I thought it would be useful to bring together some details from three interviews given by Garry Nolan, in an attempt to understand his work on UAPs; his views, and his methodology.
Nolan was interviewed by U. S. author and researcher, M. J. Banias on 29 April 2019. Their conversation mainly involved the areas of Dr. Nolan's work with Dr. Kit Green and their cohort of patients who had apparently sustained injuries arising from their encounters with the phenomenon; and the work Dr. Nolan was undertaking with Jacques Vallee on materials analysis.Regarding their materials analysis work, I directed the following question to Dr. Nolan, through Banias: "Is there a peer reviewed paper anywhere in the near future that the community can expect?"Dr. Nolan gave an extended response, to the question, which I listened to on YouTube. Later, in communicating directly with Dr. Nolan, he offered to clarify some of the points he had mentioned in the Banias interview. So, the following is a combination of his conversational response to Banias, and some additional material from my own direct communication.
"Yes...some initial studies showed unusual isotopic ratios and Jacques has talked about them publicly so I'm comfortable talking about that. So what we are doing right now, is I'm doing this work personally. The recent work that Jacques showed, I did the experiments myself, but not the historical stuff Peter Sturrock for instance, here at Stanford did collaborating with Jacques in the past. Others had done some isotopic analysis work as well, and we have confirmed some of those efforts.
My point is at this stage, as much as some of the (non-mainstream) journals that have published this stuff are credible, they are unfortunately not the journals that anybody in the mainstream is paying attention to. The journals people are paying attention to are like, Nature Materials, Nature Photonics, and Aeronautical journals. So, we've convinced a couple of those major journals that if we put together a credible paper that looks like there are credible conclusions, then they will send the paper out for peer review. That doesn't mean they will publish the work, but they will send it out for peer review, to make sure and double check our results. I expect we will probably get push back like I got push back with the Atacama results at the beginning. But the feedback made it a better paper. So, that's what we will do. So yes, we plan open publication.
So, right now what we are doing are confirmations of our initial results. We are taking it round to those who are specialists in mass spectrometry and metallurgy, to ask "Ok, where could I have made a mistake? What could be the contaminating artifacts in the information here that are leading to me to make the wrong conclusion - and hopefully prevent me from potentially making a fool of myself?
That's why you go to the experts - which we have done in some of these cases. Sometimes you tell them what it is, and the provenance. Sometimes, you say, hey I've got this stuff, I'm trying to find out what it is. Does this make sense - is this possible? Given we know what this is made of, ( i.e. the elements and the isotopes) could I get apparently altered ratios by some strange surface chemistry that leads me to misinterpret the results? So, let's talk about some of the isotopes. I think there's magnesium in a couple of the samples of Jacques that have strange ratios. So, are the unexpected magnesium ratios because Mg26 is more likely to bond to something in the material or less able to be ionized, and therefore make it look like it has got a different isotope ratio than it actually has? And maybe that's the case because that magnesium 26 is in the context of something else in the sample. Total speculation, but I've learned to be careful. So, apparent isotope ration difference might have nothing to do with aliens, or other worldly anything, and it is only to do with the physical structure of the material that makes what we think we're seeing to be somewhat off natural, when it is in fact truly "normal."
Here the message is to other people that I know , who are out there, who are doing this kind of analytical work on these materials; be very careful. A couple of things that we thought were off, have very conventional explanations, and you have to go to the expert, or you will make a fool of yourself. And you will discredit anything that you're trying to do. And the people who are listening, who know what I am doing with these materials- who know I know who they are, and that I have told this to them privately, but now I'm telling them publicly.
That's why I am interested in the material work that Jacques brought to the table. It's because, of, all the many things things that can be done, the materials are "reproducible." We can cut those samples into many pieces as Jacques would tolerate. Send it to people in laboratories - to confirm it. We've done that in some cases. So, we're getting these validations and we're checking with the necessary experts. Then, we'll write up a simple paper that will make no claim to anything, other than the fact that here's the composition of the stuff and here's the story of how it was found. End of story.
The hanging question there, should the materials be truly anomalous, is how did they get made? People (humans) don't play with isotopic ratios easily. Ask yourself what do people do with isotopic ratios now (with current technology)? What do we modify isotopes for, or what have we been doing with isotopes for the last 60 years? Blow stuff up...uranium and plutonium...imaging or killing ...cancer cells...nothing very subtle.
Chemistry and physics have not caught up with why you might use titanium 46 versus titanium 47 (plus one neutron)...what is different about the magnesium ratios in the sample that I know Hal has, and I have a sample that was given to me by Leslie. So, why would somebody alter those ratios? The cost to change isotopic ratios is considerable, especially given the provenance: that is, some of these materials date back decades, when the ability to make those changes was so costly that why would you make a big chunk of it and throw it out in the desert?...why would you bother?...I can tell you right now there is simply no industrial/material reason to alter the ratios.
(Talking of the use of the word "alloys by TTSA.) "So, I wrote an internal memo to TTSA at the time I was involved with them and said these aren't alloys. These materials, do not think of them as alloys. We need to change the conversation. You need to call them metamaterials - so I'd like to lay claim to the use of that term (this was a memo in response to the Scientific American article about the Tic Tacs saying that humans basically know all there is to know about alloys.) These are more complex, and if anything, you need to call them ultramaterials because metamaterials are pretty well understood....basically that's a repeated atomic architecture that performs a single purpose.
So, I took some of the material from Jacques to some people at Stanford, and I said - this is interesting, and you tell them a little bit about it. They will sometimes reply, if you can interest them that " Well I have this or that instrument, and I'll get back to you, and tell you something about this, that, the other of it..." They can inform us whether you've seen this in any aeronautical industry materials before. And if they come back and tell me, yes this is something from Pratt and Whitley circa 1955, I'm like, thank you, now I can go do something else..."
"So how did you get involved working on UFOs?
Garry Nolan: I was approached by some people representing the government and an aerospace corporation to help them understand the medical harm that had come to some individuals, related to supposed interactions with an anomalous craft. I had no expectation of this, but they came primarily because they were interested in the kinds of blood analysis that my lab can do.
What were your findings on that?
It turned out there couldn't be any findings because some of the events had happened so long ago that the signal would be lost in the noise of time, and it just wasn't worth going into.
You're now looking into some alleged artifacts that came from UFOs, including a case from Jacques Vallee, perhaps the mast famous UFO researcher. How's that going?
You can think of it almost like investigating forensics. Somebody claims something happened or didn't happen. And so you use whatever psychological or scientific means to investigate and document the case. And in the case of some of these materials, they're almost all metals that are claimed to have either been dropped by these UAPs, or somehow left behind. In the case of Trinity, two boys got into what they claimed is a craft and took a piece of it. And they've kept it since 1945. I come to it with no preconceptions. I come to it with, well, here's how you do the analysis. Am I the best person to do the analysis? No. Absent an actual metallurgist stepping in, I'm willing to do the groundwork, to get preliminary results that might interest a sufficiently expert metallurgist to go the next step.
What can you say about the results of your analysis?
If people are expecting a spectacular smoking gun, this is not it. But the objective is to take even some of the most blasé cases and just create a pipeline of how this should be done, to demonstrate to people that you don't need to come up with a spectacular answer. I mean, we don't disprove anything with this case. It's just not a case of this being an obvious piece of technology.
The things that interest me the most are the case where there are claimed changes in the isotope ratios of given elements. The point I've always made is we don't know why you would do that in the first place, because it's expensive. And so if somebody is engineering isotope ratios for a prctical purpose, I'd like to understand why, because that would be evidence of an understanding of material science that we don't currently possess.
And so if you put together this idea of material science understanding that we don't possess with some of the claimed observations of craft that do things , that we don't know how to do, it's like catnip to somebody who likes to solve problems.
If you come to a conclusion that is not supported by the facts or anecdotal, and start pushing an agenda, you're only going to discredit yourself, because one of the things I've learned in looking at this area is that it's way too complex to come to some Hollywood conclusion about aliens. As many people have said, the majority of the so-called sightings are likely to be mistakes. And so let's get the mistakes off the table.
I've dealt with fake cases before. People brought me things that were clearly faked trying to make money. So it's a fraught field.
Howe have your colleagues reacted to your work in this area?
A little bit the usual giggles, and some have said, "Garry, you're going to ruin your reputation." And my response is: I'm not making a conclusion. I'm just saying that there is data here that is anomalous and that somebody needs to explain. I'm willing to take the time to explain it. What scientist takes something off the table? If the explanation is sitting there right in front of you and you decide to throw it away before you even come to a conclusion, you can't really claim to be a scientist - you're a cultist.
I think the crux of the whole issue here is: Why are we afraid of talking about it? It's interesting that suddenly in the last year this has come to national attention. We train these pilots for tens of millions of dollars, and we entrust them with multimillion pieces of equipment. Now people are coming to me who kind of giggled in the past, and they're saying, "Garry, it looks like you might have been right. I'm really interested in this, Can you tell me more? It's a little bit more open now, and that's a good thing. And if it is disproven, ultimately, I'm perfectly fine with that.
Are you aware of any other scientists who are working on UFO issues?
Dozens. And there are probably others who just don't want to step forward. I'm the only one perhaps foolish enough to be a bit more public about it. Part of the problem is that there is no funding, so people are doing it on a nickel and a dime, paying for it themselves in their spare time. And I think that when people say, well there's no real results, it's because nobody's funded the question properly to get the results. As many people know, science is on some level capitalist in nature in that it will follow the money. If there's money in research grants and things to be done, people will start investigating.
It sounds like you think there is really something to this phenomenon
I think there is genuinely something interesting there. How to explain it, I don't know. As Jacques once said, the problem with coming to conclusions is if you can come up with one counter conclusion or one counter observation, your whole set of conclusions can fall apart. So maintain your distance until you have all of the data. All I'm saying is there is data that is interesting.
Is it fair to say that your open-mindedness about this issue is a minority position among the scientific community?
I think it's a minority position. But in my science, I always consider everything. I'm very much, "Keep it on the table." So it might be a low probability, a 0.1% chance. If I throw it away and consider it impossible, then I might be limiting myself. That's how I have succeeded, at least in my field. Not everybody works that way, and I don't think everybody needs to. We need the skeptics. They are, in a sense, peer review. As long as they are not pathologically skeptical. There has to come a point at which we agree there's a proof point We can still be proven wrong later."
Professor Nolan, responds in the 2021 interview: "Part of the problem is that there is no funding".ReplyDelete
In this blog, here:
In the comments a reader reports financing data for hundreds of millions of dollars.
So, without offending or hurting anyone's susceptibility:
1- Is it not that those who have the elements to analyze, do not know how to reach those who have that money?
2- Could it be that the "UAP world", having only pennies, is too proud to ask for money?
3- Isn't it that society allows itself to be convinced by ufologists, who have zero scientific knowledge and no budget, and it doesn't go to those who have budgets?
4- And in the end, isn't it that those who publicly report on UAPs need to open their hearts and trust a little more in those who DO NOT spend all day in front of a video camera?
Professor Nolan is totally sincere, and it is good to have his words here, it would be good if we could ALSO access specialized sources, which although reserved and without press, apparently have enormous financial resources.
At the same time, it is necessary to go down a step for the vast majority of ufologists and stop trusting them so much, since most do not even have a toy microscope, but they spend their time explaining "scientifically" what these elements are.
With 5.5 million members and a loan of 660 million dollars a year, only in Argentina, they can afford that luxury.Delete
The system they have provides high-speed internet at 250 Mbps for only 10 dollars, here in the Paraná River Coast (Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina) in 2020 they installed a new data center with a supercomputer, and since April 2021 we are receiving a 500 Mbps signal at the same value.
In the same place they installed several laboratories, some of them only reserved for them, and a medical clinic.
I am very curious!Delete
How many countries is it in, and how many members does this organization have?
Is it just cioncidence that Nolan receieved the Pentagons first ever "Teal" grant, 2 million dollars to study Cancer. A month after he claims mummy is not ET but human genetic anamaliesDelete
Greer claims a Conspiracy and has a expert refute Nolans falsofications. Ive no way of knowing if its legitimate or not, its Greer after all.
Has Keith read the technical paper defending the ETmummy hyoothesis?
I dare not argue with you, you ask and affirm at the same time.
I leave here 2 articles to read.
I believe that the financing of any research is fine, but when it involves a business of money, egos and notoriety, we must look twice at what is said there.
The search for the truth should be pure and transparent, anyone can differ, but when someone "negotiates evidence for money" something there that is not correct.
Early in 2016, I signed up to join the global organization, at the end my grandparents, my wife's grandparents, our parents, children and grandchildren entered as members with a single number in April 2021.Delete
Someone asked how many there are and where they are, the answer is simple, everywhere and it is an honor to be part of a social and family collective that groups at least 12% of WP, not counting family members.
Although the final number is known only to your regional leaders and representatives, information that is kept seriously and confidentially, for obvious reasons.
If you have a problem, anyone, they are there to help you solve it, and they will never ask you for something "additional" in return.
The latest from the UAPs in the news, the Pentagon statements, say that the sensors need to be improved.
These guys have put the wallaby in their pockets, we of course, and I say that with pride.
They have, we have, 1.3 billion monitoring stations deployed around the world, I put one of them in my backyard last month, my son and my father did too.
There are 2.5 stations for every square kilometer in the world, look, they also serve to receive high-speed internet.
But the important thing is that at the end of the day, when you go to sleep, you know that someone is there for you and that you can turn to him to contribute, debate, discuss with respect, and say what you think freely and without discrimination. .
And of course you always know what is flying in the sky above your house, without lies, without fantasies and with scientific explanations that you can transfer to your children ... and yes, you should have no doubts that UAPs exist.
If I have learned something in these last 2 months, it is that no matter what remote part of the world you are from, what color your skin is, what religion you have, whatever your family finances, or whatever your education, here you will always have a voice and you will be listened to by all with humility and respect.
Thanks for a really interesting article. Have you come across any elaboration on the genetic component Prof. Nolan mentions? Are there any candidate genes that we could, for example, check for on a consumer-grade genetic test?ReplyDelete