A new interview with Dr. Garry Nolan - analysis of materials

 Background

Dr. Garry P. Nolan recently co-authored a paper, which in part was about his analysis of unusual material from a 1977 incident which happened in Council Bluffs, Iowa, USA; and appeared in the peer-reviewed Journal "Progress in Aerospace Sciences."   After the paper was published, he was recently interviewed by Marwa EIDiwiny, on the Soft Robotics Podcast. Here are my notes from that interview. They are not intended to be a transcript of the whole podcast, but key points that I picked up; particularly information of which I was not previously aware. 

Garry P. Nolan

Interview

Marwa: What's the story here?

Garry: About a decade ago, there was a report on the Internet about a small mummy, which some people thought was an alien. I thought I could do genetics and determine whether it was human or other. I published a paper stating that the mummy was human (1.) The UFO community didn't like that. It was about doing good science. It brought me to the attention of people in the government. "...help them to study individuals who they had claimed they had got close to supposed craft." (2.) Analysing some of these individuals. They were all intelligence presonnel or DoD aircrew, pilots etc. Some of them related to the Nimitz incident. Then government says you can look at MRIs and do blood work.

"We also have these materials that supposedly some of these craft have left behind. What would you do with them if we gave you some of them, or we asked you to help with some of them?"

I had some instruments in my lab, so did that and published a paper. (3.)

M: Were you afraid to do that work?

G: Not afraid. Afraid what some of my colleagues might say. I said the data is real. You can only argue about the interpretation.

"Some of the materials that we have measured have anomalous isotopic ratios. The isotopes in one of these examples, and the data has to be reproduced by others, has incorrect magnesium isotopic ratios. So, magnesium has three isotopes, 24, 25 and 26. 24 is about 80%, and then there is 11 and 9% or 9 and 11 for 25 and 26. That's what you would find, pretty much what you would find anywhere on Earth. And pretty much what you would find on Mars if you were to go and collect magnesium on Mars, and if you were to go out to the Oort cloud it would be pretty much about the same ratios. 

So, the ratios of one of these samples that we got from an unusual observation of an object is, something like 60%, 20% and 10%. (4.) Completely off normal. So, that's not proof of anything right, that's just data. You have to ask the question, who would change the ratios?Right, because if you make the assumption, and it is an assumption , that there's nothing in the immediate solar system that should have such anomalous ratios.

Ok, so that means it was potentially made somehow, by somebody. Why would you do that? The questions is not so  much did it happen? The question that is more important is why would you do that?"

We don't undersatnd why you would change isotopic ratios. What industrial process would change them? People in government have speculated that the materials might be downstream of a propulsion system.

M; How sure are you that the material comes from a UFO?

G: We get offerings from people. Need a good sense of chain of custody. In case of the magnesium, it came from Ubatuba, Brazil. Nolan then describes the Council Bluffs incident (5.) Terrestrial but each sub-sample is different in terms of elements - incompletely mixed together material. I was contacted by a person whose mother saw an object which dropped molten metal. He is sending a sample to me.

The Department of Defence has created an office to collect this type of information (6.) Money is coming to the table. I will be applying for some of it. Analysis of materials so far has come out of my own pocket - about $70,000. Since the paper was published, I now have students from  Stanford and Harvard willing to help. You need to talk about it in a credible way. Collect the data. Ask what can we learn from these materials?

M: What has been the most interesting?

G: Isotopic ratios probably the most interesting. When the magnesium from  Ubatuba happened. Would have been expensive to alter isotopic ratios. There are some companies who sell milligram sized samples for tens of thousands of dollars with altered ratios. Stuff we have is in pounds. Would have cost millions of dollars to create. There is another material - I have some pieces of it, bismuth-magnesium (7) layered in small sized layers. The open question is, was it manufactured, or a product of standard smelting? I don't know. I've looked at that material. It is layered in an interesting way and each of the layers is made of a different element. That doesn't sound like something you would find in a smelting pot.

"I don't know what these things are but now the office is funded, basically, I'm hoping to get access to some of the other materials that are claimed to be owned by the government, to take a look at it. Interestingly, it's not just the US government that has these things. Right, there's actually some stories coming out of China, that the Chinese; some of the Chinese aircraft carriers are seeing something. There's stories coming out of Russia. There's a very good story out of, two stories, out of both India and Iran, about things that have been seen. So, again seen by the air forces of those respective countries. So, it's not just  Americancentric. I know France for instance, has a very big program on a study of these things."

It's world-wide. What they are, I don't know. Bring the right kinds of minds and either we will prove it is something natural. If it is something from out there, why wouldn't you want to know this?

M: Materials are not 100% of the picture?

G: We are getting only a small piece of the picture. What don't we know? I want to know more. There are other objects supposedly. I always wonder if I'm being fed a hoax? I would like to get hold of something contemporaneous, recent, where the story is new (8.)  The object we can get hold of almost immediately. Bring forensic resources to understand it. So called Tic tacs - need a very large amount of energy to do what they do. Could the object have access to unconventional physics? How are they doing it? Discusses "warp bubbles."

M: Materials and behaviours?

G: I am a big reader of science-fiction.. Materials we see ejected could be some form of propulsion. Others say that the bismuth-magnesium material is a waveguide. We are only at the beginning of understanding physics. I look at isotopes - e.g. Lithium is used in psychiatry for treating mental illness.We could look at isotopes differently. 

M: Are we fully aware of the Russian and Chinese technology?

G: Elizondo, Mellon and Davis are knowledgable about tech. Russia and China are studying it too. Could be the beginning of a new arms race to understand this tech. We need open access to information - then no-one has the upper hand. Get information out in a safe and credible way. Make it respectable to ask the question. Then give people data. Proving the data is real, is the first step.

M: We speculate where it comes from. Why designed in that way? Can we reverse engineer?

G: Speculate that the layered Bismuth-magnesium sample is somehow involved in propulsion. Maybe we can make it. Test it with tetrahertz waves. Look at current physics, make different assumptions. In my lab work we ask the question what is the inevitable data needed? Imagine a science-fiction level instrument, then back track to the practical level. Start with the impossible and reverse engineer to make a practical level one.

M: What is material - intelligent design?

G: Clearly something which has an understanding of physics that we don't. Friend of mine worked for the CIA in technology acquisition. Would sometimes come across Russian technology that he didn't understand. Russian physicists started from different assumptions. Eventually CIA worked it out.

One of the instruments that we are trying to build in my lab is an atomic imaging scope. See position of every atom. There is no such instrument today that does that. My primary reason for using that, is biology but it will also do materials analysis. Form equals function. 

M: What other questions do you want to answer?

G: Frankly, who made it? Then what is the goal or agenda? Goal leads to function leads to materials needed. Range of questions opened up. If these things are real what does it imply for religious aspects?

M: The people who visited your office - UFO/ET?

G: "They didn't come to me saying these were ETs or those were UFOs. They came saying we have these individuals who were harmed. We know, and everyone tells us that you have made the best blood analysis systems currenlty used in the world. What can you tell us about their blood? Or what can your diagnostic instrumentation tell us about what happened to these people? "

Might tell us what the energy involved is, and a safe range to approach it. I had looked at all the medical files made available to me. I was convinced the data was real, but didn't know what conclusions could I make?

I always ask myself, am I being fooled? Is someone trying to discredit this area of work? Need to go through the peer-review process.

M: Why is academia not open minded?

G: Made fun of for years. Ancient Astronauts show is silly. People are afraid of being shamed. I don't care what other people think of me, if I'm right. Mindsets are changing.

M: Other possibilities which would help?

G: Advance science to aspire to another level of physics. Maybe there's an energy we can use. I'm an optimist. I'm 61. I don't expect that in the next 20 years we will fully understand this. I think others will make the big discoveries. I see potential for humanity at large.

M: Life changing advice?

G: Best advice is don't try to convince anyone of a conclusion. Publish it if you can. Set up study groups at a professional level. The Aeronautical and aerospace community - 50,000 people, held a four hour symposium (9) and set up a study group. Could be an aviation hazard. I'm working to try and get the biology community to set up a study group. 

M: Final words?

G: Thanks the audience. If anyone has any materials let me know.

Notes on notes:

(1) Bhattacharys, S. et al. 2018. "Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skelton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia." Genome Research, online 7 April 2018. 

(2) For an examination of Garry Nolan's work in this area, see my blog post reporting on three of his previous interviews.

(3) Garry P. Nolan; Jacques F. Vallee; Sizan, Jian; Larry G. Lemke.  2021. "Improved Instrumental Techniques Including Isoptopic Analysis, Applicable to the Charactrization of Unusual Materials with Potential Relevance to Aerospace Forensics." Progress in Aerospace Sciences, volume 128, January 2022.

(4) The sample being discusssed here, was from the 1957 Ubatuba, Brazil incident. Further details may be read in a previous post.

(5) The Council Bluffs, Ohio incident is well described in the 2022 Nolan et al paper, see note (3) above.

(6) This is the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group. See previous post here.

(7) In  my catalogue titled "Preliminary Catalogue of Analysis of Alleged "Fragments" Reportedly Associated with Sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena," the latest case is dated 2014.

(8) Commonly refered to as "Arts parts." For further information click here. 

(9) At an August 2021 symposium, held by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA),  there was a four hour panel titled "Advocating for Scientific Study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena - Technical Perspective with Focus on Aviation Safety."

Ubatuba Magnesium Sample - some speculation as to its source

Background

Recently, Robert Powell of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) presented a lecture on Youtube. The subject was the never-ending story of analyses of samples from an incident said to have occurred at Ubatuba, in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 1957. Ubatuba is located on the Brazilian coast, between Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo.

Image courtesy of Google maps

Introduction

The sample analysed by the SCU had a provenance which went as follows:

1. Unknown person.

2. Brazilian Newspaper.

3. Dr. O. Fontes.

Image from Craig, 1995.

4. Aerial Phenomenon Research Organization.

5. Dr. Peter Sturrock.

6. Dr. Michael Swords.

7. Robert Powell.

New analysis

The SCU's aims for their new analysis were, firstly, to look at the isotopic ratios of the magnesium component of the sample (around 99.9% of the sample.) Secondly, to look at the isotopic ratios of the trace elements found in the mainly magnesium sample.

In summary, the SCU found that the magnesium isotopic ratios appear to match terrestrial values, but that they cannot say, one way or the other, if the isotopic ratios of the trace elements in the mainly magnesium sample; namely strontium, copper, zinc and barium, match terrestrial values, or not. The reason for the uncertainty re the trace elements, is due to the fact that the two laboratories which checked the trace element isotopic ratios, showed major discrepancies in these values. Robert Powell stated that if they were to do the testing again, he would isolate the trace elements separately, and then run isotopic ratio testing.

Robert's major question at the end of the day is, even if the magnesium component matched terrestrial values, how did a piece of magnesium of this purity come to be in Brazil in 1957?

Some speculation

Over the years, there have been suggestions regarding some abduction experiences in Latin America, that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may have been involved. For example, in the book "Mirage Men: A Journey into Disinformation, Paranoia and UFOs," [Pilkington, M. 2010, p.65] there is an extremely interesting reference:

"Until his death in Fairfax, Virginia in 1999, Bosco Nedecovic was an interpreter and translator at the Inter-American  Defense College, which educates future leaders of Latin American nations. In 1978 the Yugoslavian emigre confided in the American UFO researcher Rich Reynolds that, during the 1950's and 1960's, the CIA had deliberately manufactured UFO incidents all over the world as part of a project called Project Mirage. What's more, Nedecovic, who between 1956 and 1963 had worked for the CIA in Latin America under the Agency for International Development (AID) was himself present at some of these staged events. And one of them was the Villas Boas abduction."

Note that the Villas Boas abduction is reported to have occurred on 16 October 1957.

Furthermore, along these lines, there is a fascinating quote in Jacques Vallee's "Forbidden Science: Volume Four" in the diary entry dated 26 March 1992 which reads:

"I have secured a document confirming that the CIA simulated UFO abductions in Latin America (Brazil and Argentina.)"

Researcher Jack Brewer followed up this statement, by contacting Vallee. For Vallee's response, click here. 

As I pondered Robert Powell's questions as to how come a piece of nearly pure magnesium turned up in Brazil in 1957, a thought occurred to me. If it were true that the CIA were involved in creating fake abduction events, could they have possibly created a fake "exploding flying saucer" story complete with fake physical evidence? Note, that the first we heard of the Ubatuba fragments, was on 14 September 1957. Take note of the following facts.

No-one has ever located the individual who submitted the fragments to the Brazilian newspaper. Could it be because there was no such individual?

No-one (e.g. Kaufmann & Sturrock, 2004) has ever located first-hand witnesses to the explosion  despite searches by multiple individuals. Could it be because there was no such explosion?

If the above is true, then where did the nearly pure magnesium samples come from? A possible answer is to be found in Sturrock (2001:74) who reports a statement, from 1968, from Dr. Roy Craig, who had a piece of fragment from Ubatuba analyzed. Craig (1995:112) wrote that between 1943 and 1968, the Dow Chemical Corporation, in the USA, had manufactured batches of almost pure magnesium, upon request.

Putting this altogether, we have an unknown source providing magnesium samples, which were available in the USA at that time, to a Brazilian newspaper. This was accompanied by a story of an "exploding flying saucer" for which no first-hand witnesses could be located. Thus we can form a working hypothesis that that perhaps the CIA obtained pieces from Dow; and submitted them to the newspaper along with a fake story.

I would be interested to hear from blog readers what they think of this hypothesis. It fits the known facts, but is speculation, unless we could locate documentary evidence of such a deception, e.g.in CIA documents.

Bibliography

For those blog readers who wish to read more about the Ubatuba samples, here is a listing of the material which I have on file. I have provided online links to the sources cited, wherever possible. 

1. 1957. Fontes, O. "Special Report: Physical Evidence Proving UFOs To Be Craft From Outer Space." Unpublished manuscript. 57 pages. APRO files.

2. 1957. Sued, I. "Um Fragmento De Disco - Voador!" O Globo, (Rio de Janero, Brazil), 14 September 1957, page 4.

3. 1960. "Physical Evidence." The APRO Bulletin, March, pages 1 &3.

4. 1960. "APRO Metal Extraterrestrial?" NICAP Special Bulletin, May, page 3.

5. 1960. "The Physical Evidence Story." The APRO Bulletin, May, pages 1-3 & 8.

6. 1961. Wightman, D. "The Aerial Phenomena Research Organization's 'Physical Evidence': Was the Ubatuba Disc a Missile, a Hoax or a Flying Saucer?" Saucer News, March, Volume 8, Number 1, pages 5-9.

7. 1962. Fontes, O.T. "A report on the Investigation of Magnesium Samples from a UFO Exploding Over the Sea in the Ubatuba Region of Brazil." Published as a chapter in, Lorenzen, C. E. "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax." William Frederick Press, New York, pages 89-132.

8. 1968. "Report On An Investigation Of A Magnesium Sample." 25 pages. Colorado Project material. Located in the Condon Committee file held by the American Philosophical Society Library. Dr. Michael Swords digital collection.

9. 1968. Saunders, D. R. & Harkens, R. R. "UFOs? Yes!: Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong." Signet Books, New York. page 170.

10. 1969. Lorenzen, C & J. "UFOs:The Whole Story." Signet Books, New York.

11. 1970. "APRO's New Findings on Ubatuba magnesium." The APRO Bulletin, Jul-Aug, pages 1 & 5.

12. 1971. Harney, J. "The Search for Physical Evidence- Part Three- The Ubatuba Magnesium." Merseyside UFO Bulletin, Volume 4, number 2, pages 19-25.

13. 1976. Scornaux, J. "Ubatuba, Brasil - Septembre 1957: Authentiques fragment d'ovni?" Lumieres Dans La Nuit, October, number 158, pages 5-9.

14. 1978. Bourron, M. "Ubatuba." Lumieres Dans La Nuit, April, number 174, pages 1-5.

15. 1979. Lebelson, H. "Alien Metals." UFO Update. OMNI magazine, November, Volume 2, number 2, pages 30 & 132.

16. 1980. Pace, A. R. "Ubatuba Magnesium - UFO Fragments." Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena. Volume 1, number 2, pages 41-42.

17. 1980. Walker, W. W. "Ubatuba (Brazil) Magnesium." In Story, R. (ed.) "The Encyclopedia of UFOs" Doubleday & Co., Garden City, New York pages 374-375.

18. 1984. "Magensium Study Continues." The APRO Bulletin, January, page 6.

19. 1985. Sturrock, P. A. "Brazil Magnesium Study." The Explorer, Volume 2, number 2, page 6.

20. 1986. Lorin, J. & Havette, A. "Isotope and Elemental Charcterization of a Magensium Sample of Unknown Origin Collected in Brazil in 1957." Paris, France. Laboratoire de Mineralogie - Crystallographie, Universite P, et M. Curie.

21. 1987. Sturrock, P. A. "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Number 1, pages 75-100.

22. 1988. Henry, R.C. "UFOs and NASA." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 2, Number 2, pages 93-142.

23. 1990. Vallee, J. "Confrontations." Ballentine Books, New York, pages 49-51.

24. 1990. Vallee, J. "Revelations." Ballentine Books, New York. page 21.

25. 1992. Swords, M.D. "Analysis of Alleged Fragments from an Exploding UFO near Ubatuba, Brazil: An Introduction." Journal of UFO Studies, (new series), 4, pages 1-5.

26. 1992. Walker, W.W. & Johnson, R. "Further Studies of the Ubatuba UFO Magnesium Samples." Journal of UFO Studies, (new series), 4,  pages 6-25.

27. 1992. Walker, W.W. "Scientific Study of the Ubatuba Magnesium Fragments: A 1992 Perspective." Journal of UFO Studies, (new series), 4, pages 26-37.

28. 1995. Craig, R. "UFOs: An Insiders View of the Official Quest for Evidence." Denton, Texas, Uni. of North Texas Press, pages 105-113.

29. 1998. Clark, J. "Ubatuba Residue." "The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning." 2nd. ed. Volume 2, pages 909-911. Detroit, Michigan. Omnigraphics. Inc.

30. 1998. Vallee, J. "Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3, pages 354-375.

31. 2001. Sturrock, P. A. "Composition Analysis of the Brazil Magnesium." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 15, number 1, pages 69-95.

32. 2004. Kaufmann, P.& Sturrock, P. A. "On Events Possibly Related to the 'Brazil Magnesium.'" Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 18, number 2, pages 283-291.

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Barry Greenwood, of Boston, in the USA for sharing his data file on Ubatuba; and to Dr. Michael Swords, also in the USA for sharing his Ubatuba information.

Updates 18 June 2020

1. Barry Greenwood forwarded me a cleaner copy of the 14 September 1957 Brazilian newspaper article, and points out that the name of the newspaper was O Globo not El Globo as per the Sturrock (2001) paper.

2. US researcher Brad Sparks advised me that he has an extensive article on Ubatuba, which discusses Ubatuba history, theories, lists all known lab analyses to 2018 and analyzes the isotopic
studies, in "The UFO Encyclopedia, 3rd. ed." authored by Jerome Clark, and published by Omnigraphics Inc., 2018. I was did not have a copy of this article in my files, and so failed to mention it in my bibliography.

3. I received a lengthy comment from researcher Robert Duvall. For some reason Blogspot comments wouldn't work for Robert so I asked him to email me his comments, which appear below.

Magnesium and the CIA - part 1

Hello Keith, how are you doing? Adelaide was a wonderful time for me - enjoyed the visit immensely!

Generally as I see it at least, much of the problem with UFO research is that it focuses on what the government has done or is doing or will do. One has to ask what has the government given the community besides headaches? I began studying UFO by reading the books that came out on the subject in the order which they were published. By the mid-1950s it was obvious that the government had taken a hostile position with regard to the research community and everything that followed verified that position. So why given this obvious stance is it that the community is going after this hostile entity for answers? Anyone who thinks that the CIA works for the president or any government portion that has appearances of representation to the population is nuts.

The CIA was born of nefarious purposes and anyone paying the least bit of attention today to what is going on here in the US should see how far that and other entities will go to secure an agenda that has "no good" written all over it. Australia is beginning to flex and fight - thankfully - against the beast that is the CCP. Globalism is real, and the idea that UFO/UAP or whatever are separate from global politics and agendas is patently absurd. Any observations that the CIA was then involved in obfuscation, mis- and disinformation campaigns and certain military entities were also tending to this should get a gold star. The Magnesium samples - just par for the CIA course.

Many learn about UFO by studying the history of the human reaction to UFO starting jokingly in 1947 - and that overlaps substantially with official actions and responses to these events. That formula is flawed right off. We are learning by taking in all of the disinformation and trying to separate the correct data from the lies? Streams have sudden wide spots where the main current drives the water at these wide spots in a circular motion - Eddie Currents. What the US government has done very successfully over and over and over is kept many talented people within the research community going around in circles unknowingly - assigned to Eddiedom. This is and has been for a very long time the state of the majority of research efforts. I watched it over and over from the sidelines getting my assessment validated. It is hard to watch. You know good and well that intelligence was behind all of it.

The fact is that research needs a new approach. I think it is brilliant that you are pointing out something I have been kind of silent about for quite a while. I bring it up - but it mostly just gets swatted like a pesky fly. This is the heart of the problem with UAP research. I saw it early on and completely avoided the ring where no one can be trusted. Why bother? So I came up with an approach with the help of a colleague that I think panned out in huge ways. I tried to export that approach into the research mix - the community. It went to deaf ears. To be honest now I really don't care - if the community is going to continue to insist on getting the "official" answer from US or other government entities, go ahead by all means possible. You are going to get exactly what you have been getting since probably around 1947. Have fun with that. I left research years ago - I have no current investment in it and certainly don't wish to waste my time trying to convince others about the dam leaking. I'd rather sit off to the side and watch the melee that ensues or better yet do something valuable with my time - I really don't enjoy watching others suffer (which is the state of research).

Magnesium and the CIA - part 2

I did not publish my findings on UFO intent and actions regarding our global nuclear weapons infrastructures for a couple of reasons: a - It is a complex study that requires many working on it to cover the decades of events in enough detail with enough historical analysis that it clearly indicates what actually occurred relationally, b - A deeper historical study would have to take place to place context onto what we see today and since WW2, and c - The same entities that are birthing Eddies in the community won't easily allow the real reason for all of this to see the light of day. Given the state of the research community and the absolute disregard for any approach that is not asking the government to come clean I knew my odds were slim but I persisted for around ten years to try to get this to take. Then I got out. I can't do all of the work required to put this into a form useful to the community and as far as that goes the public at large and I value my life enough to know when to move on. I don't like being played by the nefarious intelligence entities and though I wouldn't hesitate to call them out I know from the beginning I am on the losing side. Only a few within the community understand the importance of a different approach - and the value of this particular approach. These individuals have never exercised it enough to see the returns, so even they aren't convinced. Others have and know the benefits.

We will never learn the truth from the US government, period. To be successful is to go completely around the government, involve history as the comparative backdrop for understanding intent, and look deep into history for the context of what we see today. Only then can an appreciation for what is happening today come about. You need event data, clear concise history, and between the lines information regarding what happened during intense nuclear times - the stuff the governments censored. No one single government and especially the US government wants to be seen as completely incompetent with regard to their most sophisticated defenses toward any enemy - and that is what this exposes in spades. It also tells us a great deal about why these events happen in the first place - and we could learn from that if we could ever study it unimpeded. Go after it and you could receive a package delivered to your home that will send you into the circular waters I call Eddies. You must throw it away and keep plugging.

I hope that answers your question Keith about whether there is merit to your theory regarding the magnesium. To me it is a no-brainer; of course it was an intelligence operation. Fits like a glove and it is still achieving what it set out to do in the first place sixty years after the plan was hatched. Think about how many of these types of misguided lies were thrown at the community since then.

Update 19 June 2020

Robert Powell forwarded me a 6 page report from the National Office Laboratory, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Diviision, dated 27 February 1968, titled "Neutron activation analysis of Artifacts associated with UFO Phenomena." The Ubatuba sample was provided by Dr. Roy Craig.