact, and there is no way you can tell me that that’s not real. Building the S4 Model: The Light Absorption Mystery LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I have to say, in having worked with them and having that— inadvertently, there’s no way that myself or people on my team weren’t trying to dig deeper and find maybe there’s a problem, maybe there’s going to be a gap, maybe we’ll find something wrong with the story, because we went very deep. We had to build S4, we had to build a sport model. And there were things that happened over the years, things that he had said to us before we had built it, that there’s no way he could have known, because there were physicalities, real things that we built. When you build something in a 3D environment, you’re actually building a real world. It’s got light bounce and refractions like the real world. Like when you turn on the light, it does the same thing. If a material has a sheen, you see it. It’s literally the same thing. It’s just computing power that gives you access to another world. And he mentioned things that were absolutely impossible to know. Two things really convinced me. One of them was in the interior of the craft. You had said to us it was very dark in there. And while Bob is explaining to us the interior of the craft, many times he kept repeating, “It was really dark in there,” even though there were halogen lights. Right. And so at a certain point, he says, “As I’m crawling in, there’s like these extension cords.” And I remember going, extension cords. Like, I hadn’t computed. And he’s like, “Yeah, they had lights in there.” And I’m thinking, it’s true. I mean, there’s no light switch inside this big thing. It’s 50, 52 feet. It’s big. And so he said, “Yeah, there were two big industrial yellow lights with four spots each pointed up.” And so we decided to make those. We decided to research the type that were used back then in the United States, especially on military bases. The halogen power, because it was halogen in 1988, and we turned them on and it was still dark, and it was super dark. And I remember Christopher Matteau— by the way, a big shout out to Christopher Matteau that’s on my team who made a lot of those visuals, and he’s like a magician, he’s the best— he’s there, and I said, “Chris, turn on the lights because we have to film in the craft.” And he’s like, “They’re on.” I said, “They’re not f*ing on, I can’t see anything.” He’s like, “They’re fully on.” And I said, “Well, that doesn’t make any sense. It’s so dark in there.” BOB LAZAR: I remember thinking it consumes light. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And so we upped the power of the light so that you could see more. And it was still dark. And I thought, what the hell is happening? I go, “Is there a bug? Is there something wrong?” He goes, “No, I don’t know. It’s absorbing the light in there.” We had to up the light intensity on those tripods by 20-fold in order for you to see the visuals you see in our film. Otherwise, it would be really dark in that craft. JOE ROGAN: So how did you compute that? Like, what parameters did you establish? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: So what you do is you’re inside a 3D environment. You’re in a 3D world. Now we’re inside the craft that is 52 feet in diameter. We bring a camera in there. The whole film was done with Blackmagic 6K cams. So we would bring our Blackmagics into the 3D environment. You can actually set that so that we could film inside the craft, so it matches the filming of our real cameras. And so as soon as the camera’s on, it’s the same lens, it’s the same aperture. Everything is as you would have it. And so you’re trying to adjust for this dark room. But if the room is really dark, you can’t really get a good look at it, because if you go close enough, you would have seen like a seat and a little bit of the reactor, but you would have been like, “What’s the black screen I’m looking at?” JOE ROGAN: So what is the explanation for why it’s so dark? It’s just the way the light reflects? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And that is exactly— yeah, it’s when you’re in that space. Right. JOE ROGAN: But here’s the question, like, what are you when you’re making this in a computer model? Right. What are you putting in that would make it absorb light that way? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I didn’t do that. So what we did is we spent over a year with Bob. I’m not kidding. It was like a year of trying to figure out the material of the craft, the actual skin of the craft. That was the hardest thing to do. BOB LAZAR: Specularity and the reflectivity of the actual material and the angle. Yeah. And then when the lights are in there, they just reflect at a weird angle and it never gets bright in there unless you have tremendous amounts of light in there. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s always dark. And sorry to interrupt, but that would have been— so when that happened and we have the right material, which is like this, let’s call it unpolished stainless steel, it’s got a little bit of usage to it just to give it some texture. It’s got the same sheen, reflection, refractions of a real material like that. Because every time we put a fake light in there, it’s reacting like that. And now you turn these big halogen lights on and it’s like the part of where the halogen is hitting the ceiling of the craft, because they were turned upwards. Remember, Bob said they were not pointed like this. They were pointed to the ceiling of the craft. So you got two of them. It’s like wherever the light was going, the light beam was getting eaten up by that portion of the material. So it’s not reflecting all the way. So you have a 52-foot distance and it’s being lost in a maybe 7, 8-foot diameter environment area where the light is. And we’re like, “Why is that happening?” But that’s the reality. He could not have known that if he’s trying to make that up. Anybody who’s inventing a story says there’s two industrial lights with four bright halogen spots in there— a liar would not say it was really dark in there. You don’t know that. You have to build it, right? So to me, that was a physicality of being inside the craft that made me go, Lazar could not have known that. If he was making that up, you wouldn’t know it until you experiment. JOE ROGAN: Exactly. Right. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: So I’m like, unless Bob back then decided to go in his garage and build himself a fake dome, which I don’t think he did— I’m like, how would he have known that? We didn’t expect that. We were struggling with why is it so dark? JOE ROGAN: And then you make films, so you’re used to using lighting. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Exactly. And Chris was like, “Dude, this thing is just eating up the light.” And I’m like, Bob kept saying, “It’s so dark in there.” How is that possible? The Reversed American Flag JOE ROGAN: What were the other things? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: The other one, I laugh about this with Bob all the time. It’s about the flag on the craft. So when he walked into the hangar the very first time, he saw the craft, then he saw the reversed American flag sticker on the craft. JOE ROGAN: I wonder why it was reversed. The Replica Craft and the Reversed Flag LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I’ll get to that in a sec. I think I know, but whatever. I’ll say what I think. And there’s a lot of stuff. I researched a lot of stuff on Bob Lazar before I did this, and there’s a lot of bad information out there. So I really tell people, if you really want to see what he saw, don’t go read what’s out there. Check this out because Bob actually vetted everything, so it’s not the wrong information to read. But anyway, there’s a lot of detractors saying there’s no way Lazar could have seen that flag if the craft was that size and it was on the hull, on the craft shell. There’s no way. The angle— he’s 5-something, he wouldn’t have been able to see it. So we built it. We built a 52-foot diameter craft. We put it in the hangar. It’s there. And my team, Chris, gives me the goggles, the ones I made you try on, and it is the very first time I go in there, and I know the craft is there, so I put them on, and now they’re hoping, because they’re there with notes, they’re hoping I’m giving them all the notes, oh no, that’s not good, that’s not good. And the first thing I did is I looked to my right, I’m looking at the craft, and I asked Chris to put me at 5’10”, which is “Your height.” So I said, “At 5’10”, I’m Bob’s height with the goggles. I want to see.” And the first thing I said is, “Oh, it’s— there it is.” And they’re like, “There what is?” I said, “The flag.” And they thought I was pointing at a flag on a wall. And they’re like, “There’s no flag in the hangar.” I said, “No, on the craft.” And they’re like, “Yeah?” I said, “You can clearly see it.” It was clear. That was something that also made me go, yeah, this is it. This is the real size. So had Bob Lazar not actually seen that, the majority of the detractors out there kept saying there’s no way at that angle a human eye could see a sticker on the top of the craft, which is on the top shell. But you can. It’s as clear as day. So those were two things that I considered to be like, it’s there. I know to maybe some people that’s not a lot, but as a person like I am who’s very technical, I’m very, I’m super difficult. It took a long time to do this because I’m a perfectionist and I wanted to make sure it was accurate to what he saw. I look at stuff like that because I analyze everything like that. And I analyzed this story inside out. JOE ROGAN: And if you couldn’t see the flag from that position, it would have been a red flag. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, that would have been a red flag for me. I would have been like, wait, you can’t see it, but you can. So you can’t put enough of a value on little details like that because he didn’t say this in 2026. He said this in 1989. Right. Why? JOE ROGAN: Why do you think the flag was reversed? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: In American flag use law, the only thing we were able to ascertain is the fact that on military or on vehicles, anything military on a uniform, if ever you see an American flag on your right shoulder, it’s reversed because it’s how the wind is blowing the flag. On your left side, it’s like the flag is because the wind is blowing this way. If you look at vehicles, you notice, let’s say a Greyhound bus, they have American flags on each side and they have a normal one on the left one, on the left side, and a reversed on the right side because it’s the right side of the vehicle. BOB LAZAR: So it’s blowing, it’s blowing the flag that way. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: So the reversed American flag is an actual— it’s the law of how to use the flag in the United States military or on vehicles. And it has to be like that on the right side. So to say, is that the right side of the craft? Yeah, it must be, because if you go into the craft, the seats— when you go into the craft, I can’t wait for you to go in the craft. When you go inside, the seats are facing the right side, meaning the hatch is the right side of the craft. It’s the only thing that came to mind. I mean, is that what they did at S4? They f*ing put a sticker on it? I mean, it’s the only logical thing we could think of is that’s why it was there. I don’t know. Because if it was an American flag, if it was just for identifying this is America, why would you reverse it? JOE ROGAN: Right, right. You’re reversing it because it’s indicating the direction which you travel. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Exactly. Wow. That’s just an interesting— JOE ROGAN: Yeah, right. It’s all interesting. The goggles is a trip, right? When I put on the 3D AR goggles— VR goggles, rather— and you stand in that warehouse, that hangar, and look at it, it’s very strange. BOB LAZAR: It feels weird. Exactly like it was. JOE ROGAN: It feels very weird. It feels very weird because I mean, I’m only imagining what it’s like to actually be you in 1988 and be standing there. BOB LAZAR: When you put the goggles on, that’s exactly how it was. JOE ROGAN: What did Dennis say when you first saw it? He was like, huh? Dennis and Barry’s Reactions BOB LAZAR: No, Dennis was hardcore. Yeah, he was. Yeah, he was here. Look at that. You know, come back in here. I mean, there was no reaction. Barry, on the other hand, was out of his mind. He couldn’t wait to show me stuff. And he said, “Check this out.” Oh my God, that was awesome. You know, but Dennis was like a hardcore military guy. JOE ROGAN: How much of a view did you get of the other crafts? Because it’s one of the things in the film, you only see like hints of them. That was it. BOB LAZAR: That’s it. That’s it. What you saw in the film is exactly what it was. It was just a passing thing. And as I was walking out there going, wow, there’s more. Everything looks different. And other than the first two hangars, I really couldn’t tell what was passed out there. But there were other hangars and there were things inside them. JOE ROGAN: But that’s also interesting that at the time in 1988, this site was not even confirmed. This was like, for you to have to know about this and know the exact location of it is kind of strange, right? The 1941 Map and the Road to S-4 BOB LAZAR: Now Luigi did that. I mean, I gave him the general idea. I said, you know, I know what time I got out there and I could see Papoose Lake behind me. No, he pulled up a lot of stuff from there. But another interesting thing he pulled up was there was an old silver mine exactly there in the exact same place. And I wonder if they used that as the— it was already drilled. There was already, you know, corridors in there. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I actually held this for this show. What I’m about to say is the first time ever. It’s not even— it didn’t make it in my film. I wish it did, but it didn’t make it in the film. Veronica on our team, she’s my sister. She’s like my right hand. And if I didn’t have her, I wouldn’t be here right now. She found this. At a certain point, we were looking at the maps out there, and you’ll see in my film that Gene Huff sent us some U.S. Department of the Interior official maps of that environment at the Groom Lake, Papoose Lake. But we weren’t satisfied. We wanted to go deeper. We said, there’s got to be more. And there’s one map that is a publicly available map. It’s super not easy to find, but by the way, that is in the hands of the U.S. Department of the Interior. I could get it to you if you want. I can email it to you. That map is the oldest map of Papoose Lake known in the hands of the government that is public domain. That map, and everybody’s going to be listening to this, clearly shows a road that goes right into where S-4 was— is. It doesn’t show a road near it. It shows a road going right in the mountain, and they removed it. That map is from 1941, okay? Right after that, the map is 1950 and 1952, and those roads were removed. But the oldest map we ever found— it’s going to be available. We’re going to post it on our website. It’s going to be everywhere. It shows clear as day a road that goes right into the mountain, exactly where Bob Lazar said S-4 was. JOE ROGAN: So do you think that that was the road to the silver mine? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yes, I believe that. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, I— it makes sense that they would use an existing facility and just enlarge it instead of start from nothing. JOE ROGAN: Right, of course, especially if it’s abandoned. Yeah, yeah. And it also makes sense that if Roswell was real and if they really did find a crashed UFO in 1947, like, in the 1950s, they’d be like, let’s get rid of this f*ing road, right? Yeah, if we’re putting this out there, if we’re building this facility out there, and if they did have it, that also makes sense that they work on this for decades. You come along in 1988, they’ve got this happening in the 1950s and it’s still there. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. Yeah, I think what happened is when the CIA took over, because CIA is the one that took over Area 51, they’re the ones at Area 51. I think what happened is as they took over, they just removed the road. It wasn’t even because there was a UFO, a flying saucer there. I just think they got in there, took control of that terrain, that whole landscape. And said, remove it off the maps because it’s there prior to them taking ownership of that land. So it’s clear that there was a road there and then they came in, CIA said, take it out. And S-4 might have had already an installation— it wasn’t an installation, but they probably had a tunnel in there already because it was a mine. So it was an easier way to build a big facility in the side of the hill. Makes sense. The Camouflaged Hangar Bay Doors JOE ROGAN: It does make sense. And then there’s also the images that you got of what looks like the hangar bay doors, right, that are camouflaged. And I have to say that— gotta go again. Yeah, sorry. No worries. BOB LAZAR: That’s all good. That prostate problem— technology will fix that. JOE ROGAN: It’ll remove your prostate, turn you into a f*ing alien. So though that image that you got of the— unfortunately, it’s kind of blurry, but you do see something that looks very similar to what you’d expect to be camouflage garage bay doors. The Scott Mitchell Discovery LUIGI VENDITTELLI: I got contacted by a guy called Scott Mitchell, and I was getting contacted by everybody, Joe. Everybody, everybody was trying to get in and find— getting to make me work with them or use something they found. So I was ignoring 95%, 99% of people’s, like, it’s getting tiring. Everybody’s like, “You got to listen to me, I know stuff about that.” I’m like, whatever, I’m working with Bob Lazar, I have enough right now. But this guy— we had built the base and I knew exactly where it was. I knew exactly the layout. And this guy, he not only contacted me, but he sent me an image that he had drawn. He didn’t want to send me the real thing, what he had found, but he says, “Here it is, this is where the doors are, and this is exactly where they point to.” I looked at the image and I said, “Not bad.” I mean, he really nailed it in the image. And I thought, okay, at first I thought somebody on my team leaked something. We had to be honest. I’m like, “Who did that? Who sent out one of our renders to somebody?” Because that’s what I thought. And they’re like, “No, no, no, this is what—” So I talked to this guy, and he’s really, really good at researching, and he ended up becoming probably one of the best I’ve ever seen. His name is Scott Mitchell. The Christmas Day Photos LUIGI VENDITTELLI: He says there are pictures that were taken in 2020, and ironically, those pictures were taken on December 25th, 2020, which is Christmas Day in the middle of COVID, which means the base might have been shut down. If you think about that, you know what I mean? Like, it’s COVID, it’s in the heat of it, plus it’s the 25th of December, so there’s probably nothing going on there. And this private pilot in a small Cessna requested access inside the perimeter, and they granted him permission. And he had a big Nikon camera on board with a big telescopic zoom, and he took a s* ton of pictures, and they’re amazing. They’re all public. Public. They’re all available. You could download them. And there are these pictures of Papoose Lake and the hill, but they were being used on the internet for a long time. Everybody’s like, “See, Bob Lazar is a fraud. It’s not real. There’s nothing there.” Well, of course you can’t see it. It’s, first of all, 17 miles away. And secondly, they’re not designed for you to see it. And also— let’s talk about something that Bob was talking about in 1988. The picture was taken in 2020. I mean, there could be a different landscape now. Extracting the Hidden Details LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Anyway, so he said, “Look, this image— if you change the contrast, you got to keep the original, but just move and try to extract data from your image.” You know, anybody who knows how to do that with photography, you can do that. And he pulls out these geometric shapes. You could see them. They’re like little— they look like rectangles. And I thought, what if this is not real? I was super skeptical. I’ll be honest with you. We’re talking about the picture with the hangar doors, the one from Scott Mitchell, the one that we have in the film. JOE ROGAN: Oh, right. Right. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And so I didn’t believe it. I thought, “There’s no way. I don’t believe it.” So Scott— that was really cool. He said, “Look, man, I understand you’re skeptical. I get it. I want you to do me a favor. Go online, search it yourself. I won’t even tell you where it is. I’ll just tell you who took the pictures.” The only thing he gave us is the picture number is 0501. That’s what the picture number is. He goes, “If you find it, have whoever on your team play around with it until you see.” That was fair because I said, okay, because if it’s out there— there were two different places it was online, and the one place we got it from was the source of it, from the photographer, the guy himself. I had three different people on my team. Everybody’s really good at all this stuff on my team. So I said, “Guys, this is what we need to see. If you guys could pull it up, I’m not going to be as skeptical.” Everybody got it almost at the same time. They were playing around, and eventually the easiest software we used to get that detail out was DaVinci Resolve. And with DaVinci, it’s a faster process than if you’re messing around with Photoshop or whatever. And it came up, and I was like, “Oh my God, it’s really there.” You could clearly— so what I did is I had them scan the rest of the picture because it’s pixels, right? So I said, “Let’s also see if it’s not some pixelation. Is it maybe just what the photo does? Maybe we just got lucky and it looks like that there. Maybe it’s going to show something similar elsewhere.” And it doesn’t. And then I said, “All right, go get me 0502. I want 0500. I want—” because the guy kept snapping pictures. I want you to do the same. Like, we went really military. I said, “I want to make sure this is real. I’m not going to put our name on this if it’s not.” And it ended up being— other pictures also show it, by the way, because he went click, click, click. So it’s not just that one. That’s the clearest one. Bob Lazar Sees the Evidence LUIGI VENDITTELLI: And so I was at a certain point at Bob’s house, sitting there, and the guy calls me— Scott Mitchell calls me— and he has no idea I’m with Bob Lazar. So I pick up, it’s a video call, and he goes, “Hey man, what’s going on?” I said, “Well, look who I’m with.” And he just exploded because he was like, “Oh my God, you’re with Bob.” And I said, “Show him.” So Bob was there and we showed it. We ended up transferring the call on a Zoom call and he showed it. And you said, “Yeah,” like I remember you going, “Yeah, that’s it. Yeah.” JOE ROGAN: What did that look like to you when you saw those images? BOB LAZAR: Yeah, that was— it was awesome. Yeah, it was awesome. What was really shocking was that the first hangar was bigger. Yeah, yeah, yeah, because the first hangar is a big hangar, and there’s smaller ones. And I said, “Jesus, the first hangar is bigger.” You found it, you found it. So I mean, that— I just lit up at that point. Google Earth and the Suspicious Box JOE ROGAN: Yeah, what happens if you look at that site with Google Earth? LUIGI VENDITTELLI: That is what the Google Earth— no, no, that was the picture, but Google Earth— But Google Earth, and I’ll tell you something about Google— that wasn’t with Google Earth. No, the picture is a real photo. The picture of the hangar doors is a real photo. JOE ROGAN: Okay, I thought that was Google Earth. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: No, no, the picture is a real photo. The Google Earth though, you see that in the film. I can’t make this up. I did not want to put anything in the film that would make me, the whole team, or even Bob look like we’re trying to MacGyver something in there. It has to be— you go look for it yourself. It’s public. If you don’t believe it, go check it out yourself. That’s what was— that’s the only thing we allowed in there. And when you go on Papoose Lake on June 22nd of 2024, Google Earth changed. You’re going to be right over Papoose Lake. If you zoom in, you’re not going to notice it because it’s kind of a yellowish tint to the image. And I remember going, “Why is it so yellow?” I mean, I’d been there so many times. I was like, “Why the f  is it turned so yellow?” So I’m zooming out and I’m like, “Why did they f  it up? They f*ing ruined everything. It’s all yellow.” And as I go further, you see this box that is right over Papoose. So I’m like, “What is that?” And I put my mouse over it. And wherever you’re in the box, it’s June 22nd, 2024. And as soon as you put your mouse outside of the box, it’s an older date. And I thought, “Oh, they just did that.” And so I think what they thought they were going to do is that new filter right over Papoose Lake removes every possible detail on the terrain, the landscape, where the brushes are and the Joshua trees are. It really, really removes all that. Blurs it. It blurs everything out. But they made a mistake. They made a huge error. I believe so. And I think if they’re listening, they’re going to go, “Yeah, our bad,” to the DoD, because they’re good. Because you see all the tracks on the lake. For some reason that filter accentuates the tracks on Papoose Lake and removes the landscape brushes— I don’t know why it just did that. And I was like, “Oh holy s*, you see all these tracks.” JOE ROGAN: What it looks like is they’re trying to purposely obscure the area. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yes. JOE ROGAN: And the fact that it’s in a very clear box. Yeah. And you talked about that in the film. BOB LAZAR: It’s kind of bonkers. And what’s really— there’s no reason. There’s no reason to pick one little square box. Why? I don’t know why. Nobody goes to. Yeah, right. So try to obscure it. Yeah. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah. And so I thought, “Jesus, we got to put this in there.” I mean, it’s so cool. Wrapping Up JOE ROGAN: Right? It’s all very compelling. I think we should wrap this up, but the film’s excellent. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. You can tell it took a tremendous amount of effort, and I could tell by watching you watch it when we watched it together that it had an insane impact on you. And you had already seen it before. I saw it with you, so you’re just seeing it again. It’s just like, it’s bonkers. BOB LAZAR: Yeah, it really affected me. And is there anything else you want to say? There’s a couple things I want to bring up. Okay. Just because I’ve heard stuff Luigi has told me— people think that I make millions of dollars off of this stuff. Oh yeah. And I don’t. I would love to sign on to the millions of dollars program. Jeremy made his movie and I didn’t get a cent from Jeremy’s movie. I said, “Anything you make, give to George.” Luigi has spent millions of dollars of his own money, literally, right? Literally. Making this stuff. And I can’t see how he’s ever going to make the money back. If he does, that’s awesome. I drive a— LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Not a 1980. BOB LAZAR: You drive a— No, 2000-something. 2018 Chevy Bolt electric car. I mean, it’s a car you’d buy for your teenage daughter. It’s embarrassing to drive. It cost me $18,000. My house on the 10 acres cost $450 grand, back when I got it. I mean, that’s— I work 6 to 7 days a week at United Nuclear, my business. If there’s anyone that wants to give me millions of dollars, please contact me immediately because I would like to retire. But no, I don’t make millions of dollars off this stuff. My wife and I do fine. We grow our food in our greenhouse and we live in our little place up in the mountains and that’s it. But this is Luigi’s thing. That’s why he’s here. JOE ROGAN: I think the film’s going to be very successful, and I think you’re probably going to make money off of it. At least I’m hoping. BOB LAZAR: No, he’ll make money off of it. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Well, you’ll make money off of it. JOE ROGAN: Thank you, Joe. I think we should wrap it up. Thank you very much, Luigi. BOB LAZAR: Knocked it out of the park. Thank you. JOE ROGAN: It’s fantastic. Bob, great to see you again, as always. BOB LAZAR: I’m sorry I had to pee so much. JOE ROGAN: That’s okay. It’s understandable. It’s understandable. And again, the film— let’s show it on the screen, Jamie, so people can know where they could see it, when it’s available. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: Yeah, it’s available actually as of right now. Let’s play the trailer. JOE ROGAN: We’ll end it with— let’s do that. S4: The Bob Lazar Story. BOB LAZAR: We’ll end it with a trailer. LUIGI VENDITTELLI: It’s on Amazon and We Are Not Alone. We Are Not Alone, right? Closing Remarks and Final Video Clip VIDEO CLIP BEGINS: BOB LAZAR: Physical evidence now exists which proves that there is life elsewhere, and at least one form of that life has been here. As of 1989, that evidence was in the custody of the United States government. Between December of 1988 and April of 1989, I worked as a senior staff physicist in what has to be the most secret project in history. My job in this program was to be part of a back-engineering team. This particular disc appeared to be in excellent condition, and because of its sleek appearance, I nicknamed it the Sport model. The goal in this program was to see if the technology of the disk could be duplicated with Earth materials. To start up the reactor, of course, we need some element 115. In fact, you need 223 grams machined into a wedge like this. The program out at S-4 consisted of 3 projects: Project Galileo, Project Sidekick, and Project Looking Glass. The file on top was Project Galileo, and as it turned out, that’s the project that I was part of, and that clearly referred to reverse engineering a recovered alien spacecraft. Just cannot be a secret from anyone, not just the American people but the rest of the world. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All this stuff is something that happened to him. It’s not who he is. BOB LAZAR: They’re doing everything they can to keep this information secret. That’s empirical evidence. I saw Ockrath to do that, thanks to him. Now this story spills and the world changes. VIDEO CLIP ENDS: JOE ROGAN: Bye for now .

El CEO de BlackRock reconoce el fracaso de una agenda que durante años impulsó desde el propio sistema financiero global, promoviendo cuotas de género, criterios raciales y propaganda LGBT en multinacionales, y ahora plantea un giro hacia el pragmatismo económico El director ejecutivo del gigante financiero BlackRock, Larry Fink , advirtió que la llamada “era woke” en las sociedades occidentales terminó siendo un “experimento fallido” , un reconocimiento que marca un cambio de discurso dentro del corazón del sistema financiero internacional . La declaración resulta particularmente llamativa debido a que, durante años, desde la propia estructura de inversión global se impulsaron políticas corporativas alineadas con esa agenda. Fink , al frente de la mayor gestora de activos del mundo —con billones de dólares bajo gestión —, reconoció por primera vez que la «agenda woke» fue un experimento mundial fallido , en un mensaje que apunta a un cambio profundo en la forma en que las grandes corporaciones están redefiniendo sus prioridades estratégicas. La admisión llega luego de un período en el que numerosas multinacionales adoptaron políticas internas relacionadas con diversidad obligatoria, cuotas de género y raciales, así como campañas corporativas vinculadas a la agenda LGBT . Durante años, el mundo empresarial estuvo fuertemente influenciado por marcos conceptuales como ESG (criterios ambientales, sociales y de gobernanza)  y DEI (diversidad, equidad e inclusión , que pasaron a condicionar decisiones de inversión y estrategias empresariales a escala global. Este enfoque, conocido popularmente como agenda woke , buscaba transformar la sociedad y las empresas en herramientas de activismo político ideológico y sectario. Sin embargo, la realidad ha terminado por imponerse. Larry Fink reconoce ahora que este discurso ideológico se llevó al extremo , provocando un rechazo creciente entre la sociedad y los inversores que buscan beneficios y no propaganda. Estas directrices marcaron el rumbo de muchas compañías y fondos internacionales. Sin embargo, el propio Fink admitió ahora que ese enfoque pudo haberse llevado demasiado lejos , alejando a algunas empresas de lo que históricamente fue su objetivo central: generar beneficios . Este giro, según el propio entorno corporativo, no es meramente simbólico . Implica una reorientación clara hacia el pragmatismo económico . La dirección de BlackRock ha entendido que el papel de una empresa no es educar a la sociedad ni imponer agendas de ingeniería social, sino generar valor real  para sus accionistas.  El nuevo mensaje de Fink es una victoria para quienes defendemos la libertad de empresa  y la soberanía de las familias frente a los dictados ideológicos de los despachos globalistas. En lugar de priorizar factores reputacionales o agendas ideológicas, las empresas vuelven a centrar sus decisiones en variables tradicionales como rentabilidad, crecimiento y eficiencia , en un contexto global cada vez más competitivo. Este cambio de rumbo supone un duro golpe para las políticas globalistas que han intentado imponer una moralidad y un pensamiento único en la sociedad y en las empresas, atacando la libertad y los valores tradicionales de las familias. La denominada «cancelación woke» ha intentado silenciar cualquier voz disidente al pensamiento único. Al retirar el apoyo financiero a este tipo de iniciativas, BlackRock admite implícitamente que estas políticas no solo dividen a la sociedad, sino que son ineficientes desde el punto de vista financiero. Las empresas están dejando atrás la pose ideológica para adoptar una visión mucho más pragmática y respetuosa con la realidad social de los ciudadanos. La derrota de la ideología woke demuestra que no se puede construir un futuro sólido sobre mentiras ideológicas o ataques a los valores naturales. Se debe aprovechar este nuevo ciclo para recuperar su soberanía económica y proteger el derecho de los padres a educar a sus hijos sin interferencias de agendas externas. La verdad y el sentido común siempre terminan por prevalecer sobre la imposición política. Uno de los sectores donde este cambio empieza a evidenciarse con mayor claridad es el energético. La nueva postura plantea una combinación más equilibrada entre fuentes tradicionales y energías limpias , dejando atrás estrategias más restrictivas que anteriormente limitaban ciertas inversiones. El objetivo declarado es adaptarse a la realidad del mercado y garantizar seguridad energética y retorno económico . Al mismo tiempo, áreas emergentes como la inteligencia artificial comienzan a ganar un peso creciente en las carteras de inversión. El avance tecnológico y las oportunidades de negocio asociadas están desplazando el foco hacia sectores con mayor potencial de crecimiento , en detrimento de criterios que habían sido prioritarios durante los años de expansión de la agenda corporativa progresista. Las palabras de Fink adquieren una relevancia particular dentro del sistema financiero global. Desde la conducción de BlackRock , cualquier modificación estratégica suele tener un efecto dominó sobre otras instituciones financieras  y grandes inversores institucionales, que tienden a replicar estas orientaciones. Entrevista con fox News En términos prácticos, el movimiento marca el inicio de una nueva etapa en el capitalismo contemporáneo . Un escenario en el que muchas empresas parecen comenzar a dejar atrás el énfasis ideológico que caracterizó al período anterior para recuperar un enfoque más clásico, donde el rendimiento económico vuelve a ocupar el centro de la escena. Este cambio de paradigma sugiere que el ciclo marcado por la expansión de la agenda «woke» dentro del ámbito corporativo está entrando en una fase distinta. Según la interpretación que se desprende de las declaraciones del propio Fink, el criterio dominante vuelve a ser la creación de valor tangible , un giro que, para muchos analistas, también expone la contradicción entre haber promovido durante años estas políticas y reconocer ahora públicamente su fracaso. Explicación sobre como funciona la "Agenda Woke" Fuentes: https://podcasts.apple.com/gm/podcast/exclusive-blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-on-ai-iran-and-china/id1451866593?i=1000754930625 https://elliberador.com/index.php/2026/03/30/blackrock-reconoce-que-la-agenda-woke-fue-un-experimento-mundial-fallido/ https://wallstmemes.com/news/stonks/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-calls-woke-era-a-failed-experiment-heres-5-esg-stocks-making-u-turns/ Owl Institute Fox News

Seguimiento en vivo.

El informe «State of AI Traffic» de HUMAN Security revela que los bots han superado a los usuarios humanos, ya que el tráfico automatizado crece ocho veces más rápido que la actividad humana. Imagen representativa de una granja de bots operada por personas El informe State of AI Traffic publicado el jueves por Human Security, una empresa de ciberseguridad, reveló que la inteligencia artificial y los bots han superado oficialmente a los usuarios humanos. «Internet en su conjunto se creó partiendo de la idea básica de que hay un ser humano al otro lado de la pantalla del ordenador, y esa idea está siendo sustituida muy rápidamente», declaró Stu Solomon, director ejecutivo de Human Security, a la CNBC. El tráfico automatizado, definido por Human Security como «el tráfico de Internet generado por sistemas de software (incluida la IA) en lugar de por usuarios humanos», ha aumentado rápidamente a medida que la gente sigue recurriendo a los chatbots de IA para resolver sus dudas cotidianas. Según el informe, ese tráfico automatizado en Internet creció casi ocho veces más rápido que la actividad humana en 2025. La proliferación de grandes modelos de lenguaje como ChatGPT de OpenAI, Claude de Anthropic y Gemini de Google ha jugado un papel importante en el tráfico de IA, que aumentó un 187 % de enero a diciembre de 2025, según el informe. «El tráfico generado por máquinas está sustituyendo de hecho a los humanos como la forma dominante de tráfico al otro lado de Internet», afirmó Solomon. El informe de Human se basó en datos de su producto Human Defense Platform, que, según la empresa, procesó más de un cuatrillón de interacciones entre sus clientes. Sin embargo, cuantificar la actividad automatizada en todo Internet puede plantear dificultades, ya que no existe una base de datos completa de interacciones. «Se puede intentar estimar la cantidad de tráfico de bots analizando las cadenas de los agentes, pero se trata de estimaciones muy imprecisas», explicó a la CNBC Filippo Menczer, profesor de Informática y Ciencias de la Computación en la Universidad de Indiana. «Dependen de la muestra que se obtenga. Dependen de dónde se obtengan los datos, de dónde procedan las mediciones», señaló Menczer. Las cadenas de agente de usuario son etiquetas propia de los rastreadores web. El informe de Human reconoce que, aunque utilizó cadenas de agente de usuario para identificar a los operadores de IA, «la fiabilidad de esa autoidentificación es una preocupación creciente». El informe también aborda el aumento en la actividad de agentes de agentes de IA como OpenClaw que realizan acciones de forma autónoma para un usuario. Mientras que el volumen de actividad de estos agentes en 2024 fue extremadamente bajo, Human Security observó que ese tráfico creció casi un 8000 % en 2025. El tráfico automatizado incluye funciones populares como la «Visión general» y el autocompletado de la IA de Google, y no es necesariamente malicioso. «Esta idea de que las máquinas son malas y los humanos buenos simplemente no es realista», afirmó Solomon. «Tenemos que vivir en un mundo en el que las máquinas actúan en nuestro nombre, y debemos establecer un nivel de confianza que se mantenga a lo largo del tiempo». Aunque el informe de Human Security no es exhaustivo, sirve como un punto de referencia significativo en la era de la IA en Internet. El sector ha seguido de cerca el aumento constante del tráfico automatizado desde el lanzamiento de ChatGPT en 2022. En la conferencia SXSW celebrada la semana pasada en Austin, el director ejecutivo de Cloudflare , Matthew Prince , afirmó que, antes de la era de la IA generativa , el tráfico de bots representaba alrededor del 20 % del tráfico de Internet, y que este se debía principalmente al rastreador web de Google. Prince pronosticó que los bots de IA superarían al tráfico humano en 2027, citando «el auge de la IA generativa y su insaciable necesidad de datos».

Mientras la administración Trump sigue bombardeando Irán, un alto cargo del Pentágono reveló que las guerras de EE. UU. en el hemisferio occidental también se están ampliando, dando a conocer una iniciativa denominada «Operación Exterminio Total». Los ataques contra los cárteles de la droga latinoamericanos son «solo el principio», declaró Joseph Humire, subsecretario interino de Defensa para la Defensa Nacional y Asuntos de Seguridad de las Américas, ante los miembros del Comité de Servicios Armados de la Cámara de Representantes la semana pasada. Humire indicó que se avecinan muchos más ataques en América Latina. Los comentarios se produjeron un día después de que el presidente Donald Trump volviera a insinuar la anexión estadounidense de Cuba. «Creo que tendré el honor de… tener el honor de tomar Cuba», dijo Trump la semana pasada. «Ya sea que la libere o la tome, creo que puedo hacer lo que quiera con ella». Humire anunció que el Departamento de Defensa apoyaba «acciones cinéticas bilaterales contra objetivos de los cárteles a lo largo de la frontera entre Colombia y Ecuador» —término utilizado por el Pentágono para referirse a los ataques del 3 de marzo contra «organizaciones terroristas designadas» no identificadas, de los que ya informó The Intercept—. «La operación conjunta, denominada “Operación Exterminio Total”, es el inicio de una ofensiva militar de Ecuador contra organizaciones criminales transnacionales con el apoyo de EE. UU.», afirmó. La campaña conjunta de Estados Unidos y Ecuador ya se ha extendido a Colombia después de que, el 3 de marzo, una finca fuera bombardeada o alcanzada por un «efecto de rebote», lo que dejó una bomba sin detonar de 227 kg en la región fronteriza de Colombia. En respuesta a una solicitud de comentarios, el Comando Sur de Estados Unidos remitió a The Intercept a una declaración publicada en X por el Ministerio de Defensa de Ecuador en la que se confirmaba que la bomba había caído en Colombia. Humire se refirió a los ataques como «ataques terrestres conjuntos» y afirmó que Estados Unidos estaba proporcionando a Ecuador «capacidades que de otro modo no tendrían». Desde entonces, Estados Unidos ha llevado a cabo al menos un ataque más junto con Ecuador. «Sí, como ha dicho @POTUS, también estamos bombardeando a los narcoterroristas en tierra», escribió el autoproclamado secretario de Guerra, Pete Hegseth, en X el 6 de marzo, anunciando el nuevo ataque. Días más tarde, en un informe sobre poderes bélicos en el que se anunciaba la intervención de las fuerzas armadas estadounidenses en «hostilidades» en ese país, la Casa Blanca informó al Congreso de «la acción militar llevada a cabo el 6 de marzo de 2026 contra las instalaciones de narcoterroristas afiliados a una organización terrorista designada». Los ataques en Ecuador también forman parte de la Operación Southern Spear —y constituyen una ampliación de la misma—: la campaña ilegal del ejército estadounidense de ataques contra embarcaciones en el mar Caribe y el océano Pacífico oriental. Estados Unidos ha llevado a cabo 46 ataques desde septiembre de 2025, destruyendo 48 embarcaciones y matando a casi 160 civiles. El último ataque, perpetrado el 19 de marzo en el Pacífico, se cobró la vida de otras dos personas y dejó un superviviente. La Administración Trump afirma que las víctimas pertenecen al menos a uno de los 24 o más cárteles y bandas criminales contra los que, según afirma, está en guerra, pero se niega a nombrarlos. «Esta Administración apenas hace un gesto simbólico de respeto al derecho constitucional o internacional que rige el uso de la fuerza. Pero estas normas existen por una razón», afirmó Rebecca Ingber, exabogada del Departamento de Estado y actualmente profesora de Derecho en la Facultad de Derecho Cardozo de Nueva York. «Lanzarse a la guerra por los caprichos de un solo hombre es exactamente lo contrario de lo que exige la Constitución». El general Francis Donovan, comandante del SOUTHCOM, dijo a los legisladores la semana pasada que «los ataques a embarcaciones no son la solución», pero insinuó una campaña aún mayor. «Lo que estamos preparando en este momento podría ser una extensión de Southern Spear, pero en realidad es un proceso de campaña contra los cárteles que genera una fricción sistémica total en toda esta red», declaró ante los miembros del Comité de Servicios Armados del Senado. «Creo que estos ataques cinéticos [con lanchas] son solo una pequeña parte de eso». Humire no pudo precisar cuántos ataques terrestres se estaban llevando a cabo en casi 20 países de América Latina y el Caribe. «No tengo una cifra exacta», respondió a una pregunta. Pero cuando el representante Adam Smith, demócrata por Washington y miembro de mayor rango del Comité de Servicios Armados de la Cámara de Representantes, le preguntó si el Departamento de Defensa «pasaría a realizar muchos más ataques terrestres», Humire respondió: «Sí, señor miembro de mayor rango». La Secretaría de Guerra no respondió a una solicitud para aclarar cuál podría ser la magnitud de ese aumento. Humire afirmó que la campaña entre Estados Unidos y Ecuador estaba «marcando el ritmo de las operaciones regionales centradas en la disuasión contra la infraestructura de los cárteles en toda América Latina y el Caribe». La palabra «disuasión» se ha convertido en un eufemismo popular del Pentágono para referirse al uso de ataques letales, en contraste con los esfuerzos anteriores del Gobierno de EE. UU. por movilizar medios económicos, diplomáticos y militares para convencer a los adversarios de que abandonaran una línea de actuación específica. «La disuasión tiene un efecto disuasorio sobre los narcoterroristas y aumenta los riesgos de sus movimientos», afirmó Humire. Joseph Humire, en funciones de subsecretario de Defensa para la Defensa Nacional y Asuntos de Seguridad de las Américas, Oficina del Secretario de Defensa, hablando en una audiencia del Comité de Servicios Armados de la Cámara de Representantes en el Capitolio de EE. UU. en Washington, D.C. (Foto de Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA) (Sipa vía AP Images) Joseph Humire, subsecretario interino de Defensa para la Defensa Nacional y Asuntos de Seguridad de las Américas, hablando en una audiencia del Comité de Servicios Armados de la Cámara de Representantes en Washington, D.C., el 17 de marzo de 2026. Foto: Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA vía AP Images En enero, Estados Unidos atacó Venezuela y secuestró al presidente del país, Nicolás Maduro. Ahora gobierna el país a través de un régimen títere. Según se informa, los fiscales federales han redactado una acusación penal contra la presidenta interina de Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, amenazándola con cargos de corrupción y blanqueo de capitales si no sigue cumpliendo las órdenes de la Administración Trump. Trump también insinuó recientemente la posibilidad de convertir a Venezuela en el estado número 51 de Estados Unidos. Según se informa, la administración Trump está llevando a cabo una operación de cambio de régimen en Cuba, intentando derrocar al presidente Miguel Díaz-Canel como requisito para las negociaciones entre EE. UU. y esa nación insular. Se dice que los funcionarios estadounidenses favorecen a Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, nieto de Raúl Castro, de 94 años, el expresidente cubano y hermano de Fidel, líder de Cuba de 1959 a 2008. Díaz-Canel se refirió a los planes de EE. UU. de «apoderarse del país» en X el martes por la noche y afirmó que EE. UU. se encontraría con una «resistencia inexpugnable». «Tengo a Cuba bajo control», declaró Trump recientemente, señalando que su costosa guerra para el cambio de régimen en Oriente Medio tiene prioridad en este momento. «Vamos a ocuparnos de Irán antes que de Cuba». Trump impuso un bloqueo petrolero a Cuba en enero, sumiendo al país en una crisis humanitaria. La red eléctrica nacional de la isla ya se ha colapsado tres veces este mes, con un apagón que duró más de 29 horas. Los expertos en derechos humanos de la ONU han condenado el bloqueo de combustible de Trump a Cuba como «una seria violación al derecho internacional y una grace amenaza al orden democratico internacional." Trump, quien ha hablado en repetidas ocasiones de «tomar» Cuba, es el último de una larga lista de presidentes estadounidenses que han intentado derrocar al Gobierno cubano. Durante la Guerra Fría, la CIA lanzó la desastrosa invasión de Bahía de Cochinos en 1961. La agencia también intentó asesinar a Fidel Castro al menos en ocho ocasiones. Estados Unidos también llevó a cabo una campaña encubierta de bombardeos contra ingenios azucareros cubanos y quema de campos de caña, entre otros actos de sabotaje. A raíz de la debacle de Bahía de Cochinos, el Pentágono preparó planes de alto secreto para allanar el camino hacia un ataque contra la isla. En la primavera de 1962, el Estado Mayor Conjunto distribuyó un memorándum de alto secreto titulado «Justificación de la intervención militar estadounidense en Cuba». En él se describían numerosas operaciones de bandera falsa que podrían emplearse para justificar una invasión estadounidense, incluido un complot para «hundir un barco cargado de refugiados cubanos (reales o simulados)» e incluso escenificar un incidente moderno al estilo del «Remember the Maine» haciendo estallar un barco estadounidense en aguas cubanas y culpando a Cuba del incidente. Otros planes estadounidenses para acciones encubiertas en la isla daban prioridad específica al ataque a la red eléctrica de Cuba. Cuando se le preguntó si el Estado Mayor Conjunto estaba involucrado en acciones análogas en la actualidad, la portavoz, la comandante Annabel Monroe, remitió a The Intercept al Comando Sur, que a su vez remitió a The Intercept al Departamento de Estado, el cual no respondió a una solicitud de comentarios. Humire afirmó que el Departamento de Guerra estaba «centrado actualmente en operaciones de disuasión dirigidas por los socios», pero no descartó la posibilidad de ataques unilaterales de EE. UU. en toda América Latina. Señaló que, además de Ecuador, EE. UU. había firmado acuerdos con 17 países socios del hemisferio occidental, en el marco de la denominada Coalición de las Américas contra los Cárteles. Este organismo internacional, anunciado oficialmente por Trump en su cumbre «Escudo de las Américas» a principios de este mes, se centrará en «operaciones bilaterales y multilaterales contra los cárteles y las organizaciones terroristas». Se le preguntó a Humire si alguna de las 18 naciones estaba preocupada por cuestiones de soberanía en relación con la posibilidad de que Estados Unidos llevara a cabo ataques en sus países. «Los miembros de la coalición firmaron específicamente una declaración conjunta de seguridad en la que mencionan que desean este apoyo y la mayoría de ellos lo están buscando», respondió. Pero la escueta declaración que firmaron es sorprendentemente vaga y ofrece poca información de fondo sobre el tema. Humire indicó que Estados Unidos había utilizado la diplomacia de las cañoneras en Venezuela para presionar a Cuba y ayudar a «lograr el cumplimiento de Nicaragua», así como para «orientar al Caribe en una dirección favorable a los intereses estadounidenses». Las recientes filtraciones oficiales sobre la posible acusación de Estados Unidos contra el presidente colombiano Gustavo Petro por delitos relacionados con el narcotráfico —el motivo oficial del secuestro de Maduro y el medio que, según se informa, se utilizó para mantener a raya a su sucesor, Rodríguez— sugieren que Estados Unidos podría emplear esa táctica como moneda de cambio o como un eventual pretexto para una acción militar. (Petro ha negado tener vínculos con narcotraficantes.) «Parece que Petro podría estar en la cuerda floja», declaró a The Intercept un exfuncionario de Defensa, que habló bajo condición de anonimato debido a su empleo actual. La fuente afirmó que las filtraciones sobre la posible acusación contra Petro, junto con el ataque estadounidense-ecuatoriano, que ha avivado las tensiones a lo largo de la frontera entre las naciones sudamericanas, se asemejan cada vez más a una campaña coordinada para fomentar la «discordia», si no el conflicto. Cuando se le preguntó en enero sobre atacar a Colombia, Trump respondió: «Me parece bien». Los ataques estadounidenses en la frontera entre Colombia y Ecuador se producen después de que Estados Unidos haya establecido recientemente una «presencia permanente del FBI en Ecuador», a la que se suman agentes de la Administración para el Control de Drogas de Estados Unidos y del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional. Justo antes de que Estados Unidos iniciara los ataques en la frontera entre Ecuador y Colombia, Donovan viajó a Quito, la capital de Ecuador, para reunirse con el presidente Daniel Noboa y altos cargos de la defensa ecuatoriana. El pasado agosto, el teniente coronel Phillip Vaughn —comandante de un Grupo de Tareas Expedicionario encargado de supervisar las operaciones especiales de la Fuerza Aérea en el Caribe y Sudamérica— coordinó una serie de reuniones para aumentar la «interoperabilidad entre las fuerzas estadounidenses y ecuatorianas» con el fin de «combatir a los actores ilícitos que operan a lo largo de la frontera norte de Ecuador» con Colombia, incluyendo «escenarios de planificación operativa y la ejecución de procedimientos de apoyo aéreo cercano», y «múltiples temas sobre el apoyo del Controlador Conjunto de Ataque Terminal», lo cual se refiere a la selección de objetivos y los ataques aéreos. La ofensiva estadounidense en el hemisferio occidental forma parte de lo que Trump y otros han denominado la «Doctrina Donroe»: una tergiversación de la Doctrina Monroe de 1823. Mientras que la política del presidente James Monroe buscaba impedir que Europa colonizara y se entrometiera en el hemisferio occidental, Trump ha esgrimido su variante como una licencia para que Estados Unidos haga precisamente eso. La Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional, publicada a finales del año pasado, define el «Corolario Trump» a la Doctrina Monroe como una «potente restauración del poder y las prioridades estadounidenses», basada en el «reajuste de nuestra presencia militar global para hacer frente a las amenazas urgentes en nuestro hemisferio». Humire definió el «perímetro de seguridad inmediato de Estados Unidos» como «desde Alaska hasta Groenlandia en el Ártico, pasando por el Golfo de América, el Canal de Panamá y los países circundantes». Trump también ha amenazado con anexionar Groenlandia (y posiblemente Islandia), convertir Canadá en un estado de EE. UU. y llevar a cabo ataques militares en México. Humire también detalló los esfuerzos para presionar a Panamá a fin de que rompa sus lazos con China y así garantizar el acceso al canal de propiedad panameña, al que, no obstante, calificó de «activo nacional» de EE. UU. Además de sus guerras en el hemisferio occidental, Trump también ha lanzado ataques contra Irán, Irak, Nigeria, Somalia, Siria y Yemen durante su segundo mandato —la mayoría de ellos escenarios de conflictos estadounidenses durante la guerra contra el terrorismo. Smith, miembro destacado del Comité de Servicios Armados de la Cámara de Representantes, le dijo a Humire que las guerras de Trump en las Américas también parecían estar transformándose en un nuevo «conflicto eterno» sin un objetivo claro ni un «punto final». Cuando se le preguntó qué «nivel de logros» sería necesario para «detener la acción cinética», Humire respondió con un torrente de palabras sobre seguridad fronteriza, terrorismo y cárteles. Cuando Smith le interrumpió para aclarar si los ataques contra embarcaciones continuarían sin cesar, Humire respondió de forma confusa: «No, correcto». Fuentes: https://www.armedservices.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/donovan_opening_statement1.pdf https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ptdo_asw_hdasa_writen_posture_statement.pdf

El experto en operaciones psicológicas Chase Hughes explica cómo la CIA recluta a personas influyentes, describiendo un proceso paso a paso. Afirma que todo comienza con una presión abrumadora, en la que se confronta a la persona con su historial de navegación e incluso con material privado y comprometedor. Luego viene el giro decisivo: elogios, protección y una oferta lucrativa, que a veces alcanza los 20 000 dólares al mes. Hughes sostiene que la clave está en hacer que el objetivo sienta que ha sido su elección desde el principio. Aunque se les presiona discretamente para que censuren a los invitados, eviten ciertos temas o adapten su contenido, se convencen a sí mismos de que está justificado y es por el bien común. No cabe duda que "trabajar" en internet puede ser ya en estos tiempos algo que conlleva ciertos "riesgos".

Aunque la iniciativa de big data del ejército estadounidense Maven ha acelerado la planificación de ataques durante años, los comentarios sugieren que la IA generativa ahora está agregando una nueva capa interpretativa a tales deliberaciones. Según un funcionario del Departamento de Defensa con conocimiento del asunto y que hablo con un reportero del medio "MIT Technology Review" y que retomo en esta publicación, el ejército estadounidense podría utilizar sistemas de IA generativa para clasificar listas de objetivos y formular recomendaciones —que serían revisadas por personas— sobre cuáles atacar en primer lugar. La revelación sobre cómo el ejército podría utilizar los chatbots de IA se produce en un momento en que el Pentágono se enfrenta a un escrutinio por un ataque contra una escuela iraní, que aún está investigando. Se podría introducir una lista de posibles objetivos en un sistema de IA generativa que el Pentágono está poniendo a punto para entornos clasificados. A continuación, según explicó el funcionario —que pidió hablar de forma extraoficial con un periodista de el medio "MIT Technology Review" para tratar temas delicados—, los humanos podrían pedir al sistema que analizara la información y priorizara los objetivos, teniendo en cuenta factores como la ubicación actual de las aeronaves. Los humanos se encargarían entonces de verificar y evaluar los resultados y las recomendaciones. ChatGPT, de OpenAI, y Grok, de xAI, podrían, en teoría, ser los modelos utilizados para este tipo de escenarios en el futuro, ya que ambas empresas han llegado recientemente a acuerdos para que el Pentágono utilice sus modelos en entornos clasificados. El funcionario describió esto como un ejemplo de cómo podrían funcionar las cosas, pero no confirmó ni desmintió que esto refleje el uso actual de los sistemas de inteligencia artificial. Otros medios han informado que Claude de Anthropic se ha integrado en los sistemas militares de IA existentes y se ha utilizado en operaciones en Irán y Venezuela , pero los comentarios del funcionario añaden información sobre el papel específico que pueden desempeñar los chatbots, especialmente a la hora de acelerar la búsqueda de objetivos. También arrojan luz sobre la forma en que el ejército está utilizando dos tecnologías de IA diferentes, cada una con sus propias limitaciones. Desde al menos 2017, el ejército estadounidense lleva trabajando en una iniciativa de «big data» denominada Maven. Esta iniciativa utiliza tipos de IA más antiguos, en particular la visión artificial, para analizar los ingentes volúmenes de datos e imágenes recopilados por el Pentágono. Maven puede, por ejemplo, procesar miles de horas de grabaciones aéreas tomadas por drones e identificar objetivos mediante algoritmos. Un informe de 2024 de la Universidad de Georgetown mostraba a soldados utilizando el sistema para seleccionar objetivos y evaluarlos, lo que agilizaba el proceso de obtención de la autorización para atacar dichos objetivos. Los soldados interactuaban con Maven a través de una interfaz con un mapa del campo de batalla y un panel de control, que podía resaltar los objetivos potenciales en un color y las fuerzas amigas en otro. Las declaraciones del responsable indican que la IA generativa se está incorporando ahora como una capa de chatbot conversacional, que el ejército podría utilizar para localizar y analizar datos con mayor rapidez a la hora de tomar decisiones, como por ejemplo a qué objetivos dar prioridad. Los sistemas de IA generativa, como los que sustentan ChatGPT, Claude y Grok, son una tecnología fundamentalmente diferente de la IA que ha impulsado principalmente a Maven. Basados en grandes modelos de lenguaje, están mucho menos probados en la práctica. Y mientras que la interfaz de Maven obligaba a los usuarios a examinar e interpretar directamente los datos en el mapa, los resultados generados por los modelos de IA generativa son más fáciles de consultar, pero más difíciles de verificar. El uso de la IA generativa para este tipo de decisiones está reduciendo el tiempo necesario en el proceso de selección de objetivos, añadió el funcionario, quien no proporcionó detalles cuando se le preguntó cuánta rapidez adicional se podría lograr si se exigiera a los humanos dedicar tiempo a verificar los resultados de un modelo. El uso de sistemas de IA militares está siendo objeto de un creciente escrutinio público tras el reciente ataque contra una escuela de niñas en Irán, en el que murieron más de 100 niñas. Varios medios de comunicación han informado de que el ataque se llevó a cabo con un misil estadounidense, aunque el Pentágono ha afirmado que aún se está investigando. Y aunque el Washington Post ha informado que Claude y Maven han participado en las decisiones sobre los objetivos en Irán, todavía no hay pruebas que expliquen qué papel desempeñaron, si es que desempeñaron alguno, los sistemas de IA generativa. El New York Times informó el miércoles de que una investigación preliminar había concluido que los datos de selección de objetivos obsoletos eran en parte responsables del ataque. En los últimos meses, el Pentágono ha intensificado el uso de la inteligencia artificial en todas sus operaciones. Ya en diciembre, a través de una iniciativa denominada GenAI.mil , comenzó a ofrecer a millones de miembros de las Fuerzas Armadas el uso no clasificado de modelos de IA generativa para tareas como el análisis de contratos o la redacción de presentaciones. Sin embargo, el Pentágono solo ha aprobado unos pocos modelos de IA generativa para uso clasificado. El primero fue «Claude», de Anthropic, que, además de su uso en Irán, según se informa, se utilizó en las operaciones para capturar al líder venezolano Nicolás Maduro en enero. Sin embargo, tras los recientes desacuerdos entre el Pentágono y Anthropic sobre si esta última podía restringir el uso militar de su IA, el Departamento de Defensa calificó a la empresa como un riesgo para la cadena de suministro y el presidente Trump exigió en las redes sociales que el Gobierno dejara de utilizar sus productos de IA en un plazo de seis meses. Anthropic está impugnando dicha designación ante los tribunales. OpenAI anunció un acuerdo el 28 de febrero un acuerdo para que el ejército utilice sus tecnologías en entornos clasificados. La empresa de Elon Musk, xAI, também ha llegado a un acuerdo para que el Pentágono utilice su modelo Grok en dichos entornos. OpenAI ha señalado que su acuerdo con el Pentágono incluye restricciones, aunque la efectividad práctica de esas limitaciones no está clara. Las opiniones expresadas en esta publicación son propias de los autores y no reflejan necesariamente la posición del autor de este blog; este blog proporciona una plataforma neutral y no partidista para aprender a hacer análisis diversos. Reconoce cómo las diversas perspectivas impactan en los análisis diversos, sin necesariamente respaldarlos. Fuente: https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/03/12/1134243/defense-official-military-use-ai-chatbots-targeting-decisions/

Cinco días después: Analisis la guerra de Irán de 2026 El humo se eleva sobre el horizonte de Teherán, el 5 de marzo de 2026. Cinco días después de la campaña militar entre Estados Unidos e Israel contra Irán, esta evaluación establece una serie de observaciones sobre la dinámica de la escalada ahora visible en el conflicto. Estas no son predicciones. Son observaciones sobre la estructura: sobre los mecanismos a través de los cuales las campañas militares llevadas a cabo sin puntos finales políticos claros tienden a superar los objetivos que los lanzaron, y sobre por qué el conflicto actual es particularmente susceptible a ese patrón. Un marco práctico instructivo es la doctrina de Weinberger-Powell , que surgió de la experiencia de los Estados Unidos en Vietnam como un conjunto de condiciones que la fuerza militar debe satisfacer antes del compromiso: objetivos políticos claramente definidos, un plan creíble para la terminación y una comprensión clara del orden político que sigue al éxito militar. La Guerra del Golfo de 1991 sigue siendo el ejemplo más claro de las condiciones que se cumplen. El objetivo era específico y limitado: el restablecimiento de la soberanía kuwaití. La fuerza era proporcional, y George H.W. La decisión de Bush de detenerse en la frontera de Kuwait y retirarse refleja una elección deliberada para mantener la lógica militar subordinada a la dirección política en todo momento. La campaña terminó con Kuwait liberado, las fuerzas iraquíes expulsadas y las fuerzas estadounidenses a casa en cuestión de meses. Fue autorizado tanto por el Consejo de Seguridad  de la ONU  como por el Congreso de  los Estados Unidos , produciendo la durabilidad política que hizo posible la terminación controlada. La campaña actual no satisface ninguna de esas condiciones, y las justificaciones declaradas hacen que esto sea inusualmente visible. En los días posteriores a los ataques del 28 de febrero, la administración Trump ofreció al menos seis razones distintas: eliminar las amenazas inminentes a las fuerzas y aliados estadounidenses; evitar que Irán desarrolle misiles de largo alcance capaces de llegar a la patria estadounidense; negarle a Irán un arma nuclear; adelantar los ataques iraníes que Rubio dijo que habrían seguido un ataque israelí independientemente; respondiendo a lo que Trump reenfocó más tarde como un primer ataque iraní que nunca se materializó; y el cambio de régimen. Cada justificación tiene diferentes implicaciones para cómo sería el éxito militar y cuándo podrían terminar las operaciones. Varios están en contradicción directa. Trump había declarado que  el programa nuclear de Irán era “totalmente borrado”  en junio de 2025; ocho meses después siguió siendo el casus belli central, a pesar de que Rubio  confirmó simultáneamente que Irán no estaba enriqueciendo uranio. La propia Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa del Pentágono evaluó en 2025 que Irán estaba al menos una década desde la producción de misiles balísticos intercontinentales capaces de llegar a los Estados Unidos, contradiciendo directamente las afirmaciones públicas de Trump. Horas antes de que comenzaran las huelgas, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Omán declaró que las negociaciones diplomáticas habían alcanzado un “avance”  y que un acuerdo estaba “al alcance”. Los objetivos del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, el gobierno israelí y la lógica operativa del ejército estadounidense no son idénticos. El panorama general no es de una campaña lanzada hacia un objetivo definido, sino de justificaciones reunidas en torno a una decisión ya tomada. Lo que hace inestable la situación actual no es un solo desarrollo, sino el número de mecanismos de escalada que se han activado simultáneamente. Varios de los procesos más asociados con la expansión incontrolada de los conflictos ya son visibles: compromisos de alianza que corren el riesgo de atraer a estados adicionales al conflicto; relaciones de disuasión nuclear que operan bajo plazos comprimidos; puntos de estrangulamiento de energía cuya interrupción tiene consecuencias económicas globales; redes proxy capaces de ampliar el campo de batalla sin declaraciones formales de guerra; y mecanismos financieros, como la retirada de seguros marítimos, que pueden cerrar corredores estratégicos más rápido que la acción militar. Cada uno de estos mecanismos funciona de acuerdo a su propia lógica interna. Cuando se activan simultáneamente, interactúan de manera difícil de manejar el liderazgo político en tiempo real. El resultado es un entorno estratégico en el que la escalada no depende principalmente de decisiones deliberadas para ampliar la guerra, sino de la presión acumulativa creada por múltiples sistemas que se mueven a la vez. Esta es la condición que la crisis de julio de 1914 ilumina con mayor precisión. La lección central de esa crisis no se refiere a las estructuras de alianzas o los calendarios de movilización. Se refiere a la relación entre los objetivos políticos y la lógica militar: específicamente, lo que sucede cuando los primeros son poco claros o múltiples y el segundo ya está en marcha. Austria-Hungría entró en la crisis con un objetivo limitado: castigar a Serbia por el asesinato del archiduque Francisco Fernando y, al hacerlo, reafirmar su autoridad sobre los Balcanes antes de que el prestigio de los Habsburgo se deteriorara aún más. Los mecanismos que puso en marcha, incluidas las obligaciones de la alianza, las cascadas de movilización y el error de cálculo sistemático sobre las respuestas de otros actores, produjeron resultados que tenían poca relación con esa intención. En seis semanas, una campaña punitiva bilateral se había convertido en una guerra continental que involucraba a todas las grandes potencias europeas. En 1918, el Imperio austro-húngaro había dejado de existir por completo, disuelto en estados sucesores por el acuerdo de paz que había tratado de evitar a través de la acción en el verano de 1914. La pregunta que plantea la crisis de julio no es quién deseaba una guerra europea general, sino qué mecanismos eran capaces de producir una más rápido de lo que los actores políticos podrían intervenir para prevenirla. Esa pregunta es directamente relevante aquí, y lo que la hace particularmente aguda es la geografía. La guerra se está desarrollando a través de lo que  Nicholas Spykman describió como el Rimland euroasiático: el arco de los estados que se extienden desde el Mediterráneo oriental a través del Golfo Pérsico y el sur de Asia hasta el este de Asia, donde la tierra y el poder del mar se cruzan, las rutas comerciales se concentran y los mecanismos de la competencia de grandes potencias son muy densamente activos. El Heartland, el interior continental de Eurasia que abarca Rusia, Asia Central y el núcleo de China, es comparativamente autosuficiente, sin salida al mar y difícil de penetrar para las potencias externas. El Rimland, por el contrario, está estructuralmente expuesto y es estratégicamente decisivo. Spykman afirmó que quien puede dominar o desestabilizar ese arco da forma al equilibrio de poder en todo el sistema internacional. El conflicto actual (y su consecuencia) se está desarrollando casi en su totalidad a lo largo de este cinturón. Los acontecimientos recientes ilustran la rapidez con la que la presión puede propagarse a través de él, incluido el hundimiento reportado del IRIS Dena , el buque de guerra más capaz de Irán, por un submarino estadounidense frente a la costa de Sri Lanka, la primera muerte de submarinos estadounidenses  desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial y la creciente vulnerabilidad de las líneas de vida de energía marítima de China. La dependencia de las economías importadoras de energía más al este de las rutas de suministro del Golfo amplifica aún más la sensibilidad del sistema a la interrupción. Japón obtiene aproximadamente el 95 por ciento  de su crudo de Oriente Medio. Corea del Sur extrae alrededor del 70 por ciento  de su crudo y el 20 por ciento  de su GNL del mismo corredor, mientras que Taiwán todavía importa aproximadamente un tercio  de su GNL de Qatar solo, dejando a su sector de semiconductores expuesto a interrupciones sostenidas.     Figura 1: El Rimland: Puntos De Presión Contemporáneos   La densidad de los mecanismos interconectados a lo largo de la Rimland significa que la presión aplicada en un punto de este arco puede transmitir rápidamente a través de otros: un marco dinámico de Spykman anticipado y que el conflicto actual está comenzando a revelar. El 4 de marzo, las defensas aéreas  de la OTAN interceptaron  un misil balístico iraní que se dirigía hacia el espacio aéreo turco. En términos formales se ha cumplido el umbral del artículo 5; no se ha tomado la decisión política de tratarlo como tal. Turquía es simultáneamente un miembro de la OTAN cuyos sistemas están interceptando municiones iraníes y un gobierno que ha declarado su territorio no disponible para operaciones contra Irán, una contradicción que requerirá resolución. Si el Artículo 5 se activa formalmente, una campaña bilateral entre Estados Unidos e Israel se convierte en una operación de defensa colectiva de 32 miembros con implicaciones de escalada que se extienden mucho más allá del teatro inmediato. Pakistán presenta el actor más complejo del conflicto. Ha invocado públicamente su Acuerdo de Defensa Mutua Estratégica con Arabia Saudita, firmado en septiembre de 2025, bajo el cual la agresión contra una de las partes se trata como una agresión contra ambas, mientras que simultáneamente sirve como el principal intermediario diplomático entre Teherán y Riad, transmitiendo garantías saudíes a Irán y reclamando crédito por moderar los ataques iraníes en el reino. Es el garante nuclear y el canal de fondo simultáneamente, un doble papel que es estructuralmente inestable si el canal diplomático falla. Pakistán está simultáneamente involucrado en una confrontación militar abierta con los talibanes en su frontera afgana, administrando los disturbios sectarios en Gilgit-Baltistán que han dejado al menos 20 manifestantes pro Irán  muertos y coordinando la evacuación de aproximadamente 35.000 ciudadanos varados en Irán. Ningún estado con armas nucleares en el entorno actual está operando bajo una presión concurrente comparable en estos muchos frentes de crisis distintos. La dimensión India-Pakistán lo agrava. El alto el fuego de mayo de 2025, obstinadamente estabilizado a través de la intervención directa de Estados Unidos, ahora opera sin ese respaldo externo, que es consumido por completo por Irán. Ambos estados poseen arsenales nucleares estimados en aproximadamente 160-170 ojivas . La doctrina de Pakistán reserva explícitamente el uso nuclear táctico para compensar la superioridad convencional india y no conlleva ningún compromiso de no primer uso. Esta asimetría doctrinal significa que los incidentes que podrían permanecer limitados en otros lugares, incluidos los ataques militantes, los ataques aéreos mal calculados y los intercambios de la Línea de Control, conllevan un potencial de escalada sustancialmente mayor entre estos dos estados que entre la mayoría de los otros pares con armas nucleares. La posición de China merece especial atención. Aproximadamente el cuarenta por ciento  de las importaciones de petróleo chino transitan por el Estrecho de Ormuz; China compró más del ochenta  por ciento de las exportaciones de petróleo iraní en 2025. El cierre de Ormuz se ha logrado no a través de la interdicción física sino a través de  la retirada de  los mercados de seguros marítimos , un mecanismo que elude tanto las herramientas militares como la arquitectura de sanciones que las potencias externas normalmente desplegarían para gestionar una crisis marítima, y que opera más rápido que cualquiera de los dos. El análisis de energía de Goldman Sachs  y Wood Mackenzie identifica un umbral de cierre de dos semanas, cayendo alrededor del 14 de marzo, en el que los precios del petróleo alcanzan los $ 100 a 120 por barril y el riesgo de recesión global se convierte en material. China ha enviado un enviado diplomático, actualmente la única señal de desescalada inequívoca en el entorno internacional. Si el cierre persiste, Beijing se enfrenta a un binario estructural: aceptar el continuo apalancamiento naval de Estados Unidos sobre su suministro de energía, o responder materialmente. Las formas que podría tomar la respuesta, incluidas las transferencias de armas, las escoltas navales y el apalancamiento económico, conllevan distintas implicaciones de escalada en una situación que ya está bajo presión desde múltiples direcciones.   La ausencia de Rusia del panorama diplomático activo es en sí misma una señal. Moscú se beneficia estructuralmente del conflicto: los altos precios del petróleo, la distracción de la OTAN y el capital político estadounidense consumido lejos de Europa. No ha hecho ningún movimiento hacia la distensión y no tiene ningún incentivo. El país más capaz de restringir a Irán es también el país con la menor razón para hacerlo. Los estados del Golfo se enfrentan a sus propias presiones estructurales. Bahréin alberga la Quinta Flota de Estados Unidos y tiene una población de mayoría chiíta; los ataques iraníes ya han llegado a la isla. La preferencia de Arabia Saudita no es por el colapso iraní, sino por un estado debilitado que permanece intacto territorialmente, ya que el colapso produciría flujos de refugiados, fragmentación de la milicia y posible pérdida de control sobre la infraestructura militar sensible en su frontera norte. La exposición de los Emiratos Árabes Unidos es diferente pero igualmente aguda: la función de Dubai como centro financiero y logístico de la región depende de una estabilidad que ahora se está desconectando visiblemente. La amenaza simultánea de los hutíes de reanudar los ataques en el Mar Rojo no es un desarrollo separado. Es Irán demostrando que incluso bajo ataque directo conserva la capacidad de poder para amenazar la infraestructura económica del Golfo.   Ninguno de estos mecanismos garantiza una escalada. Cada uno es, sin embargo, un mecanismo del tipo que identifica la literatura de Crisis de Julio: procesos capaces de moverse más rápido de lo que los sistemas políticos pueden manejar, particularmente cuando los objetivos políticos no están claros, las operaciones militares se están acelerando y los actores involucrados están operando con objetivos divergentes e información incompleta sobre las intenciones de los demás. Colin Powell advirtió  al presidente Bush antes de la invasión de Irak de 2003 con lo que  se conoció como el gobierno de Pottery Barn: lo rompes, lo posees. Su preocupación no era si Estados Unidos podía derrotar al ejército de Saddam Hussein, sino si alguien había modelado el orden político que tendría que existir la mañana siguiente, y qué llenaría el vacío si no lo hiciera. ¿Y luego qué?  Esta pregunta no fue respondida adecuadamente en 2003. Tampoco fue claramente respondida antes del primer ataque contra Irán. Los mecanismos que ahora están en movimiento están comenzando a proporcionar su propia respuesta. Postscript, 6 de marzo de 2026 Los desarrollos nocturnos están confirmando las advertencias centrales del ensayo: China ha ordenado a sus refinerías más grandes que suspendan la mayoría de las exportaciones de productos de petróleo y gas. Según los informes, Irán golpeó Azerbaiyán por disparos de aviones no tripulados, lo que indica que Teherán está ampliando su envoltura geográficamente, hacia el norte en el Cáucaso Sur. El senador Mark Warner, miembro del Comité de Inteligencia con acceso directo a la información, dice que el presidente del Congreso, Trump , no  tiene un plan de “fase dos”.      El Centro Árabe Washington DC (ACW) pidió a sus becarios y expertos que proporcionaran sus perspectivas sobre el actual conflicto entre Estados Unidos e Israel e Irán. La legalidad de atacar a Irán Susan M. Akram, miembro no residente de ACW; profesor, Universidad de Boston Los ataques entre Estados Unidos e Israel contra Irán no pueden justificarse legalmente bajo ninguna teoría de las leyes de la guerra. Todos los miembros de las Naciones Unidas están prohibidos por el Artículo 2(4) de la Carta de la ONU de amenazar o usar la fuerza contra el territorio o la independencia de otro Estado. En virtud de la Carta, sólo el Consejo de Seguridad tiene la autoridad para desencadenar el uso de la fuerza contra un Estado miembro si ese Estado ha violado la paz internacional. La única excepción a esto está en virtud del artículo 51, que permite el uso de la fuerza en defensa propia, pero sólo en respuesta a un ataque armado. Si un Estado puede atacar a otro porque cree que será atacado ha sido fuertemente debatido, pero lo que está claro es que el derecho internacional no justifica atacar a otro país por ninguna de las razones cambiantes que Estados Unidos ha sugerido para la guerra. Hasta ahora, estos son: cambiar el régimen; proteger a los ciudadanos iraníes de las atrocidades de su propio gobierno; poner fin al programa de misiles balísticos de Irán; o prevenir el desarrollo de supuestas armas nucleares para las que no hay evidencia creíble. Irán no ha atacado a Estados Unidos ni amenazado con hacerlo sin ser atacado primero. Por lo tanto, los Estados Unidos no pueden usar la defensa propia como una justificación legal para iniciar la guerra. Estados Unidos ha llevado a cabo un cambio de régimen en muchos países antes, incluyendo ayudar a derrocar al primer ministro iraní Mohammad Mossadegh en 1953. Sin embargo, ninguno de estos casos fue autorizado por la ONU, ya que el cambio de régimen no tiene base en el derecho internacional y no puede ser utilizado para justificar el uso de la fuerza. Proteger a los iraníes de las atrocidades masivas de manera similar carece de apoyo en la Carta de la ONU. En 2005, todos los Estados miembros de la ONU se comprometieron con un documento conocido como la Responsabilidad de Proteger (R2P), que afirmaba que la acción colectiva podría ser necesaria cuando los ciudadanos de un país se enfrentaban a atrocidades masivas a manos de su propio gobierno. Sin embargo, R2P fue un nuevo compromiso con la acción colectiva en virtud de la Carta de la ONU, no fuera de ella; cualquier intervención de este tipo todavía requeriría la autorización de la ONU. La supuesta amenaza de que Irán desarrollen armas nucleares ha sido desacreditada por los propios negociadores del acuerdo de Irán de 2015, la propia evaluación de 2025 de la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa de los Estados Unidos y las evaluaciones de los organismos de control nuclear internacionales. Al atacar a Irán, Estados Unidos e Israel atacaron una escuela, matando a más de 100 niños, y llevaron a cabo un asesinato extrajudicial del líder del país que, como civil, no es un objetivo legítimo en la guerra. El derecho internacional humanitario caracterizaría estos actos como crímenes de guerra. Si el conflicto continúa, es muy probable que Estados Unidos e Israel cometan más crímenes de guerra a menos que el Congreso actúe en su capacidad constitucional para detener la agresión del presidente Trump contra Irán. ¿La actual guerra contra Irán precipitará el cambio de régimen? Carlos W. Dunne, miembro senior no residente de ACW Cuando se le preguntó al presidente de los Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, antes de lanzar la guerra con Israel contra la República Islámica, sobre la posibilidad de un cambio de régimen, respondió: “Nadie sabe... Sería bueno si pudiéramos hacerlo sin [la fuerza militar]”. Su comentario fue la explicación más perspicaz de su administración hasta ahora de sus objetivos para la campaña militar entre Estados Unidos e Israel. Es difícil saber si el asesinato del líder supremo Ali Khamenei realmente resultará en un cambio de régimen, pero es probable que su muerte cause una grave inestabilidad en Irán. La falta de un plan aparente para la gobernanza posterior al régimen, incluida especialmente la ausencia de socios internacionales distintos de Israel, aumenta el riesgo de caos violento. Puro cambio de régimen militar, análogo al de George W. La intención profesada de la administración Bush de ir a la guerra en Irak en 2003, requeriría una invasión terrestre por la cual Estados Unidos no tiene apetito político, particularmente entre la base MAGA de Trump. La población de Irán supera los 90 millones y el terreno del país es extremadamente difícil de penetrar. La República Islámica tiene un aparato de seguridad altamente motivado que tiene la intención de su propia supervivencia, y su gente no ha demostrado ningún deseo particular de un salvador estadounidense para poner las cosas en manos de los derechos. Una invasión terrestre requeriría cientos de miles de tropas, costaría billones de dólares durante muchos años y se enfrentaría a una insurgencia que probablemente haría que la invasión posterior a 2003 en Irak se vea manejable. El régimen iraní logró sobrevivir a la devastación económica causada por las sanciones de Estados Unidos, las protestas del Movimiento Verde de 2009, nuevas protestas en 2019-2020 y el levantamiento de la Libertad de la Vida de la Mujer de 2022. Luego sobrevivió a grandes protestas contra el régimen en 2025 y principios de 2026, principalmente a través de la violencia estatal que mató a miles de ciudadanos iraníes. En pocas palabras, el gobierno de Irán es un objetivo difícil. A pesar de su impopularidad, la República Islámica no colapsará fácilmente. Los ataques contra los objetivos del régimen corren el riesgo de destripar la autoridad estatal y socavar su control, abriendo la posibilidad de una fuerte violencia dirigida contra los civiles en una sombría lucha para reafirmar la autoridad, así como la violencia entre los actores estatales armados que se esfuerzan por reclamar el poder. Si bien matar a Khamenei podría parecer a algunos en el Washington de Trump como un camino fácil hacia adelante, logra poco, excepto crear un vacío de poder que varias facciones armadas tratarán de llenar. El resultado más probable en el escenario actual es el gobierno militar, probablemente bajo el Cuerpo de la Guardia Revolucionaria Islámica, que no solo no resolvería los problemas de la administración Trump con Irán, sino que los empeoraría activamente. Las consecuencias no deseadas son la única certeza Amy Hawthorne, Editora de Publicaciones de ACW   Es probable que el asalto masivo militar entre Estados Unidos e Israel a Irán hiera gravemente, tal vez incluso de muerte, a la República Islámica, lo que provocó alegría de las muchas víctimas del régimen y una declaración típicamente hiperbólica de la victoria estadounidense del presidente Donald Trump. Pero al igual que las intervenciones militares estadounidenses anteriores en el Medio Oriente, cuyo “éxito” se apresuró a celebrar Washington, esta guerra producirá tarde o temprano graves consecuencias negativas no anticipadas por sus defensores. Algunos ejemplos pasados de este fenómeno incluyen: La invasión israelí del Líbano, respaldada por Estados Unidos en 1982, y el despliegue militar estadounidense asociado lograron la expulsión de la Organización de Liberación de Palestina, pero estimularon la creación de Hezbollah y la expansión de la influencia iraní. La liberación de Kuwait, liderada por Estados Unidos en 1991, inicialmente pareció confirmar a los Estados Unidos como el único hegemón global. Pero dentro de una década, esa guerra había contribuido al crecimiento de Al Qaeda y los ataques del 11 de septiembre de 2001, así como al surgimiento de un estado de vigilancia estadounidense que erosionó las libertades civiles de los estadounidenses. La Guerra del Golfo de 1990-91 también puso en marcha dinámicas regionales que llevaron a los Acuerdos de Oslo y al “proceso de paz” de Estados Unidos, cuyos defectos fundamentales finalmente beneficiaron a Hamas y a la derecha israelí y dejaron la perspectiva de la paz en Medio Oriente aún más distante. La invasión estadounidense de Irak en 2003 creó condiciones en las que surgió el llamado Estado Islámico y su reinado de terror, desestabilizando el Medio Oriente, proporcionando un pretexto para la mayor erosión de la democracia estadounidense, y ayudando indirectamente a Trump a ganar las elecciones de 2016. La insistencia de la administración Biden en armar incondicionalmente a Israel en su guerra contra Gaza después del 7 de octubre de 2023, asestó un duro golpe al llamado orden internacional liberal que Biden pretendía valorar, en el proceso que también destruyó la Franja, ayudando al regreso de Trump a la Casa Blanca y profundizando la división y la desconfianza entre el electorado estadounidense. La historia debería recordarnos que las consecuencias significativas no deseadas de las guerras de Medio Oriente lideradas y respaldadas por Estados Unidos no son la excepción sino la regla. Tales guerras, incluida la imprudente e impopular que Estados Unidos acaba de lanzar contra Irán, siempre desencadenan terremotos políticos con réplicas impredecibles y peligrosas. Hezbollah se une a la refriega Patricia Karam, miembro no residente de ACW Con Irán atacado, su líder supremo y su alto mando asesinados, y el régimen forzado a una reorganización caótica, todo el “Eje de la Resistencia” está en movimiento. Operacionalmente, Hezbollah es más vulnerable que en cualquier momento en décadas. Aún así, el partido decidió entrar en la refriega y lanzó misiles contra Israel, citando específicamente el asesinato del líder supremo de Irán, Ali Khamenei, como casus belli. Israel respondió con ataques contra el Líbano que mataron a decenas de civiles en el sur y los suburbios del sur de Beirut. El primer ministro libanés, Nawaf Salam, pidió una sesión de emergencia en el gabinete para reunirse con el presidente Joseph Aoun para discutir los acontecimientos, y posteriormente anunció una prohibición formal del gobierno sobre las actividades militares de Hezbollah. Este paso señaló una afirmación sin precedentes de la autoridad estatal del Líbano sobre las decisiones de guerra y paz. En los últimos años Hezbollah ha sufrido grandes pérdidas y sabía que Israel respondería si el partido se unía a la guerra. Los dirigentes libaneses han instado a la moderación, haciendo hincapié en que la estabilidad nacional debe tener prioridad sobre la confrontación regional. La decisión del gobierno de prohibir las operaciones armadas de Hezbollah subraya la creciente brecha entre las prioridades del estado y la postura militar unilateral del partido. Incluso antes del inicio de los ataques entre Estados Unidos e Israel contra Irán, los funcionarios de Hezbollah señalaron que podrían permanecer fuera del conflicto a menos que Irán enfrentara una amenaza existencial. Ahora es obvio que el asesinato del líder supremo de Irán cruzó una “línea roja” que desencadenó la respuesta del partido. El movimiento estratégicamente “inteligente”, aunque ideológicamente difícil, para Hezbollah habría sido evitar la escalada y cooperar plenamente con el estado libanés. Hacerlo habría ayudado a evitar represalias devastadoras mientras se posicionaba el grupo para un panorama regional cambiante en el que el papel de Irán disminuye. La última decisión del gobierno libanés enmarca la cuestión como una cuestión de cumplimiento de la autoridad estatal en lugar de la continua militarización unilateral. La relevancia a largo plazo del partido depende de la transición de un actor armado a un partido principalmente político que opera bajo la autoridad del Estado libanés y en el marco de la soberanía del Estado. Si Hezbollah en última instancia prioriza la lealtad ideológica a Irán o su propia supervivencia política en el Líbano determinará no solo su futuro, sino también si el propio Líbano se ve arrastrado a una guerra regional más amplia. La guerra como parte de la campaña electoral de Netanyahu Khalil E. Jahshan, Director Ejecutivo de ACW La justificación pública ofrecida por el primer ministro Benjamin Netanyahu para librar una guerra contra Irán, ya sea la “Operación León Ascendente” de junio de 2025 o su última reencarnación, “Operación León’s Roar”, se basa en su firme, largamente sostenida y obsesiva convicción de que Teherán está decidido a seguir los pasos de Israel al perseguir su propio programa nuclear encubierto. Netanyahu ha visto constantemente esta perspectiva como una amenaza existencial para la supervivencia de Israel y persistentemente intentó convencer a todos aquellos dispuestos a escuchar para unirse a él en el uso de la fuerza para poner fin a esa amenaza percibida. De hecho, los mediadores omaníes en las conversaciones que tuvieron lugar en Ginebra estaban a punto de anunciar un avance potencial para detener la capacidad de Irán para desarrollar armas nucleares y adquirir sistemas de misiles balísticos (ambos desafiarían el monopolio de Israel en esos dominios). Netanyahu jugó un papel principal en tratar de descarrilar esas conversaciones y durante meses coordinó con una ansiosa administración Trump para obtener la luz verde y la cobertura política para proceder con el ataque del 28 de febrero de 2026 contra Irán. Al igual que Washington, Israel vio una rara oportunidad de reanudar la guerra con Irán y decidió optar por una guerra de elección disfrazada de un acto preventivo de defensa propia para destruir las capacidades nucleares de Irán, ya sean reales o imaginarias. Netanyahu, el primer ministro con más años de servicio en Israel, ha hecho del cambio de régimen en Irán el tema central de su carrera política de 18 años. El problema le ha servido bien en sus campañas para ganar votos, restando la atención del público de sus batallas legales con cargos de soborno, fraude y abuso de confianza, y potencialmente asegurando su victoria política en un momento en que su popularidad está cayendo. Netanyahu y su gobierno están detrás de las dos encuestas más recientes de opinión pública: se proyecta que su coalición ganará solo 49 o 52 escaños en las elecciones legislativas programadas para octubre de 2026, en comparación con 57 o 58 escaños para la oposición. ¿El señor Netanyahu sin duda cree que la guerra con Irán reducirá esa brecha, si no completamente revertirá la fortuna de su coalición. Guerra Sin Autorización Del Congreso Annelle Sheline, miembro senior no residente de ACW; investigadora del Instituto Quincy El presidente Trump ha violado deliberadamente la ley estadounidense. En ausencia de una amenaza inminente para los Estados Unidos, el presidente no tiene autoridad legal para iniciar el uso de la fuerza sin la aprobación del Congreso. Aunque Trump trató de justificar la acción militar afirmando falsamente que Irán estaba desarrollando misiles que podrían llegar a los Estados Unidos, en realidad Teherán no representa tal amenaza para el país. Aunque la cobertura de los medios de comunicación estadounidenses se ha centrado durante años en el programa nuclear iraní, Teherán nunca ha desarrollado armas nucleares. El primer ministro israelí, Benjamin Netanyahu, ha presionado para que Estados Unidos ataque a Irán desde la década de los noventa: sus siete visitas durante el primer año de Trump en el cargo ahora han dado sus frutos. Se espera que el Congreso vote pronto sobre una Resolución de Poderes de Guerra presentada por el senador Tim Kaine (D-VA) y por los representantes Ro Khanna (D-CA) y el republicano Thomas Massie (R-KY). Sin embargo, incluso si suficientes republicanos concluyen que la guerra contra Irán es lo suficientemente impopular como para aprobar medidas para frenar a la Casa Blanca, Trump probablemente vetará la legislación. Lograr la mayoría requerida de dos tercios para superar su veto presidencial sería poco probable. Muchos miembros del Congreso, incluidos los demócratas, reciben un apoyo significativo del lobby de Israel; ven la guerra contra Irán como el servicio de los intereses de Israel. En febrero de 2026, las encuestas mostraron que solo el 21 por ciento de los estadounidenses apoyaban los ataques contra Irán, mientras que el 49 por ciento los veía como innecesarios y costosos (30 por ciento no estaban seguros). Trump parece creer que atacar a Irán será una victoria política, o al menos una distracción bienvenida de los archivos de Epstein. Después de haber hecho campaña con un boleto de “no nuevas guerras”, y con más estadounidenses ahora diciendo que simpatizan con los palestinos que con Israel, los miembros inteligentes del Congreso deberían concluir que oponerse a la guerra de Trump ofrecerá la mejor apuesta antes de las elecciones de mitad de período de este año. Impacto en los Estados del CCG Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, miembro senior no residente de ACW Los seis estados del Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo (CCG) ahora se han visto afectados por los ataques de represalia de Irán contra instalaciones militares e infraestructura civil como aeropuertos, puertos, hoteles y edificios de gran altura en Bahrein y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos. La decisión de Irán de responder de inmediato a los ataques de Estados Unidos e Israel apuntando al Golfo es una importante desviación de la Guerra de los 12 Días de junio de 2025, un escenario sobre el cual los planificadores de defensa del CCG han advertido durante mucho tiempo. Después de haber sido arrastrados a una guerra de elección que muchos en todo el mundo verán como una guerra de agresión de Estados Unidos, los estados del CCG se encuentran soportando la peor parte de la respuesta iraní en la primera línea. Desde el 7 de octubre de 2023, los ataques de Hamas y otros militantes palestinos contra Israel, los responsables políticos del Golfo han tratado de evitar la regionalización de un conflicto que los dejaría directamente en el medio. Cada una de las escaladas entre Israel e Irán, en abril y octubre de 2024 y (junto con los Estados Unidos) en junio de 2025, ha acercado a la región a la guerra total. Las respuestas de Irán a los dos primeros días de la “Operación Épica Furia” han señalado que la restricción relativa que mostró durante la Guerra de los 12 Días ahora está fuera de la mesa. Acorralado y luchando por su supervivencia, el régimen iraní está arremetiendo y tratando de compartir el dolor con sus vecinos del Golfo. Si bien los sistemas de defensa aérea del Golfo han neutralizado la mayoría de los ataques iraníes entrantes, y los daños y las víctimas han sido limitados hasta ahora, el impacto intangible y psicológico de los ataques en ciudades densamente pobladas puede dañar profundamente la imagen de los estados del CCG como lugares seguros para vivir, trabajar y hacer negocios. Este es especialmente el caso de Dubai, que se ha comercializado como un oasis de estabilidad y un importante centro para los negocios y el turismo, pero es cierto para todos los estados del Golfo. Un conflicto prolongado o un fuego sostenido de misiles y drones iraníes pueden causar problemas logísticos que rápidamente tensan las redes globales sostenidas por las aerolíneas del Golfo y aumentan los costos y los riesgos de transportar bienes esenciales como alimentos, petróleo y gas a través del Estrecho de Ormuz. Las opiniones expresadas en esta publicación son propias de los autores y no reflejan necesariamente la posición del Centro Árabe Washington DC, su personal o su Junta Directiva ni del El Centro Spykman o del autor de este blog; el Centro Spykman proporciona una plataforma neutral y no partidista para aprender a hacer análisis geopolíticos. Reconoce cómo las diversas perspectivas impactan en los análisis geopolíticos, sin necesariamente respaldarlos.   Los autores que expresan diversas opiniones: Susan M. Akram , Charles W. Dunne , Amy Hawthorne , Patricia Karam , Khalil E. Jahshan , Annelle Sheline , Kristian Coates Ulrichsen , James Simpson.