re looking for and they're looking at real orbs, unexplained orbs? And the answer is maybe. Maybe some of it is people just notice what they didn't notice before. Far more likely, far more likely there's priming in the environment. So all of us are thinking UFOs and orbs and then if we see something out of the corner of our mind we go, was that an orb? And then the rest of your brain talks you into seeing an orb or some other illusion or optical thing or something and something that was a shadow or a bird or there was a balloon in the air, probably not that. But so what would you say if you had to bet your entire life savings, would you bet on magic orb that can't be seen on radar, reportedly has no heat signal and no means of propulsion, meaning it's not coming from this planet or at least our civilization that we know of? Would you bet that that's what's happening? Because remember there's a very credible witness and he's not alone. There are multiple very credible military people, pilots, etc. And I don't know how many orbs have been spotted but quite a few now.

So given the high credibility of the witnesses and given the relatively high number of sightings that are somewhere in the same category, would you say it's more likely that there's really orbs, whatever they are, or more likely that it's a cognitive thing where people are imagining stuff? What's more likely? Well I'll tell you from the hypnosis perspective it's a hundred times more likely that there are no orbs at all. It's about a hundred to one. Now that's just the hypnotist talking because the setup should guarantee lots and lots of fake sightings. Because the setup is people are told there are orbs all over the place. So if you tell me, if you make me think of magic orbs all day long and then you put me in an airplane, what are the odds I'm going to think I saw one? Well it goes through the roof. Not for any one person but if you're looking at eight billion people in the world it doesn't take much to get a hundred people to say they saw an orb when they didn't see any orb at all.

Now if you're tempted to say but Scott we're not talking about idiots, we're talking about trained pilots, they're clearly not lying. I think some have passed, I believe some have passed lie detector tests although they're not completely reliable but they might work in this context. So I don't think they're lying. I don't even have a slight suspicion that this ex-NASA commander is lying. I believe he believes he saw what he saw. I'll still say a hundred to one odds that it's imagined. A hundred to one.

Now remember this is coming from my perspective as a hypnotist and the fact that we have a perfect situation for a mass hysteria and lots and lots of fake sightings. But you can't really rule out that it might be real because there really are a lot of them. So I'm having two feelings simultaneously. There are way more sightings than my common sense can understand unless they're real, real unexplained. Not real aliens but maybe, but real unexplained. So simultaneously my experience and my logic and my common sense says things that fall in this category are about a hundred to one likely not to be aliens. About a hundred to one. At the same time I totally think it might be aliens. Is anybody having that same experience?

In terms of persuasion I am persuaded that these are unexplained things that I don't know. Could be spiritual things like Tucker Carlson thinks or could be what the ancients thought were angels but maybe they're coming from some advanced civilization that lives under the sea and has always been there with us. Could be aliens or one of our adversaries has some technology that we can't even imagine for reasons that we don't know. So all of those are possible. So if you ask me what does it feel like, it feels like these orbs are real and that we don't know what they are and we better find out soon. At the same time if you said all right now place a bet, I'd be like uh oh, place a bet. I'm so sure these are real but a bet? Ah I'd bet against it. I'd bet against it with odds of a hundred to one. And I just hold those two thoughts simultaneously. What can I do about it? Because the persuasion level is through the roof to make you think there's something there and there might be, there legitimately might be, but the common sense is really arguing against it. All right, we'll see. Maybe we'll know someday.

According to What's Up With That, three authors, Stein, Hemers and Curtis, they say that the amount of nuclear waste that we already have could still has 97% of its electricity potential. So if you knew how to get it out, not only would you have very inexpensive power in likelihood but it's enough energy that let's say the estimate is it could be worth one trillion dollars, three times the national debt. That could be the value of the unused nuclear waste that we just have in barrels. We have access to it just sitting around in barrels. So you've heard this before but the way you would access it is by building a different kind of reactor which apparently we've known how to do for decades. So it's not like a big surprise. I think one of them is the salt. So basically not water reactors like we use now. You need a different kind of reactor. I think they used to call them Gen 4. I haven't seen that term for a while. Fourth generation nuclear power. But they're the ones that can use the nuclear waste.

So at exactly the same time the AI and robots and electric cars are all the current thing and Bitcoin. These are monstrous uses of electricity, just monstrous demand way more than we have and way more than anybody knows we could ever make in time to take advantage of everything we want to do with AI. So if you think we're oh you know we might have to boost our energy production by 20%, no no it's not 20%. All right we'll probably have to boost it by 40%. No the actual number might be like a hundred X. I don't think anybody can really estimate that. It doesn't feel like something that people would be too accurate in. But if you're thinking it's a yeah we've got to work a little harder to do what we're already doing, no that's not even close. Now we're talking about the amount of energy that we need to do the things we already know we have to do. We have to compete with AI and robots. We just have to. It's an existential threat if China or Russia become the robot kings and we don't.

So it's kind of convenient that we stumble upon a one trillion dollar worth of almost free energy because it's just sitting basically in the garbage but we know where it is and at the same time that we need it. What are the odds of that? That in the history of humankind the immense increase of energy that we need is matched with exactly the time we know how to do it and we've got extra stuff sitting around to make it out of. It's almost too on the nose isn't it? It almost seems too good. So it's not easy to build these new nuclear power plants so that you know it's not like we can snap these together tomorrow but we do have a path. It's not impossible to 100X our energy system and we almost certainly have to do it.

Meanwhile RFK Jr. wants to ban drug pharma ads on TV. That would take about 40% of the income away from the fake news. Now it might not be enough for them to shut down but they wouldn't be able to operate the way they are if you took that much away from them. Do you think that in our land of free speech that the government should ban one kind of advertiser who's selling a totally legal product? There's nothing illegal about advertising and there's nothing illegal, you could argue there should be, but there's nothing illegal about pharma selling the products that have gone through testing and the government approved them.

So my feeling about free speech says maybe we should live with it because I don't want to be on the party that's limiting free speech. On the other hand it might make a big difference you know it might help somehow. I guess I wouldn't want to be in favor of it just to hurt the fake news because the fake news is already crippled and I don't know. I have a problem with this one. I completely understand why you'd want to ban it. I get it completely because people say that they're not really advertising their drug they're just essentially making sure that the news can't say bad things about them. So actually here's an argument. I'll talk myself out of my position here. So if you think that the real reason that pharma advertises on the news programs especially is that it keeps the news from saying things about them because they're advertisers, so that would be a case of censorship. So that would be a case of pharma using the threat of pulling their advertisement as a censorship of the news industry. See what I did there? So I just turned it from it is in fact censorship to say one industry can't advertise to that's just censorship. But what if the thing you're doing is preventing them from blocking the news from telling the truth about pharma because that's censorship too. Ah there is an argument for this that is pro-free speech and it's pro-free speech for the news business.

Oh and I was going to use that orb joke myself but if you follow the news you know that Nancy Mace gets a lot of what would you call it sexual innuendo kind of social media reaction. And I suppose if it were not an ongoing problem which she has talking about publicly then that would be a better joke. I would have said it myself but she's literally in the middle of trying to convince people to stop saying stuff about her looks which is fair. I think she should. You know she's cursed with good looks and it's hard not to notice but yeah I decided to pull back on the orb joke.

According to ScienceAlert a single one-hour daily walk could add six hours to your lifespan. According to ScienceAlert. But it only works for people who are not already exercising. So if you're already a regular exerciser adding an hour of walking won't make much difference. But if you're in the bottom 25% of active people a one-hour walk a day could really make a difference in your life.

Now I will use this study to reiterate what I would love to see from I don't know who, maybe Trump, maybe from RFK Jr., maybe somebody else in the government. I would love the government just to tell the lazy people to take a walk after dinner. Now most of you don't need to be told that but if 25% of the public needs to be told to take a walk it could make a difference. It could really make a difference because people kind of do whatever is in the air right. We don't wake up every day and say well there are a million possible things I can do today I'd better look at my list of a million things and pick one. We don't do that. We wake up and we think well there are like three or four things I could do today and you pick one of the three or four. So if you simply made it easier for people to get taking a walk after dinner into their top three or four, like it just put it in their mind, the odds that people would do it are way up. You just have to make them think about it every time they're eating. Imagine if every time you sat down to dinner the thought was in your mind I really should take a walk after I'm done. It's a big difference. If you didn't even think of it while you're eating dinner you're not going to do it because you only do the things you think of. So simply making it connected to your dinner activity. Do two things: eat dinner with your family and then go for a walk with them or at least one of them. It would change a lot. Life would be much better.

Meanwhile Elon Musk posted a picture of himself in a Santa outfit but he looks skinnier than the Santa from that movie Red One which is skinny Santa. And when I looked at it I thought I think people are s