SPEAKER_04

Okay.

So it's like I'm looking, and this data is literally two weeks old.

But the calculations are math.

So you're like, okay, well, where and how, you know, the chance of getting that number correct on three things is low, you know, to put it mildly.

But to say that you had exposed these things to that kind of a neutron source means something interesting, right?

So, again, it doesn't prove anything other than that the result is mathematically and materially true, right?

So what does it mean?

Again, it's just for a scientist like me who loves data off the curve, it's catnip.

I can't help myself but want to know and understand more about it.

Well, I mean the only way – I mean you could create –

that ratio artificially by purifying each of those isotopes and then pre-mixing them to that ratio.

But why you would blow it up over a beach in Ubatuba, Mexico in the late 1950s and then let it sit in a museum in Argentina for 50 years until Jacques Vallee ended up going and grabbing a piece of it and bringing it to me to measure on an instrument in the engineering department at Stanford.

Why?

It would have been very hard.

It would have been very, very hard.

You could.

But in the late 1950s, we were still busy trying to isolate and separate uranium isotopes for making more bombs.

I mean, let's be serious.

What do humans separate isotopes for?

To make bombs or to do health related tagging, which is really only something that came to the fore in the 60s and 70s.