Garry Nolan

Transcript: Dr. Garry Nolan on TC: It’s Clearly Been Here For A Long Time And It Doesn’t Necessarily Care So Much About Us. Whose Planet Is This, Really?

14 Mar , 2023  

“When you see something like that, you never forget it. It’s changes your life in a way that it puts things in perspective. So when you hear other people’s stories about this stuff, I feel inherently like I want to protect them. I want to help them not be attacked for something that they saw, because it’s wrong.”

~Dr. Garry Nolan


Earth Image Credit: NASA/Goddard/Arizona State University



If you like what you see on my blog, my Twitter and YouTube Channel and appreciate the time and effort, here are links to my PatreonPay Pal and Venmo. I appreciate any and all support. Without that support, I would struggle to do this as much as I do.


Patreon =

Venmo –



Tucker Carlson (TC): Welcome to Tucker Carlson. Today, the crazy thing about the topic of UFOs is how, when you get into it, how really non-crazy a lot of the people who know a lot about the topic turn out to be. They’re kind of the opposite of what you imagine. They’re not fruity conspiracy nuts, a lot of them are just scientists. Garry Nolan is definitely at the top of that list. He’s a Stanford professor, Stanford, PhD. He’s an immunologist. And he has, over the last decade or two, spent a lot of time studying the harmful effects that apparent encounters with UFOs have on the human brain. This is a field of study, and he is at the very top of it. Dr. Garry Nolan, he joins us in studio. Professor, thanks so much for coming on.

Dr. Garry Nolan (GN): Thank you so much.

TC: I was just reading your (Full Bio) again, just to restate the same point, once more: It’s just remarkable, once you get into this topic…I don’t know if mainstream is the word, but it’s not fringe, at all. So just to kind of accentuate that point, explain your background for our viewers, if you would.

GN: So my main job, my day job at Stanford for the last thirty years, has been the development of technologies to look at cancer, and blood. And so, we’ve spun a number of companies and sold a number of companies that we started out in my lab. Two of them are actually on NASDAQ. And the idea has always been that if money is coming in from the National Institutes of Health, we should give back to the public. And so, in the process of developing some of these, we developed an instrument called CyTOF, which is really all about studying blood cells at a deeper level than anybody has been able to do before.


Nolan and CyTOF at Stanford


CyTOF at Stanford


GN: And so, it was circa 2011 or so when some people from the CIA, and an aerospace company (Nolan has confirmed that this was Dr. Kit Green and Dr. Colm Kelleher ~Joe) came to me to ask me for their help on the analysis of some individuals who had encountered some anomalous objects, they said. And they came to my office, unannounced, and then started laying out pictures and data on the table in front of me. And I honestly thought it was a joke. I thought it was… (cross talk)

TC: You’re a Stanford professor…(laughs), an immunologist, doing medical research and building companies, and all of a sudden, one day the CIA shows up at your office?

GN: Because they had asked around and said, “Okay, we have these people who’ve been injured.” And one of the things that they wanted to do in a complete medical workup of these individuals was to look at the blood. It’s a natural thing to do. If you’re looking for an inflammation, the blood is one of the places you might look to get sort of a more complete list of everything that’s going on in the body. And so, that’s when somebody said, “Well, if you want to do this [and] do it properly, you gotta go talk to this guy Nolan at Stanford because he has the world’s best instrument that he’s developed for doing it.” And that’s what started it.

TC: So what was your view of UFOs/UAPs at the time?

GN: You know, I was kind of a science fiction fan, and I was interested in it as any mainstream individual might have been. But it wasn’t something that I had any kind of focus on in my life.

TC: So you had no deep knowledge of the topic.

GN: No deep knowledge.

TC: Were you surprised that a US government agency was doing this kind of work? I mean, presumably, the question was settled for them.

GN: Yeah.

TC: They didn’t wonder if UFOs were real, they knew at that point, right?

GN: Right. Right. No, of course. I mean, like I said, I mean, at first I thought it was a joke. I mean, I really thought that I was being…somebody was about to put me on Candid Camera, and make a joke of it.



GN: But as they started showing me the data, and they were deadly serious. I mean, I tried to lure them into making a joke about it. They were deadly serious about it, because they had basically said, at that point, people have died. And so, and then they showed me some brain images of individuals who had been damaged and internal scarring, you could see through MRIs. And, you know, it’s data, it’s unmistakable. You have to say, “Okay, well, what did that?” I can conjecture, or hypothesize about, you know, is it the Russians, is it UFOs or whatever. But the fact is, there is data that says something is happening and so we need to study it. And that’s what a scientist should do.


TC: Of course! Oh, absolutely! But first, some context. Who were these people who had been injured or killed?

GN: Oh, they were military personnel, people, intelligence agents on the ground, a pilot – a few pilots, actually – who had gotten close enough and they had some sort of effects.






TC: Gotten close enough to some sort of unknown aircraft.

GN: To some sort of object. One of them, on the ground, as well…walked right up to it and touched it. And actually, his case is pretty famous.


The Rendlesham Forest Case


GN: And even Senator McCain was able to come in and help this individual (John Burroughs) because the Army was denying him – was it the Army or the Air Force – was denying him medical benefits. And so, eventually it reached the office of Senator McCain. And he stepped in and forced the Veterans Affairs to…

TC: He walked up and touched it? Can you back up and just tell me…what was the story there?

GN: That was the so-called Rendlesham Forest case in England, where objects were seen over the bunkers where the nuclear weapons were stored. And things were seen…

TC: In the 70s?

GN: In the 70s or so, yeah. There’s quite a few documentaries on it. But the individuals who were actually there, I know one of them quite well (once again, John Burroughs). And he was the person who was basically denied benefits and his medical records were classified for quite a while. They wouldn’t let anything out about him. Why?

TC: So he touched this object?

GN: Yeah.

(It was Jim Penniston, co-author of “The Rendlesham Enigma,” who says he touched the craft. ~Joe)


TC: Did he describe the object?

GN: Yeah, he described the object as basically about four or five feet across, with strange writing on it. I don’t know. I mean, it’s a longtime story.




GN: I don’t try too much to get into the stories and to the ancient literature because there’s so many arguments and mis and disinformation about it. I’m more interested in: Let’s collect new data and study it, right? Let’s collate the data in a way and try to convince other scientists that the data is real, not that a conclusion is real. So, I try to stay away from that because there’s plenty of arguments and historians who know how to do that.

TC: You stay right in your lane.

GN: I stay in my lane because that’s what I’m good at!

TC: Yeah. Good call.

GN: So, just stay away from it.

TC: So this man, specifically, military personnel who touched this object in the woods near a nuclear bunker in Great Britain, what happened to him?

GN: He had all kinds of…he had nausea, he had long-term consequences to his heart. Now, whether any of this was directly caused by the object or not is open to debate. But, in the immediate aftermath of the interaction that he had with it, there were medical consequences. So, you’d have to imagine that somewhere back then, something happened to him that he’s still dealing with, years later. I mean, long COVID is an example of…there can be a traumatic incident that occurs to your body, and later on, you’re still dealing with it.

TC: Of course! Well, many of those.

GN: But part of the issue with him was sort of a PTSD, that nobody would believe him, right? And then when he tried to follow up with the Veterans Affairs Office, the medical offices, they just denied him coverage, which was ridiculous because he served his country, and yet they were ignoring him.

TC: But the CIA believed him, it sounds like?

GN: Yes. Well, what happened is that a number of cases like this started becoming known, right? And so, what happens is that these cases and events kind of trickle up the chain, and then get moved across the DoD and put in a bucket. Let’s just call it the weird bucket…until enough of them have occurred, that somebody says, “Okay, there’s something we should be paying attention to.” Havana Syndrome is an example of that, right? That enough individuals in diplomatic offices, etc, were getting sick and so there was a pattern beginning to occur and emerge, and so somebody realized, okay, somebody is probably attacking our personnel in these offices, the diplomatic corps, etc. So, those cases all end up over in a bucket where eventually somebody pays attention to it, and that was what then instigated them to come to me.


TC: Interesting. So how many cases, roughly?

GN: About a hundred?

TC: A hundred?!

GN: Yeah. Now of those, about probably 80 to 90% of them ended up being actually Havana Syndrome. So as we were studying these cases, the guy who was doing the work, his name is Kit Green. He’s a neurophysiologist, and is also associated with the CIA, used to be in the CIA. He was going back to what are called the diagnostic codes, because, when you have a new medical issue, you start saying, “Okay, well, what happened to them?” Let’s say they’ve got this kind of phenomena, they got this kind of problem with their lungs, and they’ve got inflammation of the skin, et cetera. And you put them into these codes. And so, it was around 2015-2016 that…and we had, up to that point in time, called this interference syndrome. Something was interfering with these individuals. But then it became obvious that the diplomatic corps issues were happening and that many of the symptoms in those individuals, in the Havana Syndrome individuals, matched some of the, or most of the symptoms that we had in our big bucket. Why? Because they were in the weird bucket at the time and they just ended up being Havana Syndrome, but that was good, in a way, because we were able to take those individuals out and out of consideration [and] I didn’t have to worry about them anymore. It now became a national security concern. But the people who were remaining were the really interesting ones to me because those are the people who claim to have interactions with UAPs, right? So it was kind of like, in science, you first characterize, you collate into categories.

TC: Yes.

GN: The categories that are understood, you just step aside, and put them aside and they’re handed off. It’s a huge operation in the government to deal with those. In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee just came out with a report this morning, that has language specifically in it to look at the Havana Syndrome cases and to understand it. Also has interesting – I don’t know if you saw it – it also has language about UAPs, and basically, admonishing the Defense Department, saying, “You guys have been dragging your feet. No more.” [It also contains] whistleblower language. There was also a situation where they want to go all the way back to 1947…all the Defense Department and the CIA, etc, to collect all the information around events that have occurred. They want all of, interestingly, the NDAs, the non-disclosure-agreements. They want those all listed because the NDAs are associated to people, and that means they can start to name the people who have been involved. They want all of the information on the disinformation and the obfuscation that’s been going on, and they want information about the medical harms that have occurred. And that’s all in the National Defense Appropriations (Authorization ~Joe) Act for 2023.

TC: So this is way outside your lane, but since you’ve had so much experience dealing with all the people involved, maybe you have a theory? Why do you think DoD, or the U.S. government, more broadly, has lied about this for so long?

GN: So, I think that they were just afraid of admitting that they don’t have control over the airspace. That’s one thing. But also, it’s really back to what it is that I was saying before: We have the data, to the extent that there is proof that there’s something else here. They didn’t want anybody to know about it because they’re scared of what the reaction might be.

TC: No, it makes sense. I mean, that’s a human reaction.

GN: It’s a human reaction. But, the other point is, I think that’s important to realize, is that: When a lot of, let’s say, these events were occurring, and there’s claimed crash materials that might have been collected, this went off to places like Lockheed and all of the big aerospace companies, [and] they wanted to profit off of it.




GN: And many of them basically took a lot of the information, set it aside, and they decided, “Okay, well, we’re going to profit off it. We’re not going to tell Congress what this is all about because, if we do, then maybe we have to share this with McDonnell Douglas, or someone else.”

TC: So if an aerospace – and I’ve heard this theory from very informed people, I don’t think it’s a theory, it sounds true – that, if there are crash materials, and apparently there are, those reside in the custody of not the U.S. government (Nolan: Exactly) but of contractors who work for the U.S. government, aerospace, defense contractors…McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, etc. How could they profit off those materials?

GN: Well, one, they can continue to ask for black-budget money.

TC: Oh (both laugh). I should know this, I lived in Washington! Right. The funding continues.

GN: Right? I mean, the funding can continue. You might hope, eventually, that you can understand it and thereby profit off of it. You know, but my point has been that whatever this stuff is, is hundreds of technology revolutions ahead of us and understandings of physics that we don’t appreciate. So, it’s kind of like, I mean, the old…send a cell phone back to a Neanderthal and see what he does with it. Pound rocks, so.

TC (laughs) He eats it, yeah. No, it’s totally right. Fascinating. So, it sounds like in the world that you live in, it is taken for granted, which is assumed to be true, that this stuff is real.

GN: Yes. Yeah, it’s 100% real. I mean, there’s just no doubt about it. I mean, the data is real. And this is what I [hear] when I have these conversations with other scientists who have told me, “Garry, you’re gonna ruin your reputation.” And I’m like, “Well, my reputation has been always going against the grain and look at where I am. I’m perfectly fine going against the grain.” This is real and we need to pay attention to it and it’s just unscientific to not study it.

TC: Yes. Amen.

GN: Right? I mean, it’s just wrong. And if you’re going to be that way, you’re a priest, you’re not a scientist.

TC: Amen. Thank you for saying that. I feel that way about a lot of things that touch science, but this is definitely one of them. So why would the aerospace company – that you have not named, I’ve noticed – why would they be interested in finding [out], along with the CIA, the answers to these questions?

GN: Technology! You’ve seen the reports on how these things move: Zero to five thousand miles an hour, instantaneous acceleration and deceleration, trans-medium travel.

TC: Meaning from air to water to water?

GN: Air to water. Yeah. We can’t do any of that. We just can’t.


USS Omaha – Safire FLIR footage of alleged trans-medium object 



TC: And moreover, we don’t know how it’s done.

GN: We don’t know how it’s done. And so that means that there’s a level of physics that can be appreciated and maybe taken advantage of. I mean, hundreds, thousands of years ago, we looked at birds, and we saw they could fly and we said, “We want to fly.” So now we see this happening and now we realize that our physics doesn’t answer how that moves. So, we need new physics. And so that, to me, is the most important aspect of this. But, if we go back to like, where my career came from, I always look at data and say, “What can I do with this and make something out of it to give back? What technology can I create that can be used by everybody?” So, similarly, I look at these materials –  and I do have some public materials – and I say, “If I can understand these at the atomic level, and understand how these things are put together, I might not understand how anti-gravity works but I can now bring in scientists who might be experts in the kinds of atoms that are there and say, “Tell me what this might have been used for, because this is where it came from.”

TC: But, I mean, all of it…we’re sort of, like, alighting around the central question, which is like, “Who made these things? Who are these people, these things? What is this force? Not human?

GN: Yeah. I don’t know. I mean…and that’s why it’s so hard for me not to say what I think it really is because if I do say, “It is absolutely this,” people will start to question me.

TC: Of course. Because you can’t know, right?

GN: Right. But I think the better way to do it is to convince people that the data is real.

TC: Let’s move back just one sentence. So, without putting your professional credibility, reputation, on the line, etc. – You’re around people who study this stuff for a living who are the most knowledgeable people on this topic in the world…

GN: Yes.

TC: What is their general sense of what this might be?

GN: That this is not from Earth?

TC: Right. That it’s not from Earth, that this is some…these are aliens, essentially?

GN: Right. And, you know, until I see a piece of technology that does something I don’t understand, or until I see an alien body, I’m going to also remain skeptical.

TC: Of course, as you should.

GN: But, it doesn’t mean I won’t study it. And people say, “Well, why, if you are so skeptical, still, you’re studying it?” Because it’s the most important thing that could have ever happened.

TC: Of course! (laughs) That’s why we cover it on the show! Not because…I have no special knowledge, I know nothing, really. But…by definition, it’s the most important. So, is the general belief that these objects, these, whatever this is, is coming from outside our atmosphere, or that it’s coming from beneath the oceans?

GN: Both, I think. I mean, whatever it is, it’s clearly been here for a long time and it doesn’t necessarily care so much about us. But in terms of, you know…if it wanted to wipe us out, it could.

TC: Clearly, obviously.

GN: All you got to do is go out to the asteroid belt and push a big rock our way  and that’s the end of us. We’re the next dinosaur problem.

TC: Yes.

GN: So, the next question is: Well, if they’ve been here all along, before we were even civilized, well, whose planet is this, really?

TC: And do you think that there is evidence that this is an ongoing thing?

GN: Yeah! Yeah, yeah. I mean, so, I don’t know if you know, the astronomer and venture capitalist, Jacques Vallée? You’ve probably heard of him.

TC: Of course, yes.

GN: And…so he’s actually a good friend. And he’s written books about the matter, showing that if you go back into the historical records, things written by the scientists and philosophers and mayors and kings of the day, you know, it’s in the record.



GN: This object was seen, it looked like a wheel, or it looked like a shield. And it showed up over our battles, and, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So, you can go back and re-context the observations and say, “Well, if somebody wrote that today, I’d call it a UFO or a UAP, right?”

TC: Of course.


Renaissance illustration of a UFO sighting in Rome detailed in a book by Roman historian Julio Obsequens.



GN: So, it’s been here. I think, really, you know, one thing you have to ask is: Well, why do they show up? And maybe it’s just…and why don’t they land? That’s a question I often get asked. Well, why would you? I mean, do you try to establish diplomatic relations with the ants in your garden when you move into a new house?

TC: (laughs hysterically)

GN: (laughs) Right? No, you do what you want and you dig up the yard and you do as you please. You try not to interfere with them. You know, if there’s a nest of birds, you’re not going to interfere, you’re gonna try not to bother them because you’ve got your own business going on, you’re doing your own thing. So, what that thing is, I don’t know.

TC: There does seem to be some connection between nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear fission itself, and these objects. I mean, if you’ve clearly noticed this?


Lue Elizondo on what attracts UFOs to our nukes 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼

Click on this sentence for my complete interview with Lue Elizondo


GN: Yes. Well, I think, if you ask yourself the question: How could we negatively interact with them, right? I mean, there’s probably little that even they could do if we blew up a nuclear bomb around them. So, to the extent that we have reached a level of technological capability, where we can be a problem to them, nuclear weapons are one of them, right? I mean, but look as far as where we’re gonna be a thousand years from now. We’re starting to move out, like, with Elon Musk, into Mars, maybe someday we’ll be able to travel to other solar systems, even by conventional means. So, if you are an emerging species in this area of the galaxy and there are elders running around, maybe they want to pay attention to the monkeys who, you know, are usually throwing mud up against each other on the walls and stuff (smiles).

TC: (laughs) No, it’s a completely… Does this bother you at all?

GN: No. I think it’s exciting. I mean, why would it bother me? I mean, because I don’t think that they’re here necessarily to harm us. And if they want to, they can, so nothing I have any control over. So..

TC: Is there any evidence of the hundred cases that you’ve looked at, that any of those human beings were harmed on purpose?

GN: No. I think it’s just [similar to] if you happen to walk across an airfield and get in the way of the exhaust plume of a jet engine, you’re gonna get harmed.

TC: Before I ask you to describe what those harms are, because you’ve seen strong patterns, right? In the harms?

GN: Yeah.

TC: There are innumerable first person accounts of people who say/claim they have been taken into some craft and experimented upon.

GN: Right.

This “Unsolved Mysteries” episode is one of the best I’ve ever seen on abductions. 👇🏼


TC: Have you come across those, and how do you assess them?

GN: I come across those, but I, you know, have a hard time…it’s like what I was saying before: It’s an encounter, it’s an experience, but whether those experiences are real, or whether or not they’re imposed on these individuals as sort of an altered-reality memory, I don’t know. I mean, here’s an example. There’s a great case, it’s in France. This family – this is just within the last few years – driving down the highway, a mother and two children in the back, they have an open-top car, during the day [on] a crowded highway. They see, over their head, through the window, craft. I mean, it’s obvious. And then the mother’s looking around and noticing that nobody else seems to see this. Okay? So the kids in the back have a camera phone, take a picture. When they get home, they take a look at the picture [and] there’s not a craft, but there’s an object, a small sort of star-shaped object about thirty or forty feet over their car.



GN: So, let’s say that that’s the object, but it projected an image of something else. And yet, that’s all they saw. So what happened? It’s sort of like it was a projected, 3D image of something, but it was only seen by them. So, when you start to hear many of these cases, and Jacques Vallée talks about this a lot…that whatever these things are, seem to have the ability to project altered reality into people’s minds. I know that sounds crazy. And I’m just repeating the stories and raised the thing…

TC: Well no crazier than any other thing that we’ve been talking about.

GN: Right.

TC: I mean, it’s all outside the bounds of what we understand the science anyway, right?

GN: Yeah. I mean… and I have the picture that they took of that star-shaped object, and the story. And Jacques had been the person who went and did the interviews for it. And that was sort of a mind bender for me. The first time that I had seen evidence of something that was different than what people had perceived, right? And so, this notion of a projected reality is something that really has to be part of the discussion at some point.


(If the phenomenon can make people see an object that’s not actually there, can they make one person see something and the person standing next to them see something else? Or nothing at all? Here’s an excerpt from a KLAS article on this subject. I believe the senior manager was Dr. Colm Kelleher and Nolan helped out with the immune-system analysis.  ~Joe)

Statement from a Senior Manager of BAASS

One of the major successes of BAASS was in adopting the novel approach of utilizing the human body as a readout system for dissecting interactions with the UFO phenomenon. This novel approach aimed to circumvent the increasing evidence of deception and subterfuge by the UFO phenomenon in that multiple eyewitnesses co-located in the same vicinity frequently reported seeing widely different events. The evidence was multiplying that the UFO phenomenon was capable of manipulating and distorting human perception and therefore eyewitness testimony of UFO activity was becoming increasingly untrustworthy.

The BAASS approach was to view the human body as a readout system for UFO effects by utilizing forensic technology, the tools of immunology, cell biology, genomics and neuroanatomy for in depth study of the effects of UFOs on humans. This approach marked a dramatic shift away from the traditional norms of relying on eyewitness testimony as the central evidentiary arm in UFO investigations. The approach aimed to bypass UFO deception and manipulation of human perception by utilizing molecular forensics to decipher the biological consequences of the phenomenon.

The result of applying this new approach was a revolution in delineating the threat level of UFOs.


TC: So there have been, over centuries, many centuries, reports of livestock being killed, drained of blood, in conjunction with sightings of these objects.

GN: Right.

TC: Have you come across anything like that?

GN: I know of it and I know a woman, Linda Moulton Howe, who did a lot of these original studies.



I would recommend any interview with Dr. Colm Kelleher or Christopher O’Brien, or either book of theirs, if you want to delve into cattle mutilations.  O’Brien is more mutilation-centric while Kelleher focuses a lot on the mad cow disease connection.

Click on either cover to buy and support my work. 





GN: You know, again, its data. I don’t know why anything would want to do that. I really don’t. And I don’t know how it fits into the big picture of this because there’s so many moving parts, it’s very hard to create a consolidated story about it. And, you know, the only way that I can create a consolidated story is to say that there’s more than one thing here, right?

TC: Right.

GN: And that these things are somehow in tension with each other. I mean, much like when the colonial Europe went around the world, into Africa, and India, etc., and basically were fighting each other. You know, England, against Spain, and France, etc. Maybe that’s a little bit about what we’re seeing here…is that these things are in some kind of tension with each other, and that there is no unifying motivation.

TC: Is there evidence that there’s a lot of this kind of activity under sea?

GN: Yes. Yeah. I mean, plenty, right? The sonar images show these things moving at speeds a dozen times faster than our fastest submarines, with no cavitation, right? No, you know, no, basically bubbles behind them, because the movement would create a vacuum and would, you know, basically make a giant bubble and we’d get this noise. No noise, just sonar images.

TC: So, given your background in science, is that explicable?

GN: No, no, it’s not. No.

TC: Okay.

GN: You have to imagine a new kinds of physics. But interestingly, the physicists have come up with a unifying, let’s say, mathematics, for what these things might be doing and how they’re doing it.

TC: Huh. Does make sense to you?

GN: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, one of them is called…it’s, well, there’s actually a Mexican physicist, he has worked out the equations for a warp drive. I mean, we can’t do it. The amounts of energy required are extraordinary. It’s called the Alcubierre drive.



GN: But then there’s a number of other individuals who have then taken his equations, and shown that, yeah, that actually explains how these things might be moving.

TC: But there’s a lot of data from underwater?

GN: Correct. But, get that out of the Navy. And that’s part of what the announcement today was all about. This idea that Congress has said, “Enough is enough. We want the data. You’re not gonna hide this anymore. We’re going to give anybody in the entire DoD and intelligence community a secure channel by which you can actually report this. You can basically set aside the NDAs or oaths that you’ve given, because you’re basically reporting it to us, and it will be given to the Senate and the congressional leadership.”

TC: Right.

GN: And this is the first time ever that this has been done.

TC: It’s about time.

GN: So, I mean, if anybody wants to question whether this is something to pay attention to, you have to realize that these are the senators and Congresspeople who, behind closed doors, have seen the classified briefings, right? They’re the people who’ve seen this in a way…they’ve seen stuff I haven’t seen. And some of them come out, and their eyes are wide, about this.

TC: Yes. Harry Reid of Nevada was constantly talking about it.

GN: Yeah. You know, and I actually, briefly, I briefed Congressman Gallagher about this issue before he did the congressional hearings on it about the Wilson/Davis memo.







GN: And, you know, these people are taking it seriously. And you have to!

TC: Amazing.  So tell us about the the injuries. So, again, you’ve seen a hundred cases, what kinds of injuries have people sustained?

GN: I think the most dramatic are the…because we have MRIs, the things that you see within the body. And so, what we had done was, in looking at some of these MRIs, we had noticed damage in the brain, white matter disease, it’s called. If you know anybody, for instance, who’s had multiple sclerosis, and you look at an image of their brain, you’ll see these white matter objects.


Hyperintense white matter lesions (arrow) on T2-weighted MRI brain supportive of multiple sclerosis diagnosis –


GN: Yes, you can see it there (Experiencer graphic (below) from Tucker interview). Those white tracts there are just damage to the brain, right? Those are dead areas of the brain.


Normal brain on left and “experiencer” brain on the right


GN: And so, if you have that dead area of the brain, whatever that function might have been, is now gone, right? So memory, movement, etc., can all be affected. Now the brain can luckily rewire some things and so depending upon the extent of the damage, you can maybe get over it.


How to Rewire Your Brain After Trauma


GN: But, you know, the ones that you just saw on that image before, on the right, those are serious. And that was what essentially convinced me. But, what I asked for, of these people, I said, “Look, I’m not just going to believe you because you showed me images of these people. I want to meet the people.” And so, I was taken to meet the people and interview them, and I took their blood for later analysis. And so, you know, it was…seeing is believing and validation and verification. I did as much as I reasonably can. Now, they could be lying to me. I don’t know, but I doubt it because I saw some of the, sort of the consequences of their injuries…that you could sort of see how they were acting, etc.

TC: And did they describe the encounters that they had?

GN: Yeah, they did. And I shouldn’t talk about some of them because some of those people’s names have kind of become, you know, public. And so, sort of HIPAA rules really prevent from…

TC: Of course, but without identifying them, what kinds of encounters did they have?

GN: Uhh, objects on the ground (Landed? ~Joe) that were, you know, glowing, or, you know, moving too fast, or they were there and they got too close to it, and then it just disappeared.



GN: And then, afterwards, they get these radiation burns. Very often, some of them have been, basically, on the skin, you see a sclerosis of the skin…reddening, inflammation of the skin.

TC: Like at Nagasaki.

GN: Exactly! So, some sort of electromagnetic radiation, we imagine. But then, it’s goes deep enough into some of their bodies, if they got too close, that would cause lasting scarring within the body, which is not something you ever wanna have.

TC: Huh. And then, the brain injuries.

GN: Then the brain injuries. And the brain injuries were interesting because one of the things that we noticed in these individuals – and this is sort of a side study, which I’m working on with a group at Harvard – is we noticed that an area of the brain, the caudate putamen in many of these individuals was overdeveloped.



GN: And that’s a whole other story. But, basically, we figured out that this is an area where intuition happens, and a lot of these individuals who we had, were…it’s called them high functioning. You don’t get to be a pilot of an expensive craft without being reasonably smart and having intuition.



GN: And so, just a side benefit of studying this, allowed us to come up with a medical understanding of where cognition is happening in the brain, and we’re following up with that in a mainstream science way with a neurophysiology group at Harvard. And we’ve validated the original findings.

Courtesy James Iandoli – @engagingthe


GN: But that was sort of an example of: Because we paid attention to anomalous data, we found an anomaly that really had nothing to do with the injury in the first place, but it told us something about what makes people intuitive and smart. And that is going off in a mainstream direction.

TC: That’s cool.

GN: Yeah.

TC: Was there consistency in symptoms?

GN: Yes. Yeah. I mean…

TC: What were some of the symptoms?

GN: Inflammation and nausea are the two most. I mean, if I irradiate you with a whole body of irradiation, you’re gonna get sick, you’re gonna throw up, you’re gonna – depending upon which organ system was, let’s say, most impacted directly – you’re gonna, basically, have problems with that. But the commonalities were the skin issues, and then some internal issues with the brain. When you see brain damage, that’s when people start paying attention. It’s hard to localize brain damage or damage in the rest of the body, you know, and associate it with something.

TC: Did you see consistent cognitive symptoms?

GN: No.

TC: Okay.

GN: No, just…I mean, again, it’s like in that image, depending upon where in the brain it happens, where the damage happened to be caused, that function associated with that part of the brain would be hurt.

TC: Yeah? Scary.

GN: Like arms not being able to move or, you know, walking, cognition…

TC: Memory loss, yeah. I don’t remember ever reading about any of the survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima suffering cognitive problems, brain damage.

GN: I would bet that there was.

TC: So, in other words…

GN: Who was collecting data back then?


Radiation-related brain damage and growth retardation among the prenatally exposed atomic bomb survivors


TC: It’s such a great point, right? It’s exactly right. John Hersey? So, the injuries you saw are not inconsistent with, like, exposure to nuclear material?

GN: Correct. Yeah. And so, what that tells us is…I mean, at the very least, what I would say, is that, you know, let’s say in the next round of UAP directives from Congress, or from the Army, or the Air Force, is…stay away.

TC: (laughs loudly) Right! Stay away!

GN: You know?

TC: (laughing) If you see a glowing craft on the ground, don’t approach?

GN: Right. I mean, it seems obvious, but, you know, I mean, some of the people who I know were so intrigued by what they were seeing, they felt that they had to walk up and touch it because this couldn’t possibly be real. I mean, I would probably be in that category

TC: Oh, me, too. Oh, totally.


Why Are UFOs Dangerous? – From Hal Puthoff’s 2020 lecture


Hal Puthoff (HP): In this room, most of the electromagnetic energy you can’t see. Why? Because it is in the infrared, in the form of heat. And there’s a very narrow band in the electromagnetic spectrum that you can see. And that’s what we call the visible spectrum. And then there are higher frequencies into the ultra-violent and beyond that we don’t see.



HP: Now it turns out that one of the side effects of engineering the spacetime metric, to get this kind of flight performance, is that it…we call it…blueshifts the frequencies. All the frequencies that are involved, get moved to a higher frequency. It’s just built in to what the equations say, when you generate these anomalous effects. So what that means then, and it has significance for us…is the infrared, we don’t ordinarily see, gets blue-shifted up into the visible. So when we hear that these craft are so bright and so luminous when you see them, it’s no surprise.

And then what was in the visible spectrum, gets shifted up into, let’s say, the ultraviolet. And so, if you get too close to one of these things that are powered up, you’ll get a sunburn, often reported by people who’ve claimed to have gotten close to a craft. And if you get too close, you might actually pick up some of the blue-shifted radiation from the visible that’s now blueshifted up into the soft x-ray region and get radiation poisoning. And there have been cases where that’s been reported.

[End Puthoff lecture excerpt]


GN: You know? And so, you can kind of understand, but, I mean, I think that one of the directives is: Until we know what is going on, stay away. I mean, you know, for all…

TC:  So put a warning label on UFOs?

GN: Yeah! Yeah. I would! I, you know… (TC laughs and GN joins in) Demand that they wear a seat belt!

TC: (Laughs loudly) Did any of the people you interviewed…I just can’t believe you’ve had this experience. I cannot…just to backtrack, I can’t believe you were (laughs loudly) at your office at Stanford the CIA shows up?

GN: It is out of a movie.


Excerpt from, “American Cosmic” by Diana Pasulka

(Note: The pseudonym of “James” = Dr. Garry Nolan ~Joe)

The Visit

James’s reason for affiliating with the more public ufologists was to achieve a goal—to meet serious researchers of the phenomenon so he could carry on with his new research agenda. He needed a community of researchers who played by the rules of science and peer review. Soon after the much-publicized event, he met with success. The serious researchers actually came to him, but his introduction to them was extraordinary and frightening. The title of the television series Punk’d had become a part of everyday, ordinary vocabulary. Being “punk’d” by one’s friends meant that one was the butt of a practical joke while simultaneously being filmed and even streamed in real time online or, worse, on television. It was, to some, an honorary humiliation. James, who lived in a university town, was aware of the show and had seen a few of his friends get punk’d. When the men in black suits knocked on James’s office door, he opened it and stared into two very grim, unhappy faces. Who are these people? he wondered. The men asked if they could come in and talk to him about the artifact and “other things.” James wondered, “What have I gotten myself into this time?” He invited them into his office, and they accepted the invitation, not saying another word. The silence felt to James like a vague sort of threat. He made a joke to lighten the mood, but the men did not respond. After James offered them some water, he decided that he would match their cold demeanor.

“What is it that you want?” he asked.

“We want to know what you really found out about the artifact.”

“I already stated many times I can’t find any evidence it has an alien origin.” “We already know that. We want to know why you got involved and what else you might know.” After a moment passed, James came to the conclusion that he was most likely being punk’d. Amused, and ready for the charade to be revealed, he looked around for evidence of a camera or film crew. There was none. Hmm. With neither side knowing exactly what the other knew, there ensued one of the most interesting conversations of James’s life. One of the men turned out to be, like him, a top researcher at one of the world’s most renowned universities, but with a long association with intelligence agencies (I believe this is Dr. Kit Green. ~Joe). The other man was with a large aerospace firm (I believe this is Dr. Colm Kelleher ~Joe). What started as a disturbing encounter became a meeting of minds. The two visitors seemed grim and serious primarily because their own research into the phenomenon had proved to be very disturbing. They dealt with radiation effects and other biological interactions of the phenomenon with humans, a subject of which James knew nothing. As they talked, he realized that the serious researchers he’d been looking for had arrived, and they weren’t who he had thought they would be. Instead, they were very much like him and not public ufologists. They were not the “Men in Black.” They weren’t interested in publicity. But they were very interested in helping people who needed help. Over the next several months, his two (fully human) visitors exposed him to a nontraditional path that was as much a science as what he practiced at his “day job.” James had found his peers.

(End excerpt fromAmerican Cosmic.”)


TC: And just turns your life in this amazing direction. But, umm, I wish that would happen to me. Did any of the people you interviewed see anybody in control of these craft? See any?

GN: Not in these injury cases, [but] I do know of cases, non-injury associated, where things were seen.

TC: What kind of things?

GN: Little beings (smiles). I don’t know what to say!

TC: I know it sounds crazy.

GN: I don’t know what to say!

TC: I just want you to tell me what the eyewitness accounts say. You’re not ratifying this.

GN: I’m not ratifying it. No, the eyewitnesses always talk about something about that tall, right?


Nolan showing how tall some of the beings are, according to eyewitnesses


GN: You know, they call them the Greys, I don’t know what to say.

TC: But with humanoid features?

GN: Humanoid features. Now, I have a problem with humanoid features because, you know, one of my backgrounds is evolutionary biology.

TC: Yes.

GN: And so, I don’t see the possibility of something else evolving on another planet that looks like us, you know? Unless God is intervening in very specific ways, almost anything…an octopus could become intelligent and fly around the Universe.

TC: Yes.

GN: So, I think that part of what we’re seeing here…I mean, look, if you’re an intelligence, are you going to go down on a planet with a bunch of angry monkeys who might kill you? No, unlikely. You’ll send some intermediary. Well, what kind of intermediary are you gonna send? You’re gonna send something that maybe almost looks like them, but isn’t them? So, I think, and this is, again, from inside the intelligence community, most of what we think we’re seeing are avatars, biological robots that are basically put there to be the minions, if you will.

TC: And that’s the current view of the intelligence community?

GN: That is a…it is a hypothesis. I mean, to me, if I were going to another place, or if I were going to study a native tribe of, let’s say, cannibals, maybe I wouldn’t show up in the middle of their village so that I don’t inadvertently become dinner.

TC: Yes.

GN: Right? So, you would send an intermediary first. But I’ve used this example, I don’t know if you know Lex Fridman, you probably know Lex Fridman. He’s an interviewer, he’s an AI scientist at Stanford. I did one with him.



GN: And using the example of the ants, as well. Let’s say that there was a race of intelligent ants at the bottom of your garden. How do you tell them about Instagram, right? How do you talk with them? How do you interact with them? You would probably make something that looked almost like an ant and you’d put it down there. But then how are you going to interact with them? Well, with pheromones, that’s how they talk. But you do something else, right? You’re speaking about whatever it is you talk about at the dinner table, but to translate down to their terms, you would have to use some sort of an intermediary. So, it’s kind of a lost in translation problem, right? You want to put something there that can interact with them so that they can know that there’s an object, but you, for instance, you’re not going to show up and put yourself in danger. I wouldn’t. I mean, we send drones. You understand what I mean?

TC: Of course. I’m tracking intently. I just wonder if this has changed your perspective.

GN: It’s changed everything. I look at everything now and wonder, what’s going on.

TC: But it also, sort of, by comparison, makes a lot of the things that we debate or fret about seem pretty small.

GN: Right. You know, and I think Ronald Reagan had a conversation with Gorbachev back in the days of the Cold War, where he said, at one point, “If aliens showed up, would you work with us against them, and drop the Cold War?” I mean, that was that’s a recorded statement.



GN: He got in front of the UN and said something similar.



GN: And that all came from a sighting that he had had when he was the governor of California, right?


Excerpt from How Stuff Works:

One night in 1974, from a Cessna Citation aircraft, one of America’s most famous citizens saw a UFO.

There were four persons aboard the plane: pilot Bill Paynter, two security guards, and the governor of California, Ronald Reagan.

A week later Reagan recounted the sighting to Norman C. Miller, then Washington bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. Reagan told Miller, “We followed it for several minutes. It was a bright white light. We followed it to Bakersfield, and all of a sudden to our utter amazement it went straight up into the heavens.” When Miller expressed some doubt, a “look of horror came over [Reagan]. It suddenly dawned on him . . . that he was talking to a reporter.” Immediately afterward, according to Miller, Reagan “clammed up.”

Reagan has not discussed the incident publicly since.­


GN: So, basically what he was saying was: Something like this could bring us together. I mean, what law can you remember, in the last year or two, that has complete bipartisan support? This.

TC: Yes.

GN: Right? This has brought people together. And people say to me, “Well, why are you talking about it on this show or that show?” I said, “Because this is above politics.”

TC: Yes, it certainly is.

GN: It has to be. You know, and if we can’t talk about this in a non-political way, then why are we bothering with anything? We might as well just silo ourselves and build walls around everybody. That’s how I think about it.

TC: I couldn’t agree with you more. And it’s also inherently fascinating, but it raises a lot of questions, a lot of theological questions, also, people would say.

GN: Right! Yeah! Well, the Vatican is deeply involved (TC: Yes) in trying to understand this as well. And the Vatican has already come out and said, “If there are aliens, they can also be children of Godright? (TC: Yes) There’s no reason they can’t be. There’s no reason we can’t treat them as, you know, as humans, if you will, even though they might not be, right? That we need to treat them as equals, because…why not? They have no problem with it. And this is more, I mean, especially if you speak more with the Jesuits, right? The Jesuits are a little bit more amenable to this kind of thing. But the Vatican has come right out and said it. End of story.

TC: Well, they have their own observatory, I believe.

GN: Yeah. The Vatican Observatory, and the Vatican astronomer has come out and said positive things.

TC: And they’ve been on this for a long time.

GN: Yeah. And, you know, there are rumors of stuff that’s deep in the Vatican library that a good friend of mine, who you might want to eventually have on a show like this, is Diana Pasulka at the University of North Carolina. She’s a comparative religion professor. Fascinating work.




GN: When you start asking the question: How will the admission that we are not at the top of the food chain anymore, change all the religions, right? Because one of the first questions that somebody’s going to ask is, “Okay, well, if they do show up and want to talk with us, who is their God? How do they see…

TC: Great question.

GN: And then, everybody, every other religion will be looking for anything that anything like this says, for a mirror of what they believe in. And that will just start a whole new series of arguments. So that is yet another thing, or another reason why the government might feel a little, you know, hesitancy about bringing this kind of information forward.

TC: Oh, it’s inherently destabilizing.

GN: Yeah.

TC: Yeah. Sure, because if the U.S. military is not the most powerful force in the Universe, then it kind of…

GN: Then we’re…yeah.

TC: (laughs) [It] resets your expectation!

GN: Then the populace might, you know, might, you know, revolt (laughs).

TC: So, how are you treated at Stanford?

GN: Uhh, you know, I think, five, six years ago, there was a fair amount of giggling about it, but I, you know, I mean, luckily, I have, you know, frankly, a really good reputation as a serious scientist. I mean, like I said, I’ve commercialized a lot of the things so I…and the stuff we do is, you know, cutting edge. I don’t want to pat myself on the back too much. But, umm, it’s cutting edge. And this is actually what’s brought over some people, is: “If Garry thinks this is real, maybe we should be paying attention to it.” Well, here’s an example. So I’ll go give a talk in Boston, and you know, a bunch of professors will take me out to dinner. Inevitably, after one drink, this question comes up. And not to make fun of me, but to have a serious conversation. And almost inevitably, one of the group has said, “Yeah, well, I saw something when I was a kid,” right? Or one of them comes up to me afterwards and says, “Garry, you know (mumbles)…this,” right? So, if you give people permission in a place where they will not be ridiculed, you have a much more open conversation about a subject matter that’s so important. And for many people, you call them experiencers if you see something like that. I mean, I saw something when I was very young, when I was twelve, as a paperboy. Went right over my head.

TC: What did you see, where were you?

GN: This was Connecticut.

TC: What town?

GN: Windsor?

TC: I know it.

GN: Yeah, you went to Trinity.

TC: Outside Hartford.

GN: Yeah.

TC: Windsor, Windsor Locks!

GN: Windsor Locks! And it was early in the morning, I was delivering neswpapers, I was walking through the woods between one street and another…

TC: The Hartford Courant?

GN: Hartford Courant!. Exactly! Exactly (laughs). And [I was] going from one street to another, through the woods, and this…I saw the lights – it was like March – the tree branches, and my shadow in front of me. And then the shadow started moving and I looked up and this object went – I mean, right at that level of the top of the trees – went right over my head, with lights shining down. I could kind of see the outline of something round. No sign…

TC: How big was it?

GN: Probably thirty, forty feet across.

TC: Wow.

GN: And…I mean, it was unmistakable. I wasn’t dreaming, I wasn’t asleep, etc. But, I didn’t call it a UFO, I didn’t know what it was. I just didn’t know what it was. And it wasn’t until a decade or so later when, you know, you start seeing movies, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” that kind of stuff. I thought, “Is that what I saw?” You look back, retrospectively, and say…

TC: But you never forgot it.

GN: I never forgot. No, it’s one of those moments and thank you…that was actually the point I was trying to get to. When you see something like that, you never forget it, it changes your life, I hate to call it…it’s almost like a spiritual experience. This is what Diana Pasulka writes about, that professor I told you about. And not that I’m not Christian or I’m one thing or another. It’s changes your life in a way that it puts things in perspective. So when you hear other people’s stories about this stuff, I feel inherently like I want to protect them. I want to help them not be attacked for something that they saw, because it’s wrong, first of all, that they shouldn’t be.

TC: It’s absolutely wrong.

GN: So you should…I sort of feel like we need to give people that open space. Some of them might be delusional. Perfectly fine. But a lot of them are not. As you said, at the beginning of the show, that there’s any of a number of people who are otherwise credible, who are absolutely dead focused on this now. And so, you know, through the efforts of Lue Elizondo, and Chris Mellon, and many others on the inside that, unfortunately, will not ever be known in the roles that they’ve played to bring this forward, they have given a level of credibility to this that has opened the area up for all kinds of people to move in. I mean, the National Association of Aerospace Engineers (I believe he meant – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) now has a committee on this. It’s a 50,000-strong, or  so, union of scientists, right?



NASA has come out and said – you probably have seen this – that they’re studying it, right? They’re saying this is worth study. And they use the same language that we’ve been pushing: It’s data, it’s science…scientists should be interested in things that they don’t understand, and we shouldn’t take anything off the table. It doesn’t mean you…

TC: (laughing as he says it) Scientists should be interested in things they don’t understand. That’s the whole point!

GN: That’s the whole point of it!

TC: (laughs) So that leads to the bigger and very obvious question, which is: How can we have a society in which many people have first-hand experience of these things, in which mountains of data exist, proving that there’s something there that we don’t understand, and yet there’s still this social sanction levied against anyone who mentions it?

GN: Right.

TC: What is that?

GN: Well, I mean, it was directed misinformation and disinformation.


Excerpt from The Robertson Panel– January 14-18, 1953

The Panel’s concept of a broad educational program integrating efforts of all concerned agencies was that it should have two major aims: training and “debunking.” The training aim would result in proper recognition of unusually illuminated objects (e.g., balloons, aircraft reflections) as well as natural phenomena (meteors, fireballs, mirages, noctilucent clouds). Both visual and radar recognition are concerned.  There would be many levels in such education from enlisted personnel to command and research personnel.  Relative emphasis and degree of explanation of different programs would correspond to the categories of duty (e.g., radar operators; pilots; control tower operators; Ground Observer Corps personnel; and officers and enlisted men in other categories).  This training should result in a marked reduction in reports caused by misidentification and resultant confusion.

The “debunking” aim would result in reduction in public interest in “flying saucers” which today evokes a strong psychological reaction. This education could be accomplished by mass media such as television, motion pictures, and popular articles.  Basis of such education would be actual case histories which had been puzzling at first but later explained.  As in the case of conjuring tricks, there is much less stimulation if the “secret” is known.  Such a program should tend to reduce the current gullibility of the public and consequently their susceptibility to clever hostile propaganda.  The Panel noted that the general absence of Russian propaganda based on a subject with so many obvious possibilities for exploitation might indicate a possible Russian official policy.

Members of the Panel had various suggestions related to the planning of such an educational program.  It was felt strongly that psychologists familiar with mass psychology should advise on the nature and extent of the program.  In this connection, Dr. Hadley Cantril (Princeton University) was suggested.  Cantril authored “Invasion from Mars,” (a study in the psychology of panic, written about the famous Orson Welles radio broadcast in 1938) and has since performed advanced laboratory studies in the field of perception.  The names of Don Marquis (University of Michigan) and Leo Roston were mentioned as possibly suitable as consultant psychologists.  Also, someone familiar with mass communications techniques, perhaps an advertising expert, would be helpful. Arthur Godfrey was mentioned as possibly a valuable channel of communication reaching a mass audience of certain levels.

End Excerpt from The Robertson Panel


GN: And so, one of the things, you might want to look at the language of the new bill that just came out today, literally. Lue sent it to me, you know, with exclamation points, saying, “We want you to catalog – you the intelligence services – all the attempts at obfuscation and disinformation, of the U.S. public that you have been doing…


Here’s the actual NDAA language…

“…for the period beginning on January 1, 1947, and ending on the date on which the Comptroller General completes activities under this subsection, compile and itemize a complete historical record of the intelligence community’s involvement with unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena, including successful or unsuccessful efforts to identify and track unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena, and any intelligence community efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide unclassified or classified misinformation about unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena or related activities, based on the review conducted under paragraph (1).


TC: Beginning with Roswell.

GN: Beginning with Roswell. 1947, right? Actually, there was a case two years before Roswell, but that is not really very well known.

TC: Where was that?

GN: Trinity, actually. It was just very close to Roswell.

TC: Trinity, New Mexico,

GN: New Mexico, yeah. Interesting case.



GN: But, you know, the reason why that’s important is because, you know, people’s lives were ruined, right? People’s careers were derailed. And it’s not that we need to go back and fix all of that, and, you know, come up with some kind of, you know, monetary compensation for those individuals. But I think, visa vie, the PTSD issue, sometimes people just want to know that when they were called crazy, that somebody finally says, “You weren’t.”

TC: Of course.

GN: But going forward, now, I mean, we might not be able to fix the past, but let’s not recreate the past moving forward.

TC: And the trust is worth telling for its own sake.

GN: Yeah.

TC: It’s a virtue to tell the truth, period.

GN: And, you know, it’s interesting, I think. You know, I go around, and I will talk to people about this issue. So many people have not heard about this, that it kind of surprises me in a way because, you know, I would be interested in it. But then I realized, if it isn’t affecting the bread and butter issues at their table every day, why should they care, right? And so, you know, I think that those of us who are in the middle of it, need to realize that we do live in a bit of a bubble, and that the rest of the world is trying to just survive. And whether or not there are aliens or whatever, it’s not going to change…when it changes their lives, then they might pay attention, right? So, I mean, it is still something which the public finds fascinating, and, you know, if you do a public survey of it, if you were to list that amongst the things that: Do you think this is interesting? People would check, “Yes, it’s interesting.” But they aren’t actively going out and seeking answers yet. Except it’s begun now to open up to the point where the government has said, “Yes, it’s okay.” Now scientists are saying, “Okay, it’s okay now.” All the people who were kind of in the closet are now coming out and saying…

TC: But it’s been almost eighty years! And even before that, I mean, pilots throughout the Second World War, they called them Foo Fighters, as you know.

GN: Yes, right.



TC: So what we’re seeing is this entire edifice of lies starting to crack.

GN: Right.

TC: And clearly, it’s coming down. But, you know, that disinformation manufactured by propagandists in the U.S. government has been taken as truth for generations.

GN: Right, right.

TC: So, knowing that…and that’s true, we know that.

GN: Yeah.

TC: Does it get you reassessing anything else we think we know?

GN: Uh…yes, in some ways (laughs).

TC: (laughs) Like, if they lied about it, what else did they lie about?

GN: But I’m not sure I want to say it here.

TC: (laughs) Okay, That’s a…I totally get it. But the answer, “Yes,” is enough. So it has?

GN: Yes, yes. I think that the nature of our reality is yet to be fully understood (GN smiles and TC laughs). I think that there’s a lot of things that people think are fringe that appear to have some evidence. And my interest, frankly, has been: Can I place this fringe object in the mainstream of science, right? Can I come up with some kind of explanation about how this weird stuff people think is happening, can be real, right? Not that I have to believe it, but what I want to do is place it into our physics or find a bridge and a connection to it, so that we can explain it. Now, what’s good about all of these things is that money now is starting to appear, right? I mean, New Jersey actually now put out a postdoctoral fellowship for people to study UAPs. The state of New Jersey, right?



GN: I’m involved with, you know, trying to set up resources to be able to fund researchers for this kind of stuff. Because, you know, scientists inherently will follow the money. I can’t take my NIH dollars and go study UFOs, right? I mean, I have a certain box I have to stay in. But I do have money from an endowed chair that I have, which I can do anything I want with. It’s $400,000 a year. And I have talked to the donors, and they’re fine with me using some of this to study UFOs, right? So I have the money to do it. I also spent a lot of money on my own pocket on it. But now that there is going to be, let’s say, validation, you know, the National Science Foundation could get involved. Lockheed might want to.

TC: Yes.

GN: One of the things that’s actually in this new bill is calling for…I think they use the word, “A cadre of academics and scientists who would advise the intelligence agencies on all of these issues.” Not just UAPs, but other things. For the first time! Because there are so many barriers for this. But one of the things that…I wrote a white paper for some of these committees, and I called for that. I said, “You need to bring the scientists in.” Not that we know better than anybody else, because most scientists can actually be dorks (laughs). It’s because you want that outside opinion, you want the crazy opinion, because you just want it on the table, sometimes, because it might be true.

TC: Yes!

GN: And, you know, when you do have a decision to make, you don’t want it to be a political decision, at some level. You want it to be science, and you want to use the best science to inform the politics and the policymakers so that they have the information at their disposal. But, we don’t have it yet. So, now we do, now it’s starting to come. And it’s literally in the bill today that says we will now try to establish and find ways to bring scientists on board, in secure manners, right? With classified access. Because, I don’t want to give it to the Chinese. And I certainly don’t want to give it to the Russians.

TC: Yes.

GN: Right? So, obviously, this information has to be vetted, whatever we might learn. But then at some level, though, you need to get the information out to academics because the silo approach of the last eighties years has not worked. Having one piece of it at Lockheed, having another piece of it over here, another piece of it over there, they can’t talk to each other, right? By definition of how these things are set up. That isn’t how a laboratory works. That isn’t how science works. I need to know all this other stuff.

TC: Of course.

GN: And so, we need to find a way to declassify enough things so that the collective smarts of the country can come to bear on it, to hopefully use it. I mean, I come back to, constantly: If there’s something here, can we use it, and can we take advantage of it? Well, first for the country, and then for the planet. That’s just my interest. That’s always been my approach to life.

TC: I think the most heartening part of this conversation, not only has it been fascinating, but, is the confirmation that science still exists, scientific thinking, the open mindedness that science requires still exists. It’s not all just superstition.

GN: Right.

TC: And reflexive, political orthodoxy. So anyway, I’m grateful that you’re doing this. I’m grateful you’re taken so seriously at Stanford, and above all, I appreciate your telling us all this.

GN: Thank you very much.

TC: Dr. Garry Nolan, thank you very much.

GN: Appreciate it.

TC: Amazing.



© Joe Murgia and, 2018-2023. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Joe Murgia and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

, , , , , , , , ,


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *