Notes / Dr. Garry Nolan, UFO technology, if real, could “reinvigorate US military or even scientific research”
On August 29, 2024, the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies broadcast Dr. Garry Nolan's interview about unidentified anomalous phenomena.
Dr. Garry Nolan is one of the most respected figures in the scientific community, thanks to his many discoveries and innovations. For many years he has also been a leading figure in the scientific investigation of UAPs, formerly known as UFOs. He was interviewed by Dr. Michael Glawson for the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, a group of more than 200 scientists and engineers investigating Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena.
8:54 - I would like to think that things like claims of remote viewing and mediumship, etc, are not magic. They're actually just accessing an information space that exists, you know, and that somehow some people have brain organizations that live in an information system that they can interpret that most people can't.
Since the publication of Jim Lacatski's Skinwalkers at the Pentagon and then Lue Elizondo's Imminent, the subject of “Remote Viewing” has once again become a hotly debated topic. A technique used in many ancient cultures, “RV” involves accessing non-local information. It has been used by Soviet and American intelligence services, but remains controversial despite numerous experiments conducted by Russell Targ at Stanford among others. The fact that the subject superficially resembles a demonized spiritualist tradition - especially in the USA, where religious thought is all the more hostile to it - has locked this ancestral practice in a straitjacket of taboo.
One key aspect of the issue is the ability of mere human beings to outperform the technical intelligence capabilities funded by American taxpayers. Have private contractors, who profit from such contracts, been lobbying against the deployment of this rival technique? After all, a group of humans concentrating in a room is significantly less expensive than entire networks of spy satellites.
10:23 - Let's say that you're an extradimensional intelligence, that we live in some subset of dimensionalities, and that they know a little bit more about how to contact us than we know how to contact them. But the only way that they can do it, is through some sort of interface that we would interpret as a paranormal experience.
And that whatever is their message that they're trying to send to us, it is so lost in translation that you can't have a straightforward back and forth conversation, any more than you could with a chipmunk, or an ant, that it might be sufficiently intelligent to understand you if you could talk its language. As I've often said, how do you tell an ant about Tiktok?
It might be objected to Dr. Nolan that many accounts of close encounters do not show this kind of language misunderstanding, apart from the supposed “Hieroglyphics” found on some debris. In the case of verbal exchanges, either the beings are mute, or they express themselves clearly to the witness. The metaphor of a discussion with an ant is also debatable: ants converse using pheromones, a complex and subtle process beyond our current technical skills. However, in this instance, we would be the ants, facing an intelligence supposedly infinitely more developed than we are, and sharing certain technological developments. Witnesses see structured craft, pilots, operators and scientists, machines and rockets, so we share the development of technologies to overcome biological limitations. It seems likely that a civilization so close to our own, and statistically much older, would have had ample opportunity to observe our language. Many witnesses also note a striking resemblance between them and us. On the other hand, the type of experiment mentioned by Dr. Nolan might also constitute a method used by the source of the phenomenon to cover its tracks, in the same way that their craft are highly effective at avoiding the interception systems of the planet's leading superpower.
13:12 - But the point with the conversation around religion and the Vatican reporter was : what happens if you kill an alien? Are you a murderer? By the very definition of the 10 Commandments, if you're religious or in the Catholic or Christian traditions, it's “Thou shalt not kill” is number one, but it's “Thou shalt not kill a human being”.
It's a question, but that was the example that I used of, how do we war game out, as academics ahead of time, the ethics.
The question raised here is at the heart of many of today's ethical debates on animal rights. The way we are supposedly treated by these ‘superior’ species holds up a mirror to the way we regard ‘inferior’ species. Would these beings also ask themselves these ethical questions about the well-being of primitive forms? While there are some cases of healing of medical conditions after a close encounter, the list of negative effects suffered by humans in other cases raises questions. According to researcher Chris O'Brien, this is reflected in the anomalous mutilation of cattle. While such mutilations are common in cultures that usually consume beef, cases in countries where the cow is a sacred animal are virtually non-existent. Is the source of this phenomenon adapting a variable-geometry ethic to the codes defined as acceptable by the population it observes?
15:30 - If they do exist, why do people who seem to have control over their - you know, the ownership of them right now. Why do they feel it's necessary to keep it from the rest of us?
I also think that there's no reason why letting people know that it exists shouldn't be let out, and then you can probably keep armies of scientists quite happy by dripping out a few pieces of technology. You could reinvigorate US military or even scientific research, just scientific research. I mean, imagine the hordes of students who would pour into the sciences if they knew that they would have a crack at studying some of this technology.
I don't think you need to understand the entire system to understand a piece of it.
Give me a tiny piece of it and let me pull it apart and look at the pieces and do my best to understand! I might make a mistake in my interpretation of what its role in the largest system is. But that doesn't mean that I can't benefit from a principle.
You can patent a use of it that you derive at the principle, if you derive a principle that isn't in human understanding. There are ways that patent lawyers can hash and mince words to give you access to it, but you can't likely patent the concept of antigravity. You can patent a piece of the instrumentation that you've made, that does it. But if you were to wholeheartedly copy what it is that some alien had made that might not be patentable, but the workaround is the same as the ethics of ‘can you murder an alien and get away with it’? Because the premise of human law is that it applies to humans.
You can't patent nature, right? I can't patent photosynthesis, but if I copy something, an idea that somebody else already has, a human has - so the whole premise, the whole legal system, would have to be completely reworked.
According to numerous sources, it was this very point that led to the decapitation of the previous law declassifying UFO archives in the USA. In the text, presented as part of the Defense funding bill, an “Eminent Domain” clause would have allowed the US State to confiscate any debris and research from UAPs recovered by government or private programs. This raised a great deal of opposition, both from defense contractors who would have recovered such debris under government contract, and from independent researchers who themselves had UFO debris. A proposal by Sean Munger to replace this confiscation clause with a referral clause went unheeded.
28:35 - It's like I don't have time to convince you I'm not your daddy. I don't need anybody to tell me what I think I know. And I have work to do. I mean, I'm 63 years old. It surprises even me to think about that. But, you know, I have a limited - I maybe have another 20 good years left to do whatever it is I think I want to do. I would like to think, scientifically, I will have moved conversation along that the number of people beating on the doors of the government to get the information out, will have led to something. I’ll be disappointed if it doesn't happen. But I also feel that the time spent is not wasted, because what you're doing is you're providing a foundation for others to come in.
This is probably the most interesting segment for this writer, and one I was discussing recently with a contact who wondered what more he could do, having exhausted all the avenues he had explored. What emerged from that conversation was that doing the right thing is what really counts. Those interested in the subject of UAPs know that the terrain is arduous, and stand on the shoulders of giants: pioneer scientists and citizens long gone for the most part, who will never see the enigma resolved. The burden they accept is to keep pushing the subject until it is integrated into Western culture as an acceptable subject of research, despite the attacks, the denigrations, and outcry from religious groups.
30:28 - Let's say this stuff is real, and that there's people in the government who are doing their best to use the old tricks of disinformation to get rid of it. The disinformation works a little bit, but as it's pretty clear, it's not working the way it used to. It's kind of like the debunkers who are out there, their tricks just aren't working anymore. Maybe it's just because I blocked them all, but I don't see them in my threads anymore. It doesn't feel like it's working anymore.
You don't have to convince everybody around you that what you're working on, is worth it. It's your time. You don't need their permission to do the science that you're doing. I mean, I learned that before I even got into the UAP arena. I was told constantly, “you shouldn't do that”, “that's not right”, “your idea doesn't work”. I'm like, “Well, you just don't know as much as I do and I'm sorry you're not as you're not as smart as I am, and I'm going to do it because I think I'm right, and it's my time, so get out of my way”.
Host Michael Glawson:
32-51 “That's a question of framing. I think maybe the way to do that with the UAP question, is to say, “Look, you have all these reports of strange phenomena, and they're like multimodal, they go across lots of different systems. There's eyewitness reports, there's radar reports and all sorts of stuff. You have all those reports. What interpretation of them is best?”
And it turns out that there is no prosaic, mundane, boring interpretation, that's just like a loss of time. If you have all these people reporting that they've seen with their own two eyes strange objects, you've got a problem. We don't have a theory of mind or psychology that explains why this is so rampant, you need delusions. Or people say, Oh, well, “everybody watch sci-fi movies, and then they start seeing things in the sky like”, I've never heard any psychiatrist say that's a thing. Like everybody who watches horror movies suddenly sees werewolves or something.”
It's an interesting observation by Dr. Glawson that psychology's explanation of witness reports is still very much in vogue today. This ignores the fact that hallucinations cannot be seen by a group of people and leave no radar traces, radiation or debris on the ground.
49:05 - Dr. Nolan : There appears to be data which is just beyond reach. And the government is acting as lawyerly as it apparently can, in twisting itself into, you know, verbal pretzels to not state what it is. They say: “Well, we have no evidence that it's aliens”. Sure, yeah, okay. Well, does that mean you have no evidence it's a non-human intelligence?
Dr. Glawson : So that annoys the hell of me, when I think Sean Kirkpatrick said that, NASA has said that, but it seems like obfuscating double speaks to me, because I don't think there is a consensus about what would even count as evidence that something is extraterrestrial.
Dr. Nolan : That's the other thing. We need standards of what proof is, for instance, to see all these movements, and it's forever out of reach. Let's say that this stuff zips around forever and we can never touch it or get at it. Well, then you could say : “we have no evidence it's aliens”. Well, I also have no evidence that it's not rabbits flying the things, sure, because you can't get them, but I can, at some point, with reasonable deduction, state that it is not human and it is a technology, or it is something which is not natural, and so, that's what we still have to find a way to verbalize, to force them to answer that question, right? And people under oath in front of you who purposefully are put there with zero knowledge so they have plausible deniability.
Dr. Glawson : Yes, they silo people from information and then make them the spokespeople. I mean, that's a smart tactic.
Dr. Nolan : It's a smart tactic, but it's pretty clear that's what's going on. You know, for at least those who are in the discussion, the problem, of course, is that we have a lot of people who are outside the discussion, who when one of those things ends up on the front page of The New York Times, I get five or six of my colleagues emailing it to me and saying : “Well, I thought you said these were real now the DoD…”. So that is frustrating.
If the exchanges between Drs. Nolan and Glawson are a faithful representation of reality, it is extremely disturbing for American democracy : are defense leaders deliberately being kept out of the loop to preserve a secret, in a very unconstitutional fashion?
56:31 - I've been talking to Jacques (Vallée) about a case that happened, probably 40 years ago, of a scientist near one of the energy labs, US national labs, driving with his family between x and y.
And saw this extraordinary bright light about half a mile off the road that lit up everything, including the mountains nearby. And so he went home and calculated the amount of energy that would require, and it would be like a nuclear reactor at full throttle.
He somehow managed to convince a pilot to do a flyover around the area, because he said that level of energy would burn out a clearing. And lo and behold, he found such a clearing.
There was tree bark that has been obtained that has a depth of burn to it, that supposedly I'll get access to at some point. And so, of course, someone's going to say: “Oh yeah, well, somebody burned it with a blowtorch”, or, god knows what, I have to suffer those slings and arrows. But I don't care, because I'll just say : “Look, here's the chain of evidence, here's what we get: yeah, it got burned by light”.
(…)
There's Garrett Moddel at the University of Chicago, an eminent physicist who claims to have structured a Casimir cavity in a way that is asymmetric and can collect energy from the zero point field. Claims. (…) And he gets a voltage. They're microstructures. And so he's made literally millions of them in a row. And he gets out of a decent thing, but they stop working after a certain amount of time. And when you look at them locally, you find that there's been local destruction.
You burn out the local thing, you know there's people like the people at [?] Energy, who have basically conceptualized in a much larger way, and that they fix the problem of local work eating into the thing by creating the energy in a local sort of plasma field. Some people would call it an exotic vacuum object, um, that seems capable of asymmetrically pulling energy out of nothing. Now again, it's just claims.
It is theorized that when a feat has been achieved by a human being, the rest of the population finds it easier to achieve because it is now certain that the feat is humanly possible. A very simple form of reverse engineering would be for an engineer to ask himself what the object he observes in the sky is. He then understands that it is a form of technology, and therefore that this technology is physically possible, even if the mathematical concepts do not yet exist.
The simple fact of knowing that it's possible will drive him to develop his own technical solution, even if it's not the same as the device he's observed - what the ancients simply called inspiration.
The viewing - and sharing - of the full interview below is highly recommended, for anyone wishing to get started with two of the most reliable and outspoken sources on the subject.
We are often asked what we do over here in France, and this first “Notes” article is the equivalent of what we do for our French readers and viewers of our Video Channel, gathering information, translating, recontextualizing and providing other insights. If you like this article format, please let us know. This writer would like to thank the whole team for making it possible to produce these articles in a matter of hours.