2024-06-12 - IRONCLAD Andy Stumpf "Is the Government Hiding Alien UAP Technology? (with Dr. Garry Nolan)"

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated transcript and does include errors. Please check the original if necessary. 

Source Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HAY_MUYcrI

Garry Nolan (00:00:00):

There are operations being set up to make parallel retrieval teams that have nothing to do with the government to get there first and hopefully not engage yourself in a firefight, but they have the means to get there first. Let's just put it that way.

Andy Stumpf (00:00:52):

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to Change Agents and Iron Clad Original presented by Montana Knife Company. Strap in. We're going into outer space for this one. This episode is the first in a two-part series about UAP unidentified aerial phenomenon. Yes, we're talking about what used to be called UFOs, maybe aliens, maybe alien life. I don't know. It's a broad ecosystem and universe out there. So for the purpose of this and future conversations, we're calling them UAP Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. We're going to be talking about what the government might be hiding and efforts to understand the UAP. Obviously, this area draws a lot of interesting characters, so we wanted to focus on guests with credibility and positions of expertise and authority. In addition to today's interview with Stanford professor Dr. Gary Nolan, we are going to release a special bonus episode with sitting lawmaker on the US House Committee on Oversight and Accountability representative Tim Burchett later this week. Dr. Nolan is one of the world's leading immunologists and is a professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine. He's also the executive director of the board and Co-founder of Sol Foundation. The foundation's mission is to bring together experts from academia and government to address the philosophical policy and scientific problems raised by the likely presence on Earth of UAP.

(00:02:34):

I think the best way to kick it off, given what we're going to be talking about, is if you could discuss the Sol Foundation, what it is and how you came to be involved with it.

Garry Nolan (00:02:44):

So the SOL foundation is an academic organization whose intent is to legitimize the conversation in a professional manner, not to make any claims about what UAP or non-human intelligences are or might be, but to basically create a place where academics can come and ask the kinds of questions that academics and professionals want to ask. They want to have a what if question rather than a there is question. And so the issue is that society in general looks to academics for better or worse, as the people who will talk about the kinds of questions that matter to them and will provide, at the very least for policymakers and government or commercial organizations, the war gaming questions and answers that might affect human society at large. And the output of such an organization and an output of any academic organization frankly, are published papers that are peer reviewed.

(00:03:58):

And it's not because peer review legitimizes the answer, but peer review legitimizes the methodology by which potential answers or conclusions are come to so that somebody else who might be looking at, well, how did you analyze this? Can go back to the paper and say, oh, well, here's the methods you used. Here's the data you used to come to this conclusion. I might disagree with your conclusion, but at least I know that the data and the methods that you use to come to your conclusion are reasonable so that other people can reproduce it. But more so it's because, again, for better or worse, both government and society at large look to academics to spend the time asking the questions that matter to humanity at large. And so we've done that already now with a couple of papers and white papers that we've put out and other papers that we are putting out in the future around what is it that government needs to do about this?

(00:04:59):

What is it that we need to do from the standpoint of the military to protect either pilots or individuals or commercials, commercial airlines for the matter. I just got off the line with somebody who's the head of a major healthcare organization in the United States to talk with him about mental health issues around this because there are people who, for instance, feel that they've seen something and they suffer what you can think of as a double trauma. They both are suffering and dealing with the issue of having seen something that they don't understand. And then when they try to relay that to friends and family, they're called crazy or they're accused of being having a mental health issue. So there's nobody that they can go to talk to, and we know that that's the worst case that one should ever have when you're trying to relay an experience that had, from my personal standpoint, I got involved in this because somebody came to me, some people from the government came to me to ask for my help to look at medical harm that had come to some individuals around this matter, and they didn't come to me because I had any special experience in UAP or the phenomena.

(00:06:22):

They were doing complete medical workups on this cohort of individuals, about a hundred individuals from the military and the defense establishment and the IC and diplomatic corps. And they'd asked around and they said, well, we want to do blood analysis for inflammatory events. Who's the best person we can talk to? And they said, well, you got to go talk to this guy Nolan at Stanford. He has the world's most advanced instrument for looking at blood and giving you a detailed report on these things. And that's when they showed up in my office and asked me for my help. And frankly, at the beginning, I thought it was a joke that somebody was, it was sort of a candid camera moment. I

Andy Stumpf (00:07:03):

Was going to ask you, how did they present themselves to you? Was it the classic suit and tie? What did they say? Hello, sir. We're from the government.

Garry Nolan (00:07:11):

Yes. And we're here to help you. Yeah, a Ronald Reagan. So no, they literally showed up unannounced and said, hi, we are here. I represent and I work with the CIA and the other was a aerospace organization executive, and these are the medical cases we'd like your help on. And it didn't become about UAP until about 30 minutes or so into the discussion. And that's when I began to look around to see if there was a candid camera somewhere pointed at me from one of the other windows in the building. But what got me intrigued was the data that they showed. I mean, they didn't just say, Hey, these things happened. They took out MRIs and they showed me the specific scarring within the brain that had occurred, and then they gave me the detailed medical reports of some of these individuals. And so to the extent that what they were showing me was real and it is real, or at least I thought it was real at the moment, I said, okay, well this is interesting.

(00:08:26):

How can I help? And then that's when it became a discussion, at least in part about UAP and I helped them. I went out and interviewed some of the individuals personally to make sure that, I mean, I sort of feel like you have to get involved individually about some of this. I flew out to speak with some of these individuals and I was convinced that they had experienced something real. I wasn't in a to validate what they saw, but their body language told me that they had experienced something. And so that was pretty much my inauguration and induction into the what is often called the Invisible College of Academics and scientists who are working behind the scenes on the matter to understand it in a more normalized way.

Andy Stumpf (00:09:26):

What year did the government first approach you? It

Garry Nolan (00:09:29):

Was around 2011, I think. 2011, 2012. I

Andy Stumpf (00:09:34):

Don't remember. It seems like I remember growing up hearing stories about Roswell and the dish and all of these things paid almost no attention to it other than to say that I was aware of that term and it had something to do with, I don't think they were calling it UAPs at the time. I think the blanket term was just aliens ufo. Yeah, UFO aliens. It seems like in the past few years, these conversations, people are in a place where they're much more willing to have these conversations from a serious perspective. And I'm curious why you think that is. Is it just because of the volume of information is coming forward and it no longer can be held back? Do you think somebody behind the scenes is saying, you know what? Perhaps it's time that we release this to the general population. What do you think it is that is setting the stage in an environment where people are much more open to talk about these things?

Garry Nolan (00:10:22):

Well, I think it's both of the things that you've said. One, the volume of information that's coming out, I mean, and that matches something where it's called a CUNY in revolution. KUHN. Thomas Kuhn was a professor I think at Harvard who wrote this thing about the structure of scientific revolutions, where as in many areas, people ridicule things at the beginning. They don't believe it until the data begins to build to where you can no longer ignore it. And that the data basically says that the old model of science of how to view things doesn't operate anymore, and then suddenly everything changes and the new model becomes the case. Gandhi had a similar thing. First they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Essentially, change comes in that order. So I think the first thing is the amount of data is overwhelming at this point that there's something worth understanding.

(00:11:31):

Second, you've had people like Schumer, Senator Schumer, Senator Rounds, Rubio Gillibrand as the senators, and then a number of representatives who've seen some of the data behind the scenes, literally write legislation. And Biden signed legislation in December of 2023, which talks about non-human intelligence. I mean, think about that for a moment. In the National Defense Appropriation Act in 2023 and in 2022, in 2022, they established an office in the Department of Defense to study this stuff and to collect information from across all of the organizations within the government, which is huge. The government operations are huge in that regard. So AARO, all domain anomaly resolution office exists 50 people paid for by the taxpayer. Now, collecting this information, I could have a different set of words, just talk about them. We can talk about them perhaps later in the show this year. Again, there is going to be another amendment put forward to redo what was wrong with the last one.

(00:12:44):

So here you have now three years in a row, the National Defense Appropriation Act will have information regarding UAP first. The government has admitted they exist. They haven't said what they are, and that's fine. That's science. You shouldn't say what they are until you know what it is, or at least you're willing to say they admitted it exists. They're putting monies towards understanding it. So here you have the government has agreed, society has agreed. A large portion of society agrees that there's something there. So what's the missing link at this point? The scientists, the academics. The academics now are frankly behind the eight ball behind the curve on this because they haven't been allowed into the conversation because there's been this self-censoring of academics to think that if you're involved in something like this, you've gone over the deep end. And I've experienced that personally at least as of about let's say maybe 10 to eight years ago where people would say, oh, Gary, you're going to ruin your career for doing this, blah, blah.

(00:13:54):

And I'm like, whatever. I mean, my career is perfectly well set, but to your point, the tables have turned in that now I can go give a talk at Harvard or anywhere, and literally I will be introduced as the guy who talks about UAP and legitimizes it. I will be asked afterwards to take selfie with other scientists because their brothers, friends, sisters, children all know about me and they want to talk about it. I'll go out to dinner after having given a talk, and rather than talk about the science I presented for an hour, they want to talk about UAP. So having a serious discussion and framing the conversation with boundary conditions about how you talk about it lets people in to talk about it in a safe space. I mean, I can believe whatever I want outside about what I think it is and what's going on, but that's anecdote and speculation, which is fine, and I've had my own personal experiences and having seen things, but that's not science. So you set and create a separate fenced off area where anybody can walk into it and talk about it safely and have a fun conversation about what the data might mean.

Andy Stumpf (00:20:00):

How do the academics get out from behind that eight ball if the government has, as they generally do more information than they share with individuals, and it's great that they have an entity, I'm shocked that it's only 50 people given the size of our current government. I'm surprised it's not 500 or 500,000. I'd be a nice way to justify a line item on a budget. Are those academics or are those people, are they academics and are they allowed to share that information? Because if academics in the civilian sector, if they're not given access to this information or objects, whatever it may be, they're always going to be behind the eight ball because they're always going to be behind the things that the government has that doesn't want to share.

Garry Nolan (00:20:40):

Well, that's a very deep question and has a lot of moving parts. So what is AARO? AARO was stood up by Congress within the Department of Defense to collect the information that the DOD thinks it has or is willing to say that it has, and then to present that information to Congress. So AARO is in a way, an auditing a group whose role is to just collect information and tell Congress what it is that Congress is spending money on. So you can think about it as that. So 50 people who are meant to collect data and then their role is to resolve the cases, which is strange because some of the cases are not resolvable in terms of that. Well, we see stuff moving in ways that it's not supposed to move, at least as far as we understand how physics operates. And so until they resolve something, it remains unknown, but they're never willing to say that, well, this is an absolutely measured object by 10 different radar systems, and because it didn't land and shake our hands, we can't say it's not an alien that it's an alien or that it's something else.

(00:22:02):

So it's a kind of weird operation. But your other point was why aren't there 500 or 5,000 people? Well, there actually are behind the scenes working on this stuff. At least that's what you would conclude. If you speak to people like David Grusch or Karl Nell or half a dozen other people that I know, some of whom literally work on the programs that they claim are really reverse engineering hidden within black programs. This is an interesting structure of how it operates. You have the open budget, which of course has a lot of top secret information of things that are being done. Then there's the black budget and the black programs, which are barely discussed and are hidden under very abstruse and abstract names. And then literally the way that this seems to operate is that within the black programs, there are subsections and people who are operating on the So-called reverse engineering, but even the black programs don't know that that's what these people are working on.

(00:23:02):

So it's layered within levels of special access programs that are nearly impossible to understand. And this is where David Grusch came forward and others have come forward as whistleblowers to say the money is being misdirected. They're lying on how it is that the money is being spent. Now, this should infuriate anybody in the public to think that your taxpayer, your taxes are going towards programs which you don't understand how the money's being spent, first of all. I mean for all it's being spent and going into somebody's pocket and they're buying a yacht. So maybe you should know that the money's actually being spent or they're not buying $500 toilet seats. So there's that kind of auditing that needs to go on. But then let's say that some of this stuff is real, right? Okay. So is the money being wisely spent to understand what the technology might be, and is it only being spent to determine whether or not it can be used as a weapon?

(00:24:16):

Or are there efforts, and this is where my interests come in, are there efforts to understand the technology in ways that it helps us economy? First, are there discoveries about how technology or instrumentation might be created that could be used for legitimate public commercial purposes for the United States first and then for the world? I mean, look, I am a patriot right down to my selves. I want to see this work for the United States first. I think the United States is a force for good in the world. So that's what I want see to make sure that the money that we're spending is being done not just for military purposes. And I'm fully supportive of the military. I'm fully supportive that we need to have a strong military and use it for that first. But then when it's not obviously usable by the military, that doesn't mean you keep it like a dragon's hoard of gold.

(00:25:22):

There might be ways that you can use it publicly to help humanity at large. So for instance, the National Defense Appropriation Act last year, one of the provisions within the UAP amendment was to establish a semi-public board of scientists and historians and other academics that would oversee whether or not given information around this subject matter remains secret for good and legitimate reasons, or whether it goes into the national archives and made public. And my point was that's a little too binary that maybe there are things that legitimately need to stay public or need to stay private because you're not sure that making it public is a good idea. Or maybe there's stuff that's on the edge of utility for public use that you could create a public private partnership where investors or the outside could put money in to bring in real scientists. I mean, not that there aren't real scientists in the defense department, but they're not the kinds of amazingly forward-looking thinkers that might be required to understand advanced technology that came from somebody.

(00:26:44):

So for instance, there's lots of great people at all kinds of organizations around the United States that are truly the leaders in their area that are not being used in these claimed reverse engineering programs. Why not? Well, why? Because a lot of them couldn't get under their current regime, the clearances to study this stuff. So maybe we need to create a separate organization, not funded by the government, because the last thing I want is more money from the taxpayer to go into this, but funded by the commercial sector where the commercial sector gets rights to the technology should something come of it. So it then becomes a zero sum game for the government because the government always works on a zero sum. If I'm taking the money for something else, it's coming from somebody else's pocket. So let's not play that game and get into those kinds of fights. Let's create a third lane within which the right people on this UAP board put basically the ideas that could be valuable to society into and then bring in other scientists again to legitimize it. I can tell you upfront that if we had such a thing and I walked out and said, here's the steering wheel from one of these craft, I'd have half of the physics department at Stanford or the mechanical engineering department or the electronics department at Harvard who will come in and say, how can we help understand this?

Andy Stumpf (00:28:19):

They'd be breaking down your door to get involved in that.

Garry Nolan (00:28:22):

Exactly. I mean, I gave a talk in the SALT organization, which is Alex Gorkow Krokus and Anthony Scaramucci investment Fund in Manhattan, probably about 1200 high-end investors who were there. They were riveted by this subject matter. Karl Nell gave one just last week at the same organization, again, riveted by it. So the investors community is actually as much a part of the push at this point to validate this. I mean, look at what's happening with ai. I mean, two years ago, AI and the thought of it was science fiction. Now it's a near trillion dollar opportunity for the US economy.

Andy Stumpf (00:29:14):

How much weight do you put into the whistleblowers and the information that they are presenting coming forward? And I say that through the lens of just me as a person. I want us to not be alone in the universe because first off, I barely graduated high school. So I have a very limited understanding of math, but I feel like the universe is large, and I feel like from a statistical perspective to think that we're the only people out here on this spec of whatever we're on is unlikely. Again, no mastery of statistics, but I'm not scared of not being alone in the universe. To me, it sounds like if we were not alone, that's less plausible than if somebody else was out there.

Garry Nolan (00:29:54):

Yeah, I mean, first the statistics work in let's say our favor, that we're not the only ones. I mean, there's a thing in math called Bayesian inference and priors that a prior truth is enough to say that the truth can happen again, is basically a simple way, a layman's way of putting it, and you can assign a statistical probability to that. So the statistical probability of life existing in the universe right now is a hundred percent. So the question is whether or not it happened again elsewhere. And there's more than enough data to suggest that. In fact, we came from Seedings from the, it's called Panspermia, this notion that life actually probably started elsewhere and floated our way and seeded itself as plankton or something in our oceans.

(00:30:52):

But there's also more than enough time given the age of the universe that a civilization could have arisen on the other side of the galaxy, and even by conventional rockets make its way all the way to us, it would've taken about two or 3 billion years, and not necessarily that they would've lived that long, but they could have driven their operation with computers and their own form of advanced AI that would land somewhere nearby, plant a seed and say, well, our job is done. So you don't have to imagine super luminal drive to get here, or nor do you have to imagine that the things that are here are in fact the ones that sent the rocket in the first place. Well, within the capability and of time and statistics to get here,

Andy Stumpf (00:31:43):

What do you think it would take? I mentioned the whistleblowers that have come forward. I think the one linchpin for a lot of people is they can discuss the programs that they have either been directly involved with or peripheral. But the one thing missing, as you mentioned to use your example, is the steering wheel. Even though I feel like advanced societies would probably have moved on beyond a steering wheel, I like that analogy because people get it. That is the one thing that none of the whistleblowers have, and I think that is the one bridge that hasn't been crossed by people because they don't have that visceral evidence to actually look at. It's the leap of faith.

Garry Nolan (00:32:21):

Yeah, I agree. So that's currently being worked on is how do we get this done in a legitimate manner so that it's not just an anecdote and a story. And so there's a few ways to move that conversation forward legally, I'm not advocating that anybody basically sneak anything out the back door. There's one legal way to do it is to go out and look for the evidence ourselves. The stuff that is obtained or claimed to be obtained is in the possession of the government because they got there first.

Andy Stumpf (00:32:59):

How do they always seem to get there first though? Is it detection before it impacts?

Garry Nolan (00:33:03):

We have an amazing detection system, satellites that you've spent billions and billions of dollars on putting up when stuff goes awry. They get there first. They really do. And so one of the first problems many in the public make or one of the mistakes they make is alerting the government first.

Andy Stumpf (00:33:26):

It's a ballsy call.

Garry Nolan (00:33:30):

So you do that, you think you're doing the right thing, but there are operations being set up to make parallel retrieval teams that have nothing to do with the government to get there first and hopefully not engage yourself in a firefight, but they have the means to get there first. Let's just put it that way. Now, the second point is observational work that's being done by the likes of Avi Loeb and the Galileo project. I might not have a piece of hardware that I can show you, but I have legitimate measurements on objects collected by multiple simultaneous sensors that I can write a science paper on and is as irrefutable as anything done in any other arena of science. So that I think is the second part. And then the third part is the UAP board that will be hopefully set up with the new legislation, again, being put forward by Senator Schumer again and rounds. It's a bipartisan, it's not the Democrats of the Republicans, it's bipartisan. They have seen enough behind the scenes to say that, look, we need to get this out. And so if we can legitimize bringing that out, then that would be a good thing that would answer the question.

Andy Stumpf (00:35:05):

I agree. What's your best guess hypothesis of what the government or the Pentagon is currently in possession of?

Garry Nolan (00:35:17):

Well, it's anecdote again, but if you believe the people like David Grusch and Karl Nell, Eric Davis, and some other people that I know personally, they're in possession of a craft, multiple craft, and we're not the only ones. I mean, I think we are actually -- I think this is what should scare people. What happens if China gets to it first? It's pretty clear. It is not a US thing. They don't show up in the United States only. So if China and Russia have them or God help us Iran, and they get access and understanding to what the technology means first, we might be in a little bit of trouble.

Andy Stumpf (00:36:09):

Based off your experience with some of the people that have come forward, there's a couple of things I've heard about crash sites and materials potentially being found at those crash sites and also unexplainable or strange abilities of these crafts. Can you kind of unpack from what you have heard? And again, I understand it's anecdotal through other people, but what you've heard, the capabilities are the things that have been found that again, lead us down this path towards this obviously didn't originate on earth

Garry Nolan (00:36:36):

Metals with extraordinarily hard and heat transmissive capabilities that are near superconductors of heat, if not electricity. And that's probably the one that I know ones I know the most of engineered materials that seem to be engineered at the atomic level that are people who have called them metamaterials. I mean, there's one of them that's very public that I'm not sure about the provenance of or the capability of, but there's others that I'm aware of that people just don't understand first how it is it that they could make something like that. How would it be made? Because it was found at a time when we couldn't make something like that. And it is structured in a way that, I mean, it's even today difficult to understand how some of these things are structured and made. So I mean, that's what I know about the other things. I just should be careful what I say because they're given to me under the information that's been given to me under confidence, not under any secrecy agreement per se, but just under confidence. And I just don't want to have them call me up and say, why did you talk about my stuff publicly? Now people are going to know what it is and who I talked to.

Andy Stumpf (00:38:02):

Fair enough. And actually, I was going to ask you this. When you were talking about the initial people you went and spoke to about their experiences, what was your headspace before sitting down with them? Were you skeptical? Did you go into it just with as big of as open mind as possible? And then how did you feel leaving those experiences?

Garry Nolan (00:38:22):

Good question. Well, I mean, obviously I, because I thought there was something intriguing here, and I was like, well, if what they are saying is true, then it could be important. And so that's generally how I approach my science. If the hypothesis is correct, it's worth the time to investigate it. And so what I came back from those meetings with was the sense that those people were not lying. So I came back with, okay, the story that was told to me by the people who said it was that this thing had happened to this individual. The individual confirmed it, and I'm a very good read of body language, and so these people were either extraordinary liars or they were extraordinarily mentally disturbed. They showed no other indication of being mentally disturbed. So I can only accept that what they told me was a real experience.

(00:39:31):

And having now met with or talked with a couple of dozen such individuals who are otherwise of sound mind, I'm like, okay, well, if it's not non-human intelligence, then it's a phenomena that needs to be understood because it's sort of a Jungian collective unconscious event that needs to be understood from a psychological standpoint. There's two kinds of questions in science that you can categorize. One is what's called the Las Vegas question, where if the answer is yes, you win. If it's no, you can waste months or years of your life where it's like it's a high value win, but if you're wrong, you just waste. But sometimes there's just a way that you can reformulate the question so that it's interesting no matter what. And that's called the zen question where the answer is interesting no matter what. So this is where we are now with this issue. The UAP is a zen question. It's interesting. No matter what, it's either an indication that we are not alone in this universe. There's something else here that is different in intelligence than we are or at a different level, or we don't understand the nature of reality such that we are observing this sort of stuff on a regular basis. At least our consciousness seems to perceive it, but we are perceiving it and thinking of it as UAP, where in fact, it might be something else that we simply don't understand, but it's certainly happening.

(00:41:29):

So that's where we are. There is something happening. What remains the question is how do we explain it? And that's where I am, and that's where sort of circling back to the Sol Foundation is how is it that academics who love to sit around and just chatter about this kind of stuff and write papers or have conferences around it and hash it out to give it at least a patina of legitimacy so that other people can come in and offer their opinions? I often say it's not the conclusion because conclusions can very easily be proven wrong. Like I say, it's for aliens from Alpha Centura. Well, you're wrong. It's actually aliens from Zeta Reticuli, right? So don't come to a conclusion, but if I can convince you that the data is legitimate and correctly collected, then you and I can have a conversation about what does the data mean?

(00:42:37):

And so it's a philosophical twist of how you look at the information. People say all over Twitter, there's no evidence. Of course there's evidence, but the evidence is not a conclusion. Don't think that because I say there's evidence that I'm coming to a conclusion that it's an alien. All I'm saying is the evidence is legitimate and needs to be explained. And if you are going to say it's a weather balloon or it's a weather phenomenon, or it's a drone, fine, where is your data and methods that prove it? Just because it could be a drone doesn't mean you have dismissed the data as real, because you haven't proven that it's a drone, just like I haven't proven it's et, right? Yeah. And so makes sense. That's how you need to equivocate and equalize the answer system.

Andy Stumpf (00:43:38):

Ladies and gentlemen, today's episode is also brought to you by Mountain Tough. It's a unique functional fitness program that is, of course supported by hunters and seals and rangers and those from the special operations community. But that is not my favorite part of the mountain tough system or program, although it was developed with insights from the backcountry hunter and veteran special operations community, there is an emphasis on more than just physical strength, which I believe to be essential. It is also about building an unbreakable mind. It is easy to build muscles from the neck down. It is far more difficult to build muscles from the neck up and the resilience between your ears. The Mountain Tough app provides the best functional fitness program directly to your phone, tablet, tv, or a web browser. So you really don't have an excuse to say, oh, I didn't know what I could be doing or should be doing.

(00:44:31):

Whether it's a program or inspiration or insight. It's all right there at the touch of your fingers. Some of you might be saying, well, I'm not a special operations personnel. I'm also not a back country hunter. That's okay. For those of you who might not start out as an elite athlete, but you want to improve wherever you may be. Mountain tough is determined to push everybody's limits, and they're going to meet you where you are with thoughtful programming, helping you achieve elite status through progressive fitness, focusing on longevity, injury prevention, and holistic developments, a story arc from wherever you are getting as close to elite as could possibly be. So what are you waiting for? You can join the global Mountain tough community right now, a community of people transforming their lives, bodies, and minds. Download the Mountain Tough app today and start training to always be ready for whatever it is you're trying to be ready for the back country for the mission, or just life's unexpected challenges. Because when it comes to being prepared, there's no excuse to not start. Now, you can use the code change, which I'm looking at all capital letters, one word@mountaintough.com, on the monthly plan to get your first month absolutely free after your 14 day free trial. That's six weeks free to dive in, test the waters, the programming, and make sure it's actually for you. What are you waiting for? You can change your life today. Be ready for the mountains, the mission, and just life in general.

Andy Stumpf (00:46:54):

I also think people would be better served if they could become a little bit more comfortable just saying, I don't know. I mean, the history of our species has been, it seems as if we always have a higher station of what we think of ourself than our true understanding. Whether it be people convinced that the earth was the center of the solar system or the earth was flat, or medicine to relieve headaches would drill holes in your head, which maybe that does work. I don't know. I'm glad we have ibuprofen, but you give it enough time and you look back and you're like, huh, yeah, we probably didn't have all the data on that one, or maybe we just weren't advanced enough to understand what it is that we were looking at. So saying, I don't know, is okay.

Garry Nolan (00:47:36):

The best scientists are the ones who can say that. I don't know. Rather than just offering their opinion as if it's more legitimate, because you've achieved something in one field doesn't mean that you're legitimate in another field. It was funny, I was walking my dog this morning playing with them in the front yard and thinking about this exact matter. In fact, thinking I'm dealing with stuff that they couldn't even possibly understand. I have a perception of things that they don't possibly have. You go even further down to ants. Ants can't possibly understand TikTok. They couldn't even, the concepts are, and they don't even have a sensory apparatus to see the world that we do, but from their point of view, they're like, well, that's impossible. That's fantasy. So imagine that there's another level of reality that we are just not perceiving that something else lives within, that they have a perception of things that we just don't.

(00:48:44):

Half the country actually unrelated to UAP believes that religion, right? Catholicism, you name your religion, they believe that there's a level of reality where souls go that is different than the reality that we live in. So that doesn't mean that this is a religion. It just means that people have already formulated structures of how the universe might be operating, where there are levels of intelligences that could have a perception of things that we don't understand. And so just think about it in that way, that maybe there's ways of transmitting information up in some, to use, for lack of a better word, a quantum realm or another dimensional aspect that we don't appreciate that somebody else a thousand years from now, a million years from now, would understand how to operate. I mean, just a hundred, 200 years ago, nobody could possibly understand that I could pick up this little black box here and have a conversation with somebody on the other side of the planet,

Andy Stumpf (00:50:01):

Video or voice

Garry Nolan (00:50:02):

Just by pointing, Hey, Joe, and that's only 200 years. Imagine what we'll do, assuming we don't blow ourselves up or otherwise ruin the planet, what we would be in 50,000 years or a million years, incomprehensible. We won't even be able to talk to ourselves back here from 50,000 years from now, assuming we sort of continue on our trajectory in a positive sense. And that kind of loops back to something else you said that it'd be nice to know that we're not alone. It actually is quite hopeful to think that there's another civilization that made it past the precipice, the cliff of apocalypse, that we all think that's

Andy Stumpf (00:50:59):

The stage of monkeys with nuclear weapons.

Garry Nolan (00:51:01):

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I call us, if you've seen any of my other podcasts, I call us the Angry Monkeys, and why would an advanced intelligence show up here and land on the White House long with a bunch of angry monkeys? You would no more likely do that than you would walk into the middle of a troop of baboons fighting over an orange.

Andy Stumpf (00:51:28):

Yeah. What's the theory among your academic friends in this circle? Say there's an advanced technology from another world that has the ability to travel through space and time, and they can get to planet Earth. Why do they keep crashing so much? They have the ability to get here, but it seems like earth really trips 'em up sometimes.

Garry Nolan (00:51:49):

Well, I mean, okay, well, maybe the advanced technology is even in and of itself unstable.

Andy Stumpf (00:51:57):

Okay?

Garry Nolan (00:51:58):

Right. Consider that as advanced as it is, it still occasionally has a mishap, let's say, that we have means to bring them down. And let's say that some of the things that are brought down were brought down purposefully.

Andy Stumpf (00:52:17):

I definitely say that.

Garry Nolan (00:52:18):

Let's just say,

Andy Stumpf (00:52:19):

Yeah, hypothetically.

Garry Nolan (00:52:21):

Hypothetically.

(00:52:24):

And because they're unstable, I mean, let's just think about that for a second here. You have a device which at least are best understandings of how it could operate from an academic standpoint. It's warping space. So some of the best theories about how this works, I know it sounds Star Trek and Star Trek was maybe ahead of his time or something, or who knows, but some of the best theories from physicists who legitimately talk about this, somebody, your audience could go look up the Alcubierre Drive a Mexican physicist to sort of start it off and give up with the right fuel equations that would suggest it was possible, but the amounts of energy required are impossible to access, right? People have brought down the levels of energy required to something still outside of our capabilities, but not astronomically impossible, but you're warping space. Maybe all you need is an electromagnetic pulse of sufficient energy, and that would just disrupt the field. I mean, look, it doesn't take much more than a blast of wind to push a car off the road. So similarly, maybe a blast of the wrong electromagnetic energy or a lightning strike would bring the thing down. Who knows? That's the first part about it. There's also evidence that, let's say evidence, again, people are going to misquote me. Evidence does not equal a conclusion. Evidence is just the raw material for a hypothesis. There's evidence that whatever it is that we are dealing with does not all comport to a common command structure. It's not one thing. It seems to be many things,

(00:54:32):

Many things that might be intention with each other. Think of in the crudest sense, the colonial powers of the 16 and 17 hundreds, England, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, all fighting with each other for the raw materials of the planet. Now, I'm not saying that we're raw materials, planet Earth is such and that we're being fought over by other things, but that these things seem to be not happy with each other. At least there's evidence of that.

Andy Stumpf (00:55:11):

Interesting. Do you think along those lines that there's even a chance that the craft that we're seeing are actually from terrestrial origin, but they are under, they're people heard about stealth technology about a decade after it rolled out, whether it's the F1 17 or the B-2. Do you think there's any chance that what we're seeing is actually terrestrial, but just unreleased to this point?

Garry Nolan (00:55:33):

Some of it might be, but the theory behind how the craft that are being observed or operate just doesn't exist in current understanding of science. So really what you're talking about is an almost parallel civilizational capability where somebody has discovered concepts, which is fine if they did, and they're using them, but they would've had to have discovered them now nearly a hundred years ago, because these objects were seen as early as the early 19 hundreds. So unless you're talking steampunk capabilities didn't happen in the Victorian age, and then shortly thereafter, I mean, these things were seen as long ago as, I mean contemporary, and we think of it World War ii, the Foo Fighters and the things that we're seeing then having capabilities that we ascribed to Nazi Germany and Nazi Germany ascribed to the US Defense Department, and of course, neither had such capabilities. No, but the alternative is that it's not aliens at all, which interestingly, it is one of the sort of disinformation approaches that the DOD uses to sort of sweep the whole idea under the rug. Say, well, we have no evidence. It's aliens. What happens if it's non aliens? What happens if it's something that's been here all along? I mean, here's for instance, there is a parallel hominid called Hoi that you might've heard of.

(00:57:28):

It was three feet tall. It had developed fire and paintings and burial rights a hundred thousand years before Homosapiens did.

(00:57:41):

They somehow got wiped out, probably homosapiens came along and wiped them out, but they were doing stuff that we thought was only capable of being done by humans a hundred thousand years before we showed up. Absolute truth. Go look up. I think it's called the Cave of Stars. It's a Netflix series about this area. So what happens if something else? What happens if, I mean, this is speculation. What happens if the dinosaurs before that meteor hit had already developed some kind of a technology and decided that for the several hundred thousand years that the Earth was uninhabitable after the meteor strike in the Caribbean basin went underground and decided, well, it's better underground anyway. We're down here. Let the planet do what it does. And then they became whatever it is that we're seeing, what it was, if they created their own AI and the ai, not in a Skynet sense, but otherwise helped them along and took over a hundred.

Andy Stumpf (00:58:54):

Yeah. We've created in the last three minutes, the next level of the Marvel Cinematic universe. At worst, we've given people enough material.

Garry Nolan (00:59:02):

Yeah, I mean, what are we going to be in 10 years? I mean, look at, I don't know how much you use ChatGPT and all these AIs. They're amazing,

Andy Stumpf (00:59:10):

And I use them to understand them because my children were using them and had a better understanding than I did, and I don't even know. What does humanity look like if that evolutionary scale from a tech perspective continues on the pace that it thought? I have no idea.

Garry Nolan (00:59:25):

I mean, we are not going to be able to have conversations with our grandchildren because they are going to be so changed by what AI does. So all you need as a civilization is to reach that level of competency, which we did frankly in about 500 years. I mean, yes, there was 5,000 years of math and capabilities by the Assyrians and the Babylonians and the Chinese and the groups and the Mayans, et cetera. They knew it. But something happened about a thousand years ago in the Western civilization that put together accounting and math and science and rationalism all together in one, and boom, we just took off. And so in less than 500 years, we've gone from huts and mud huts and caves, essentially to AI capability. And so with AI and then with a GI and then a SI, general intelligence and super intelligence, our understandings and capabilities are going to just basically escalate in ways that we can't even fully appreciate.

(01:00:40):

I can't even appreciate it. So all you need is a civilization that gets to that level of competency, and you become unfathomable. Unfathomable, right? I mean, and so SETI, just as an example, SETI is looking for stuff out there and looking for radio signals. How stupid is that? I'm sorry. How stupid is it to be spending 20, 30, $40 million looking for radio signals? We don't even emit radio signals anymore. A capability or a strength capable of. So there was this 100 year window where we were emitting radio signals, and now everything is by fiber optics. So you're looking at all this stuff, and so the statistics are you're never going to see anything like a micro unit of the length of time that you can either look at a star and see a radio signal or not. We can't look at the whole universe at once. We can only point it at certain stars. And what happens if we've already decided whatever the civilization is, to move beyond the star because we don't need the star anymore. We can go live in intergalactic Space.

Andy Stumpf (01:01:53):

What do you think would happen if whatever president was in office to try to make it as apolitical as possible, strolls out to the rose garden? He's like, listen, okay, in the clearest of languages, we are not alone, and we are about to show you what we have recovered and what we have been working on. What do you think the impact would be on society

Garry Nolan (01:02:17):

About one week of drama and then another week of how are you going to use this information for us? And then people will go back to putting bread on their tables. That's really what I think is going on. I mean, it'd be like, it's

Andy Stumpf (01:02:33):

Hard to argue against it. I think, fuck, I think it would make our society or humanity, I would hope that it would ground us a little bit more like, Hey, maybe we're not the top of the pyramid that we always think that we're at. Maybe just a greater sense of what we exist in as opposed to always thinking we're the center of our own universe. Well,

Garry Nolan (01:02:52):

That's exactly what I've said before, is it would make us both smaller and larger at the same time. Smaller, because we realize we're not the center, but larger because we realize that we're part of a larger community. I would be looking for mentors. I mean, I'm looking for people who've achieved something. I mean, I am. I'm a good scientist. I know what I'm good at. But I always love being around people who are smarter than me in areas that I have nothing to do with, or even smarter than me in the area I think I'm in because I want to be not the person who is right. I want to know what is right. At least scientifically knowing truth. And I think that somebody else that might have achieved something. One of the things I tell my students who want to start, I've started a number of companies, successful companies, and spun out of my lab, and I tell my students, go find people who know more than you, because they can tell you not the things that you should do necessarily, but the things that you shouldn't do.

Andy Stumpf (01:04:04):

Yeah, don't waste your time here.

Garry Nolan (01:04:06):

Yeah, the shouldn't do. There's so many more ways to kill yourself than there are to survive.

Andy Stumpf (01:04:12):

So true. Almost unlimited.

Garry Nolan (01:04:15):

Exactly. So finding people who have that experience, the wisdom of what happens when the rubber meets the road, that it sounds good in principle, but when you actually get out there and apply it in the real world and it doesn't operate the way you thought it should. I mean, that's the learning experience. That's what at now, age 63, I feel like I have a bit more of. And as you get older, you'll always say to yourself, oh, I wish I knew this when I was 20. What would I have done if I knew this when I was 20? So I think the value then of that experience and my purpose, at least as a teacher or a professor, is, okay, well, I can't be the 20-year-old, but I can teach the 20-year-old.

Andy Stumpf (01:05:02):

Yeah. Well, and maybe that's a good way to bring this to a close too, and be respectful of your time. Where would you point people towards, for people who are curious, they don't know what to believe, maybe they don't even know what they believe, but they want to find more information. Do you have any references or resources that you would point people towards to at least start that journey? Not that it's necessarily an end state, but a good entry to it.

Garry Nolan (01:05:24):

Yeah. Well, I mean would, look, you can start at the Soul Foundation website. I wouldn't go to Wiki Wiki's been contaminated terribly by groups that just fight over whether or not a comm should be here or there. I wouldn't use Wiki as your source. There's going to be an announcement of a disclosure group that I'm a part coming up. I would go look on Ryan Graves is Americans for Safe Aerospace, which is basically underpinned by the American Society of Aeronautical Engineers. Ryan was one of the pilots who saw one of these objects and has made it his purpose in life.

(01:06:13):

There's some very good books by Jacques Vallee, especially Passport to Magonia and a couple of others. And another one of his is called Wonders in the Sky. And again, it's not that he's presenting conclusions, he's presenting the data. Wonders in the sky are incidences that have occurred back as many as 5,000 years ago, all meticulously collected and chronicled from libraries around the planet and things that people had seen as long ago as several hundred or a thousand years. And again, it's just data. Just collect that kind of information. Richard Dolan, a historian who writes about this UFOs in the national security state. He is just so again, meticulous about it. Leslie Keen wrote a large book as well about UFOs, pilots, governments, and the military. She's got some really good books on it.

(01:07:18):

And again, just to finish it off, you can't summarize this in a five minute elevator pitch. It's just not, it's way too complicated. Read the books by David Mack, sorry, John Mack, the Harvard psychiatrist who basically studied, so-called Abduction phenomenon. He came to the conclusion is, I don't know what this is, but it's a Zen question. It's interesting. No matter what, these people seem to experience it. If documentaries are your thing on Netflix, I would look for James Fox's moment of contact about an event that occurred in Brazil in Nia, Brazil. I mean, just dozens of interviews that he did with the people there of a crash of some sort. And then I forget the name of the movie, but it's about an event that occurred in Zimbabwe at a children's elementary school, the aerial school, I think it's called The Aerial Phenomenon, A-R-I-E-L, Ariel, the angel, the angel Ariel, the Ariel School of these six to 10 year olds saw this craft land in their school yard in a field nearby.

(01:08:49):

And they saw things. And it's actually not just the video documentary of the interviews that were done with the children at the time, but now 30 years later, going back to the individuals, some of them, and saying, how did this affect you? And do you still believe what you saw? And again, it has to do with reading the body language of the children. And John Mack went and interviewed these children and 60 children all telling the same story and drawing pictures. And so again, it's evidence, and you have to collect this and realize that you can't put it into a single box of what it is that Hollywood tells you aliens might be or what a non-human intelligence might be. And that's why we've changed the terms unidentified, anomalous phenomenon. It's not unidentified flying objects anymore. You generic it. Non-human intelligence, because we're not going to say it's aliens because aliens implies something from another planet somewhere. Maybe it's something called ultra terrestrials that's something that might have co-evolved with us here or some other form of intelligence that doesn't need to exist with matter. Who knows? The whole idea of academics is to be able to speculate and to shine a light into corners where you otherwise might not look because it's fun. And that's what I like to do. I mean, that's my whole purpose in this. I like problems that I can't solve because they're like catnip to people like me.

Andy Stumpf (01:10:44):

Perfect. That is actually, that's the perfect ending for it. Dr. Nolan, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

Garry Nolan (01:10:51):

Thank you very much. This was very fun.

Andy Stumpf (01:10:58):

I hope you enjoy today's episode and I hope at the minimum it causes you to sit back and question our place in the known universe.