Hey everyone on Matt and Welcome to the Good Trouble Show. With yesterday's bombshell
announcement of a Senate hearing on UAPs otherwise known as UFOs, we invited Stanford
professor doctor Gary Nolan to discuss these recent developments. But first do us a
solid and hit that thumbs up and subscribe a button on YouTube. You can
also find us on your favorite podcasting platform by searching for The Good Trouble Show
with Matt Ford. And we are also looking for Patreon supporters. If you
want to do us a serious superslid, you can become a monthly supporter for
the cost of a Starbucks. Go to www dot patreon dot com forward slash
the Good Trouble Show Hugh. Okay, now, so with that out of
the way, our next guest is an immunologist, academic, business executive,
and inventor with over forty patents. He holds the Ratchford if I'm saying that
right, and Carlotta a Harris professor endowed a chair in the Stanford University School
the Medicine Department of Pathology. And if that isn't enough, he is considered
one of the world's s X world's most foremost experts on unidentified anomalous phenomenon otherwise
known as UFOs. Please welcome doctor Gary Knowing Gary. How are you?
Oh great, nice to be here, excellent, Thanks, thanks, thanks
for coming. So just make sure we're we're all alive here. So uh
okay, So, as uh you know, we had a little bit of
a chat right before, and as I explained, a lot of our viewers
are completely or completely new to the UAP issue. Uh you know what used
to be called UFOs. So for the people that are completely new to this
subject, what is it? Is? It? Is it balloons in the
sky? What? What? How would you best describe this crazy topic?
Well, for those who are completely new, first of all, hold onto
the seat of your pants, but also do if, just for a moment,
just reserve your commentary and the negative instinct you might have to talk about
this stuff, because you know what you're going to be seeing in the next
two weeks when the Senate calls out in this hearing, You're going to actually
be seeing the senators, several of them, Rubio Jilla Brand, several others.
Is actually more than a dozen that are interested in in the topic.
Basically putting the Department of Defense on the docking and asking them about the observations
that have been made in the last two years, asking them to provide the
information that's been asked around the UAP topic and all of this. And this
is important I think for whether newbies or those who are even slightly aware.
All of this is in place because of the National Defense Authorization Act that went
that was signed by Biden back in December or so, but past last summer
in Congress. Fourteen pages of that several hundred page document which basically funded the
United States Department of Defense, you know, all the goodies that they buy
to defend the United States. Fourteen pages of that was around UAP. Why
would the Defense Department put that much effort into fourteen pages that has all kinds
of fascinating things in it, everything from whistleblower protection. Basically they know that
there are whistleblowers who know things. We want you to provide the analysis of
the events and objects that have been seen and tell us whether it's real or
nothing, or you don't know enough yet. And they want to understand about
in some cases where UFOs appear to have damaged individuals medically. So I mean
it's all right there in the language. So for people who want to wonder
whether or not this is something that they should be paying attention to it to
the extent that you want to listen to the government, the government is telling
you it's something here to pay attention to exactly. And you know, and
I think an important point to bring up these uh And I don't even remember
who, if this was lou Alisando that that said this, But these laws
are not made in a vacuum. This isn't some some eager staffer that decided
to waste their senators or congressman's time and writing all of this legislation. So
clearly there is a there there you would agree, yeah, well, and
and again there's there's a backdrop to all of this. The UAP hearing didn't
just happen out of the ether. This is now subsequent to almost two years
of briefings that Congress in the Senate have had of events that have occurred either
around our nuclear aircraft carriers or around our nuclear facilities specifically, and they're focusing
on particularly US airspace and to the extent that it might be a threat to
US interests. And so they've collected all of this data. They have seen
the classified videos and briefings. In fact, one of those, one of
the congressmen, came out and said, well, I don't know what it
is, but it's clearly a technology. This was tim Perjet, right.
I said, look, there's there's something here. This is something worth paying
attention to. We have to pay attention to this. And so again it's
not in a vacuum. So what they're doing is they're following up, especially
with this one office ARROW, which is the which is the congressionally mandated and
created office. What's the stand for? Again? They changed me so often.
They love their acronyms. I think it's I think it's all Domain Anomaly
Resolution Office, or maybe they've changed it. Maybe they've already changed it in
yeah, right, the continuing shell game. So but so ARROW, for
those who don't know, is the office that is supposed to be collecting all
of the data from across all of the military divisions, right from the Air
Force, from NATI, Army, Marines, space, etc. Being consolidated
in one place. And that's a good thing, right, I mean,
it's a good thing that this kind of data is being collected and collated and
not just allowed to slip out the back door somewhere. And now what they're
basically doing is they're at least one of the things that I understand is to
be asked is are you being funded well enough? And if you're not being
funded, who's stopping you from being funded? Because we told the Department of
Defense to fund you? Yeah, and so you know, are you being
supported in your mission? That's one of the things. But then I would
expect and a hope that Senator Gillibrand or Rubbio or others basically starts putting them
to the test of Okay, you've got let's say a hundred events. Let's
say fifty of them you can explain. And this is about the ratio of
the ones that they can explain versus what they can't explain. Fifty you can
explain and fifty you can't explain. Things doing five thousand mile an hour turns,
you know, instantaneously, etc. And what the Department of Defense has
been doing is they've been saying, well, for the ones that we can't
explain, we have we have no proof that they're aliens. Well, of
course you don't, right, they haven't landed and shake, you know,
said hi to you. But they're playing a different kind of game because actually,
within that unknown group, there are two buckets. One of those buckets
is we don't have enough information to say anything about it, and then the
other bucket is we have enough information to say something about it. We clearly
can see that it's doing things that it can't physically humans aren't capable of doing.
But they won't divide it into those two categories and say which one is,
which basically basically just shrouding them all and hiding them all under Well,
we don't know what it is because we don't have enough data. Now,
you'll never have enough data. I mean, that's sort of a it's a
circular argument. You'll never have enough data until you conclude that it's something.
But if you know that it's doing something that humans can't do, you should
be able to say that publicly, to say this is obviously a technology that
is um is going to basically change our worldview. And that's the problem,
isn't it that it's to change the worldview that they don't. The moment they
open that door a crack, the flood of questions that will come because of
that will be will drown them I've often that exact point that that you just
said. I've often wondered if that is really the driving force behind the secrecy,
because one, you know, one question leads to another. So the
minute you crack that open, as you said, it's it's it's almost hard
to predict, you know what what the downstream uh, second and third order
consequences are. So okay, So let's let's focus on this, on this
announcement from yesterday. So you know, so as we mentioned, UH,
it's going to be April nineteenth, Senator Kirson Joe Brand will chair and open
hearing on UAP's UFOs in the Emerging Threats and Capability Subcommittee under the Senate Armed
Services Committee. So, I mean, in general, this is a pretty
significant development, I would think. I would say for a lot of the
folks that watched the the UAP hearing in the House, I think a lot
of folks were fairly disappointed with with the director, Sean Kirkpatrick being in the
hot seat. UM, have you heard of any other people that are scheduled
to testify or do you have any information that's just going to be healed to
testify that I'm aware of? Um? And Uh, I mean they might
change between now and then, and there might be Remember the also there's not
only there's the public hearing, but there's also the classified briefing that's going to
go on afterwards. So it's three hours of public and then who knows how
many hours afterwards, and perhaps there'll be other people who'll be brought in at
that point, and you can imagine that the questions will be both more pointed
as as well as the answers should be a little bit clearer to for what's
going on behind the scenes, you know. But um again, remember that
the the individuals who have come forward as as the whistleblowers, and I know
a few of them, the things that they have told Congress behind the scenes
leave nobody with any doubt that there's there's something well worth investigating here and that
the Department of Defense has been stonewallings. So the open question is, you
know, I mean, people can't blame Sean Kirkpatrick if he doesn't, you
know, open the open the kimono, as is often set around here in
sort of Don Valley, because you know, he has he has his superiors,
he has his line of authority that he has to answer to. So
you know, we should continue to support him as much I think as possible
in um in his uh, you know, in whatever efforts it is that
he's making. Do you think if obviously this is speculation until you know,
until we get there, what is your Do you think the subject of of
historical crash or trieval programs will be brought up at all? Or is that
what was such a hot potato? Well in, I mean, I think
it would be fantastic if they did. I mean, and I think anybody
in the audience who is um interested in this area is you should contact your
congress person or your senator and tell them that that's why you want to know,
Because I believe it or not, the senators and congress people do react
to their constituencies. You know. There's there's a guy, as you know
on UFO Twitter who in and just by himself, he's basically just a guy
called up the Senate staff and got them to admit what was going on.
I mean, you are that close your phone call away from your representative,
So put them on the spot, you know, but give them, you
know. I think it's also important too for the community to organize in a
way and not to send a thousand different questions from a thousand different email accounts,
but to funnel them through professional organizations. For instance, Ryan Graves Organization,
the pilot who who saw the craft way back when it was on sixty
minutes um. There's a society SCU for Scientific Investigation of UFOs with with real
scientists, funnel them through places like that. There's already move On. Move
On already has a lobbyist paid for actually by somebody I know who, and
they have their own act access behind the scenes, so you know, get
the louder the voices, the more will be the the support for the senators
asking those kind of questions. They don't need to say I'm interested today,
say my constituents want to know the answer. I definitely I couldn't couldn't agree
more. I mean, it's and it's something that we've from the beginning of
when we've we started messaging on this subject. Everybody has a role to play,
and in a constructive role to play. And that was another thing I
was sort of said, as well, people watch what we are up to,
so I think it's it's in my personal opinion, it's important that everyone
be supportive and positive. We're really living in a really pretty pretty special special
time. Now there's something I say that's actually quite interesting. So for those
in the audience who might or might not know him. Ablow, the professor
at Harvard, former chair of the Department of Astrophysics or Astronomy at at Harvard,
who has his own project looking for let's say, non human technology,
and he's been very out there on this. And so he actually wrote a
piece just yesterday on his blog about how he had gave a talk at the
Harvard Club and I think it was Manhattan, and how the audience was riveted.
You know, they didn't run screaming from the room. And these are
successful people, the Harvard Club. They all went to Harvard, and he
said, many of them turned around and said, I'm willing to give you
money for your for your program. I'm seeing the same thing at Stanford.
Yeah, I mean, the dean of the medical school calls me up and
says, okay, we got to have lunch. So why, I said,
Well, because I just found out about this donation that came in,
this huge donation that came in for you, so you know, and and
so the the interest is there, and so I think we should use that
with both the public, our friends and others to say, look, the
interest is there, the money is there to go after and actually do a
study, to either get it off the table finally and be done with it,
or to show that there's something here worth studying but the but the public
supports it. There are recent with the whole balloon gained Gate thing that happened.
There was it was announced that some sort of um, I don't know
if you want to call it, a task force was stood up within the
Biden administration. That was I believe is headed by our National Security Advisor Jake
Sullivan. What do you know about that? And does this sound like this
is something meant to compete with Arrow? Or if you were to venture to
guess, what would be the motivation for having a task force if we already
have a task force under the DoD Well I think the first part of the
task force that Biden has set up is much more um, let's say,
militarily inclined to look for objects that might be let's say from China or Russia.
I mean, the focus of ARROW is not to look for threats.
The focus of ARROW is to collect data from across the various agencies so in
some ways the setting up of the Interagency Task Force on UAP on UAP is
to complement, I think and supplement the power to reach and ask questions.
But also I think that that will also be allow them to formulate policies about
how to approach this at a higher level. Arrows not there to formulate policies,
So I think you have to think about it that way. But you
know, there's also other reasons you could imagine, and this is you know,
some of the people behind the scenes have said that, you know,
this is just a way for the executive branch to further sweep all the information
into the executive branch, give it back to the d D, and keep
it away from Congress. So you know, maybe there's some kind of a
game going on here that we still yet to to understand, to fully understand.
If you don't mind, I'd like to think it's a good thing to
be good. I do too, and I think if if anything it um
it will it will be the most straightforward in a way, to most straightforward
method to get at the truth without interference hopefully from other players that whose interest
for you know, quite flank frankly, for a very long time has been
to keep the cab in the bag, so to speak. Well, I
mean, look at what's happened. Whistleblowers have come forward with some extraordinary stories
that are that would not have been possible to be brought forward two years ago,
because now there are laws that protect them from being you know, from
retribution from their superiors or the contractors. That defends con tractors who supposedly are
allegedly doing some of these things. So you know, it's it's like the
dam is breaking right, you can you can you can see the spouts of
water across the dam, and you're like, you you better get out of
the way or be prepared to swim exact exactly right. So I'd like,
firstly, you know, we know your time with us today is short,
so I would like to get get to a few listener questions. Uh so
there was one here. So it has been coming in like crazy from UAP
James, to what extent have you assisted the Senate in preparation for Wednesday's UAP
hearing next week? Uh? Well, I mean I previously did write some
uh white papers, but nothing recently. Okay, So, but as I've
often said, if they if they need me. I'm there, but I
talked to a lot of the people who are more directly involved. You know,
I have a focus myself, um more on the analysis of the data,
and so you know, we all have limited amount of time. So
my focus is on the setting up of a pipeline for analysis of materials.
Got it? Okay? Another another question from super crazy movie geek, I
love these names. Do you think we will see new compelling video evidence of
UAPs at the public hearing or do you think it will probably be more of
Well, no, it's going to be a song and dance. I wish
it were, but no, I don't think so. So I see if
they do, just just prepare, I mean, just you know, make
your bets on which direction the stock market's going to go. Copy that.
Uh, you're you're talking about a second ago. Some extraordinary stories that were
shared under the whistleblower protection stories that my understanding were shared in the classified setting
in in DC without obviously revealing anything that that would betray any sort of confidence
actuality. If you were to classify these stories or this testimony under a bucket,
be a crash retrieval or whatever, how how would you characterize these stories?
And how do you think they were received? Crash retrieval and contact?
Wow, okay, all right, all right now now I'm I'm really really
a kind of in shock, but not surprised. Um, So I'm sorry,
it just kind of scrolling scrolling through here. One I was in Washington,
d c uh. I just flew back yesterday and one person that I
was speaking with that was new to the subject, somebody that works at the
State Department. Their question was why now? Why? And I understand that
this is speculation. Do you have any opinion as to why all of a
sudden if you, if you stand back and you look at just this year
alone, the development seemed quite signific. Again, do you have any thoughts
as to why this is happening? Well, it's it's it's frankly standard in
science. Basically, the data begins to build up where the current model no
longer can be explained by the data that you're observing. And the current model
is that there are no such things as ets or whatever it is that is
showing up. And yet the observations and the data are pointing to something different.
So, I mean, it's it's been written about. It's called the
structure of scientific revolutions, and you know, even Gandhi has a version of
it, which is things go along in the first place, they say no,
no, no, that the data comes in. Suddenly you reach this
point where it's obvious that something different is going on, and then everyone's on
the other side of it. Then you know, the next year and todam
is now obvious that such things exist. We're in that kind of cune in
moment that where you have this this inversion and inflection where the data no longer
supports the prior model. You know, and and to the extent that the
Internet is important, and an extent that social media is important. People have
been sharing data and information much more readily, and so more people are aware
of it now, and so it's just it can't be ignored. That's what's
I think that's personally what's happened. But of course there's people like Lou and
Chris Mellen and you know, and we should thank the many staffers and others
behind the scenes who've been doing this. I mean they are they are unfortunately
mostly unnamed, but they're the ones who are doing the real legwork for this.
Yeah, they for sure. I've spoken with them specifically on many occasions,
and this is not something that these folks clearly know what they are are
the importance of this of this particular subject. Now, if you if you
rewind back to the original or to the UAP hearing that happened in May of
last last year in the House, my impression was that the majority of the
lawmakers really didn't seem to be prepared or or read up on this particular subject.
Have you have you heard any indication that that has changed, Dessert A,
Yes, they are much or they are much more informed. And I
think you know it relates to your prior question about why now or what has
what has suddenly changed? And I think what has changed is that they literally
saw the body language of the Department of Defense officials, the generals, etc.
Sitting in front of them, stonewalling them, and they got mad.
And you know, there's there's nothing that drives, you know, human nature
more than being told you know no when you know that the answer should be
yes. And so I think that's part of what it is. I think
they're I think the politicians know that they were lied to and they've had enough
of it, and they're basically starting to put the squeeze on and I and
apparently no men in black have shown up and flashed them to tell them to
stop doing this. So it's it's pretty clear that the tables have turned.
Have one person just asked a question, have you heard, if or have
any information as to whether what doctor Sean Kirpatrick thinks of this? Does he
think that this is a non human intelligence? Does he have an opinion on
it that we have not heard about yet? You know, I've not spoken
to him directly, but I doubt that he would give an opinion, and
he shouldn't. It's not his position to come to a conclusion. It's his
position to collect the data. Do you and I? And I think that's
again that's a good thing because the moment you come to a conclusion, somebody
can easily prove that conclusion wrong and then you just then you're discredited. It's
better just as I pushed this idea constantly get people to believe the data,
because now you can talk together about something common that you agree with or agree
upon, that it's data and that there's something interesting going on here. What
it might be is still many people's guests. I kind of another interesting conversation
that I had with someone. So when we talk about disclosure or or you've
heard people talk about it in different ways, And in my personal opinion,
President Biden could get up in front of a podium tomorrow and say, yes,
this is real, half of the Americans would not believe it. They
could show a video and people would say it's it's cgi. Do you think
that it would take a literal show and tell of some off world technology to
be the sort of moment of ontological shock where everybody goes, oh shit,
this thing's real. Yes, I mean, I think that's what's really going
to be necessary. I mean, you know, proof means different things to
different classes of individuals. You know, if you have seen something yourself and
you know that it wasn't just a meteor or something, then it might be
an anecdote, but you don't need anybody else to convince you what you saw.
But you can't take an anecdote and hand it over to a scientist and
have them work with it. So I think that the country at large,
the public is looking probably at least to two groups of individuals for some sort
of confirmation, one of the government and then the other scientists. And so
at least my efforts and the efforts of the people that I work with have
been too How do we get this into the hands of scientists in ways that
we can apply the scientific method and basically just you know, sum it all
up and say yes, it's there, but also to give policymakers the political
room for them to be able to make statements that they are not going to
be called to the mat on. So anyway, that's how I think about
it. I think that I think that makes makes complete sense. And one
of the things I've all said as well, even though I'm sort of the
you know, the liberal that your your mom would warn you about, I
think that this this particular subject really transcends party and there are people on both
sides of the aisle that are doing significant work on this, and we should,
regardless of your political affiliation, support support everyone that is that is,
you know, working to bring this out of the shadows. And uh and
as many people have said this, it is it should not be up to
a handful of unelikeded officials to decide whether or not we are told where we
are or where are whether we are told exactly where our players we are in
the exactly so if if so, these hearings that will be that will be
coming up, and we're going to end on end on this this question again,
thank you, thank you for taking time out of your data to join
us. What is your well, actually, I'm going to give you two
part question number one, what is your best what is your best expectation for
what will come out of this hearing? And secondly, where would you like
to see disclosure at let's say the end of the summer. I think in
reality you're going to see um, doctor Kirkpatrick having to be very careful what
he says. Um. I think though that what you're going to see are
more informed senators asking far more informed questions and then unfortunately won't see the classified
briefing afterwards where they will ask those questions much more Forthrightly, I don't expect
anything huge out of this. It's going to be a performance of of loyally
level uh you know, of rum and I and I can't blame doctor Kirkpatrick,
you know for that. Sure I would be delighted if it were otherwise.
Now, where are we going to be in let's say six months,
end of the summer. I do think that you're going to see some information
coming from those on the inside who have decided to step forward. I have
been hearing the exact same thing, and I have a very very high confidence
that that will be the case. And then I actually I'm going to ask
you one one last question. Do you think that will change? That will
change things one hundred percent? Do you think that the world is ready for
this? Yes? Absolutely? I mean again, those look at the kinds
of responses I mean I gave. I gave a dinner talk to a group
of Silicon Valley executives here in the Bay Area about a month ago. Again,
riveted people afterwards were just like, I didn't realize it had come this
far, or all of these politicians were involved, And how can I help?
You know, I don't every conference science conference, biology, cancer,
I meannology are going to go to people come up to me afterwards and say,
Hey, what's going on with this? It's really cool I read about
it, So you know, I think, of course the world's ready.
And I've said this before. Most people, if if it doesn't affect whether
it puts bread on their table, they'll say, oh, that's interesting,
and they'll go on with their daily lives. I mean, if they're not
showing up in your front door and tearing up your front lawn. Why do
we care? I look at it for the opportunity. I mean, first
of all, just knowing our place in let's say, the hierarchy of intelligences
and where I doubt we're anywhere near the top. But I look at it
for opportunity. Right. If these technologies are possible, and the things that
they do are possible, what can we as humans learn by just observing?
We don't have to have them show up with the schematics to tell us how
to do it, right. You know, we can learn how to do
it ourselves because clearly they learned how to do it themselves. Right. I
couldn't agree more. And doctor Nolan, thank you so much for your activism
on this man. You're a hero in my book, and I have the
time of my life, let me tell you. And uh, but yeah,
thank you so much for joining us, and folks, we will be
announcing a very significant interview very soon, someone from Washington, DC. You
will definitely know with what we think will be probably a pretty significant interview,
sonya. So more of that to come, Doctor Nolan, thank you so
much for joining us, and I hope, I hope no men in black
show up at my front door today. I'm fine, I'm fine without that.
So anyway, folks, thanks for joining us, and thank you for
the super chat donations, and and finally, doctor Nolan, how can people
support your work and follow what you're doing on this particular topic, Well,
they can follow me on Twitter, and in the near future, we'll be
announcing a charitable organization that will be instituted to focus on policy development and funding
of scientists, and so we'll figure out a way to get the public involved.
That doesn't that looks that is appropriate? Awesome, that's great, folks.
Thanks for joining us. Again. If you enjoyed our show, please
hit that thumbs up like subscribe. All that stuff that the algorithm God's always
always enjoyed helps us spread this message and of course enables us to keep bringing
you what we think is really important news on this particular topic. Anyway,
thanks for joining us, Doctor Nolan. To have a good arrest of your
day, and we look forward to chatting soon.