Speaker 1: Happy New Year, everyone, Welcome to the Good Trouble Show.
Super glad everybody is here today, and as my prompter
decides to do its own thing anyway, super excited. Hope
everyone had a wonderful time during their holidays and a
very happy new Year. I know that. I think everyone
is hoping we have an even better twenty twenty six
in terms of the whole UAP disclosure effort. And yeah,
so our guest today. He is a professor of pathology
at Stanford University School of Medicine. He earned his degrees
in biology and genetics from Cornell and Stanford, trained with
Nobel Laureate David Baltimore, and has published over three hundred
and fifty scientific papers. I mean, you think about that
in and of itself, it's pretty impressive. He also happens
to have over fifty patents. Leading immunologist and biotech entrepreneur,
he invented powerful tools for studying cells, founded several successful companies,
and has recently been analyzing unusual materials and biological effects
linked to UAP sidings. He is the co founder of
the Soul Foundation, one of the places I absolutely love
to go every year for their conferences. Please welcome doctor
Gary Nolan. Gary, how are you. We're off to a
rip roaring start.
Speaker 2: Great. Well, hello everybody, and happy New Year as well,
and thanks for the invitation.
Speaker 1: You're very very welcome. I think is like your third
or fourth time on the show. But how are your
holidays and what kind of trouble did you get into
on New Year's Eve?
Speaker 2: Actually we were in bed by around ten thirty. I've
done I mean, look, I've done all night raves, etc.
Party boats, you name it. I not that my party
days are pasted. I mean, geez. I went to Michanos
to the big end of summer party there with a
bunch of friends and five thousand guys and that was
a lot of fun. So I'm not I'm not beyond
a good party. But it was nice to just have
some time alone with my husband and friends. We went
over to the next door neighbors here for a little
bit of the evening, so it was nice, very nice, excellent.
Speaker 1: Did you make any sort of good New Year's Eve
resolutions that you'll be sticking to?
Speaker 2: My god, we'll see. Well, it's the same one every year.
Go back to the gym, which I do. Uh, you know,
I think you know. I mean, let's just sort of
circle immediately to the UAP thing. It's doubled down on
doing what's important and not get distracted by what's not
by you know, people or efforts attempting to distract because
they feel that they need attention and so because you
never get anything done by not focusing, and so you know,
it's it's you know, it's important, I think. So that's
what it is for me at least. I mean literally,
in five days I am sixty five years old. Wow,
so I'm yeah, so January eighth, so you know, the
clock begins to tick in your head. It's not that
I don't feel like I've accomplished things. It's more that
I still have things that I want to do. And
it's not just about me. It's about what can I
do for others to either pass on whatever I've learned
personally or what I've learned from others that I think
are worthy of consideration. But I feel at large and
so uh and that's you know, for me, frankly, just
how to do science. That's what I've done for the
last three years and.
Speaker 1: We're and we're going to get into it. I have
to say, probably my only New Year's Eve resolution is
to lose the lose the eight pounds that I gained
over the holidays. So that's that's that's where I'm starting.
But folks, before we jump into it fully with doctor Nolan,
let's talk about about the show. So he will be
taking questions from all of us, all of you watching
right now, So just drop drop your questions into the chat,
but do it, do it in all caps, and our
Good Trouble Show moderators will they'll compile the questions and
we'll hand them off to doctor Nolan. And then also
later in the program, we have a surprise for the audience,
doctor Gary Nolan as you have never seen him before.
And uh, it's that's that's going to be fun. But
first thing I want to jump into is exactly oh
is right is this whole narrative thing, and when it
comes to the UAP issue. As everyone knows, this topic
has been labeled as fringe. I mean, really, if you
think about it from the very beginning and sort of
purposely labeled as fringe, is the UAP narrative changing in
both the general public realm and the scientific academic realm.
And if you think it has, why.
Speaker 2: Oh, I certainly think it has without doubt. I mean
there's a I mean, you know, it began certainly or
took off with Leslie Keynes and Lumthal's article in the
New York Times, you know, subject to Louelasondo and Chris
Mellon's help getting the videos out the door, and of
course the mini brave pilots and hustle blowers such as
David Grush as well, who you know and who've come
forward to talk about it, you know. And but I
think it's important for everybody to realize that unfortunately, at
this stage these are all still anecdotes. I mean, well,
the videos are not anecdotes, of course, but many of
the anecdotes, such as what came out from Dan Ferre's
Age of Disclosure and the story that James Fox has
told about the events in Brazil and what I understand
to be things that will be coming. I don't know
anything more than what James has been saying publicly. You know.
I think those continue to keep my interest and they
keep the interest of the public. I mean, just look
at what Dan Ferrer's film has done. It went to
number one, not just for a week, for all time,
for you know, a downloaded program. So and of course
we know that Steven Spielberg has something coming out, so
there's a drum beat. I don't think that proves anything.
But what I think it proves is that there's an
acceptance for the matter that has changed. I think the
posture of those who were the what I'm going to
just term them pseudo skeptics, they're now the ones on
the defensive. I mean, they just seem to be screeching
louder and louder. You've got the likes of the Wall
Street Journal and the others, and thank you very much
for your efforts, Matt, sort of getting the news out
that this, you know, attempt was coming. It certainly forewarned
me and I was able to, you know, as the
last couple of days, I put up that notice that
I had gotten from somebody at the Wall Street Journal
asking for my help, and I was like, in no know,
in certain terms, will I will I talk to you.
What I should have done was sent the analysis I
had done of everything that was wrong with the last
thing that they had done, and said, well, when you
when you write an article publicly disclaiming what you said
before and admitting what you did wrong, then maybe I'll
talk to you, right, you know. I mean, see, what's
interesting is that they expect, for instance, me, everything that
I say, or everything that Avi says, or everything that
Kevin Nuth says, or everything that Matt Sigdallas or many
others say. Everything we say has to be right. And
we say anything one thing wrong, then oh that just
discredes everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: But when they make a thousand mistakes, they just change
the subject, right, and they're allowed to keep coming back.
So I think the posture has changed. They're the ones,
at least as stars. I'm concerned. I'm like, they don't matter.
I get stopped in airports now by people saying thank
you very much. I notice people. I notice people thanking me,
which is nice, all very nice, you know. But even
my scientific colleagues. Look, I still get invited to give
big talks. I'm you know, I'm helping the National Cancer
Institute design a new strategy forward for tour imminology and
actually using artificial intelligence. I'm you know, and you know
I'm invited here there. I'm about to get a big
award that will be announced soon. Uh and uh, you know,
and and what people want to hear is not just
the science. But then they always say, hey, Gary, tell
us a little bit about that other stuff that you're
that you're known. Of course, I was invited to you know,
Richard Branson's Island a few months back with a bunch
of friends talk about cancer and AI. But they wanted
me part of it, to talk about UAP and and
and Richard Branson was there in the audience, and you know,
and it was it was fun. And I think I
made a slight mistake in saying I can be bribed
with Martini if you really want to know what's going on.
And for the next several days at this you know,
very nice place, I was, you know, showered with offers
of Martiniz Wow, it okay, I only drank.
Speaker 1: A couple of course. I want to jump back and
talk about evidence. And you know, I'm not a scientist,
to be honest, I failed college physics and many other things.
I think it was too busy chasing girls and drinking
beer to pay attention in college, unfortunately. But back in
twenty twenty three, the former director of ARROW, doctor Sean Kirkpatrick, stated,
quote Arrow has found no credible evidence thus far of
extraterrestrial activity, off world technology, or objects that defy the
known laws of physics. Then, in twenty twenty four, doctor
Sean Kirkpatrick version two or who I like to call
Doctor John Koslowski stated, quote today Arrow has not discovered
any verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology. What
do you say to that? And then do you think
that the specific use of the word extraterrestrial is sort of,
you know, some some kind of cute wordsmanship.
Speaker 2: Well, I certainly think that there's some very careful legalistic
framing that's going on. Susan Goff has done so, and
I know our friend and I'm sorry, I'm blanking. Chris
Sharp from the Liberation Times. Liberation Times has pointed out
when he I think wrote to her asking for, you know,
would you like to alter what it is that you
have to say about and her answer was no, We're
going to keep it the same. So, you know, look,
I don't know why they're doing that, you know, because
at the same time as they say we found no
credible evidence, I mean, evidence is either evidence or not.
I mean, it's it's like, is the data credible not
is the evidence credible? I mean because to say is
evidence credible is to question the underlying data. Evidence is
only a truth or let's say, supportive of a hypothesis
or a conclusion in the context of the conclusion of
the of the hypothesis or a question. So it's it's
an interesting lack of understanding, even on the part of Arrow,
of what the terminology means. And so I think by
doing that, they unfortunately, and I'd love for them to
be good about it, they just discredit their own scientific underpinnings.
But then at the same time they will publish a
list of god knows how many things that they can't explain.
They'll put out pictures of spheres moving around, you know,
like the one in Mussul, and then openly state that
we see many of these things. Phillips gets out and
says some pretty interesting things as well.
Speaker 1: He's a Star Trek fan, that's for sure, and.
Speaker 2: You know, and he was involved deeply with Arrow too,
So you know, it's kind of they're talking out of
both sides of their mouths, and and I think it's
an indication of the internal struggle that might be going
on inside the government as to you know, what is
it should we say, when should we say it. Look,
I would I would love for them just to truthfully
tell me it's all rubbish and then open the books
so that I can validate that as all rubbish, right,
because they won't open the books, and because everything that
they put out, as you know, I think a Greenwall
to the Black Vault has shown it ends up getting
redacted to hell. I mean, I have my differences with
Greenwald every once in a while the you know, but
the truth of the matter, he's done a you know,
an enormously positive job collecting data and making it available
for everybody and hounding them, yes with Freedom of Information
Act requests, So you know, kudos to him. I mean,
I I don't hold grudges, except I guessing a couple
of people, I guess, But you know, it's just it's
just not worth it the because I think, whether it's
somebody's intention or not, the divisions that happen within any community,
whether it's UAP or anything, are certainly not helpful and
we should always be looking for commonalities of purpose and
goal and not personality. And that's just my opinion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I completely understand what is your One of the
things that we've had quite a few sources. Tell us
is that Arrow has made limited offers to a couple
three people to financially support their scientific work on the
UAP issue. And I think that these are probably folks
that are would be safe to say or developing sensor technology,
sensor fusion technology. Do you think that there is an
inherent danger with getting into bed with Arrow? If you
are a scientific organization and you know, and I'll also
say I look at anyone that we're to take this offer,
I would not look at it in a judgmental way.
I mean, research takes money, Running organizations takes money. Nothing
in life is free. But what are the inherent risks
of these scientists and other organizations partnering with Errow?
Speaker 2: So I mean, I agree with you that if they
have the resources, that should be attractive, but there should
be a legal framework set up around the use of
the data. You know, if they're going to provide me
with money for sensors, let's say, then I will give
them first choice to look at it, but I will
not give them the right to wantonly prevent me from
using it in a publication unless it's like, well that's
obviously something of ours, Gary, and we don't need anybody
to know what it is, but they can't claim methods
and approaches when it's a technique that I developed, right
to look at something. And so I you know, I
think you just have to look at it as a
double edged sword and not allow, you know, secrecy agreements
to prevent you from doing things. Uh you know, I mean, look,
I I I had a I have I guess still
a TS but it was never really used appropriately or enough.
And so I hold no I hold no deep dark secrets. Uh. Frankly,
all I hold are confidences and and and handshakes with
with people as to information that I keep private. And
I would do that with anybody. You know, if if
I promise somebody I won't say something, I won't do,
I won't say it right, you know. So you know,
the the the the the accusations that come against not
just me, but about anybody in this field that somehow
that we're our hands are tied. It's just ridiculous. Anybody
who knows me knows that. I just you know, it
has to be a very good national security reason why
I would agree to holding certain things in confidence. I mean, certainly,
if I had signed I'd learned something under ts it
stays secret no matter what it is. It could be
the the color of a rose, it doesn't matter. I
would keep it secret. But I think, yeah, you just
gotta be you gotta be careful, you know. I mean,
I think in the early days, tt S a uh uh,
you know, tried this with the so called bismuth material,
right uh, and the magnesium bismuth material, and you know,
the the the piece disappeared into the doe for a while.
It was returned eventually. It took some arm twisting, I understand,
to get the report back out of from them. I
looked at at the report. It was actually it actually
it was pretty good in terms of the some of
the basic science, but it missed a few things, or it,
I don't know, kind of glossed over a few things.
And I've shown publicly, you know, even very recently, some
more work that we've been doing on it that shows,
I don't there's something interesting there. I don't know what
it is. It's you know, I don't know whether it's
help put Off's wave guide or not, but I certainly
know it's interesting. And I've you know, got a couple
of guys over in the physics department here and applied
physics who've looked at it with techniques that I didn't
even know existed that show that there's just something interesting
going on.
Speaker 1: Amazing.
Speaker 2: It does absorb in exactly the frequency that Hall suggested
it would, the terrorts frequency. Now, whether whether anything would
or whether that's just some artifact is yet to be determined.
It doesn't prove or disprove anything that Hal has has
said in the in the past.
Speaker 1: Let's let's go back to Arrow, because what I want
to move into is the whole disclosure issue. So I
think what is confusing about Arrow? And you kind of
touched on that a bit. You have Aero saying there's
sort of nothing going on here, yet there are these
silver orbs floating around. Then you have doctor Sean Kirkpatrick
going out after he left and kind of insulting Congress
and doing some other things, the same thing with Tim Phillips,
disparaging whistle blowers. And then I even get an invitation
on LinkedIn to apply for a job with Arrow with
the Pentagon's Arrow Office, and the written job requirement that
they sent me, actually it was on It wasn't in
the DM that I got from the from the recruiter.
It was on their website. But the job requirement. Three
of the job required on this position that they asked
me to apply for were information operations, uh, deception activities
and I've got a disinformation something like that. It was
like three things that were clearly psychological warfare things that
you would say, Okay, why would they why would they
want to hire somebody that has a background in sewing
disinformation and at.
Speaker 2: Least let me play devil's advocate to this. Maybe they
were looking for somebody who could recognize deception and miss
in disinformation, not that they wanted you to practice it,
just you know, to be fair, sure, yeah, I don't
think that's the case personally, but just you know, I mean,
you know, I mean one of the things I run
around screaming all the time is it'll always make sure
you offer the alternative explanation and all options should be
on the table. So to me, that just occurred to
me that you know, maybe it was not about them
wanting you to be such a thing, but they were
looking for somebody who could recognize such a thing.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah, And that was actually one of my
very first things that I thought, and I spoke to
somebody who was a Pentagon program manager who actually used
deception operations in a SAP that this individual ran, and
he looked at it and he's like, yeah, they were
not altruistic reasons. But it is a fair point that
you bring up. But it leads to this. Let's you know,
if you back up and you look at all of
the confusing messaging out of ARROW and what former era
leadership has said once they've exited, it leads me to
this question, can we trust the government to be transparent
on UAP or do we need to take things into
our own hands.
Speaker 2: Well, I think after eighty years somebody should have learned
a less and and you know, I think we're ever
hopeful and I think that, you know, let's put it
this way, maybe maybe this sounds so conspiratorial. Maybe it's
allowed to be so near as an opportunity and then
snatched away as a way to demoralize you know, you know,
I don't know, I I you know, I just don't know.
But yeah, it comes back again and again to this
issue of when I don't get let's say what I
want scientifically, at least out of the techniques that are
available to me. Today I invent a way around it.
And so I think you have seen any of a
number of organizations pop up with credible funding and credible
abilities to go out and do the research themselves. I
actually wanted to reach out to somebody who has been
posting quite a bit and get his permission to mention him,
but since I forgot to do that, I won't. But
you know, lots of just interesting videos that are popping
up from credible people. And certainly there's the work of
Abby Lobe and the Galileo project that probably is the
most extensive and properly run academic effort that I've seen,
almost all run through a volunteer operation within and of
course the instruments is set are are bought by by
charitable donation, and it's considerable amount of money and effort,
and so you know, I think we just plug along.
But then there's Beautris right who you know, she didn't
need to invent anything. She went back to data that
had already been collected and showed that there was something
interesting there, there's evidence, and so you know that's something
you can't scrub. Now you can question whether the statistics
are sufficient to state anything, or whether they are alternative explanations.
But she got it done right. She published it in
a peer reviewed Nature journal. Wasn't in Nature, it was
in one of the one of the many little family
of journals that are all quite credible. And then there's,
of course, there's the work we did with Jacques, there's
work of Robert Powell and Matt. I always say his
name ram Matt Sigdallas, and I apologize. Matt. He admitted
to me that lots of people do his spell his
name wrong. We had a conversation just the other week.
You know, they've published papers. Kevin Nuth has published peer
reviewed papers. So this, this notion that you can't get
it into a peer reviewed journal is just wrong, right you.
It's always about the framing. I mean, I published in Science,
Nature celled at least in my area. You know, of biology,
those of the those the holy trinity that people aim for.
And it's always about the framing. And because it needs
to tell a story, it needs to be steeped in
the kinds of methodologies that are acceptable in the field
at the time, and it needs to move the field forward,
either because you're showing a new method or it's a
principle that you're teaching, or it's an instance of a
principle at least in biology. So it's sort of like,
this is how this particular kind nace works, or this
is how kinaces work globally, or this is how now
more recently, circular RNA is important in cancer, or think extravasomes,
things that are basically secreted themselves, things that are all
that you can see. The Nobel Prize is coming from
this kind of work because somebody noticed data off the
curve and it was evidence that something interesting was going on.
And so to me, that's you know, it's it's like, okay,
so let's refocus constantly. You're always having to refocus. Let's
refocus on what is the data that can be collected,
what are the methods statistical and otherwise that we should
be using to collate anecdotes. And you know, probably at
least most of the feedback I've gotten from that's called
mainstream statisticians is that the Bayesian approach. The Bayesian approach
is the is the right way, which is to use
priors and et cetera. I mean, I published a paper
in Science using Bayesian inference for signaling diagrams. It was
a full article in Science years ago. So it's like
I know of what I speak, and so I've never
I had never thought of using it, but this colleague said, hey,
I could, I could do this. So I think there
are ways to do it. But again, it needs money.
So if Arrow wants to give me money to hire
a couple of statisticians to look at the databases that
are already out there, as long as I'm allowed to
publish it, I take it.
Speaker 1: Sure. Do you think let's say that we do not
have government disclosure, but let's say AVI finds something or
Soul Foundation finds something. Do you think that the world
will believe it if it's not coming from the White House,
whatever that discovery might be.
Speaker 2: I mean sure, I mean it's you know, nobody disbelieved
Beatrice's paper. They might quibble with the you know, interpretation
or some of the statistical analysis around nuclear weapons use,
you know, but none of the quibbles I heard were
statistically sound, and Beatrice was able to bat them away
quite effectively. Did it change the narrative that much? No,
But it's yet another cornerstone put in place that what
it does is it brings in other people. You know,
there are a couple of big time astronomers who were,
let's just say, serious skeptics, not pseudo skeptics, serious skeptics
who actually came out publicly and said, Wow, this is interesting.
And that's all I've ever wanted, is just as I
always say, I just want another scientist to say the
data is interesting. Right. It doesn't mean that they're gonna
follow up on it, but at least if I frame
it as evidence for something, then it's then that's a
step in the right direction. So to say that there,
let's go back to arrow that there is no credible
evidence for extraterrestrials, I mean that just flies in the
face of their own results, right, right, there's no evidence
that proves it conclusively, at least what they've let us know.
But they're absolutely wrong in the terminology that they used.
And you know, if that were a paper that they
had submitted that they dare would submit to a journal,
it would be it wouldn't even make it past the
editor's desk. It wouldn't even make it past the editor's
assistance desk. Okay, so you know, come on, guys, yeah,
step up exactly.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna take a little bit of a break here,
so we'll get back to doctor Nolan here in a second.
But folks, over half of you watching right now are
not subscribers, so please hit the subscribe button and thumbs
up button and leave a comment. Believe it or not,
those little things are the signals that YouTube uses to
decide whether they're going to promote our show to other people.
And we do not have sponsors, so we are completely
reliant on all of you at home to pay for
the studio space, all of that sort of thing. You
can support us on Patreon at www dot patreon dot com.
Forward Slash the Good Trouble Show. Also super chats are,
and I've been seeing here we've had lots of generous,
generous donations for the super chats. All of that financial
support allows us to bring you great guests like we
have today with this gentleman, doctor Gary Nolan, who we're
so happy to be here and help us kick off
twenty twenty six. Now. I don't know about everyone at
home watching, but I've often wondered what doctor Nolan is
like outside of science and UAP, And what better way
to show the audience that than a little little slide
show of some of your photos from back in the day.
So what do you say, let's what do you think that?
Are we good to do that?
Speaker 2: Go for it? Yeah, go for it?
Speaker 1: Okay cool? So yeah, so we'll pop some stuff up
and yeah, so what are we what are we looking
at there?
Speaker 2: Well, that's me and at Cornell in my fraternity room
with a couple of my fraternity brothers at the time.
Uh so, yeah, the beard, I actually I actually lost
the beard for quite a while, okay, and then I
regrew it some time later. All right, that was actually
my room.
Speaker 1: Oh so there we have the beardless Gary Nolan.
Speaker 2: Right, So that's me. I don't know when it was
at Stanford as a grad student. Where was I trying
to look at the back? I don't know where I was.
I always had that smirk on my face.
Speaker 1: So that's what we love about you.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Well that's uh, you quite dapper there.
Speaker 2: So that was actually at Rockefeller University. Uh so, my boss,
David Baltimore, had been at MIT when I first joined
his lab, and then we moved to Rockefeller when he
became the president of Rockefeller University. He later became the
president of Caltech uh University and uh this was a
party at at his house. So it was pretty it
was pretty fund I have a funny. I have a funny,
quick story to tell. So David was amazing, I mean,
you know, truly one of the most amazing sciences I've
ever known, and such a kind and gentle man. Brilliant,
absolutely brilliant, and he had multiple projects in the lab.
He had thirty post docs, uh that you know, focused
on his various projects. And so for his birthday, I
went down to the village in New York City because
this was in Rockefeller, and I I bought a cat
of nine tales, you know, from a from a love store,
and I put the names of each of the nine
projects on the end of it and with a little tag.
And I was really worried about what he would think
about that giving it to him as a gift for
his birthday. But he just laughed out loud and he said,
I'm putting this next to my nobel.
Speaker 1: I love that. Okay, let's let's oh, Actually I want
to ask you, did you tie that bow tie or
was that a clip on?
Speaker 2: No? I tied that.
Speaker 1: No, I learned, how I certainly do not. My hat
is off to you for that Okay, so this is what.
Speaker 2: This is back to Cornell. That's rotzy. Uh that's me
in the back far. Yeah, that's me. I'm the right
on the right there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, amazing, Okay, uh doing a little collegial a little
reading there in college.
Speaker 2: This is actually MIT. This was when we were at MIT,
and that was my that was my part. I was
actually I think I recognized that book. I think that's
a I have to go back and look. I think
I still have it. Nothing to do with UAP. I
think it had to do with evolution.
Speaker 1: Okay, anyway, all right, let's say that's what the Cornell.
Speaker 2: Cornell So that was me. That was me, like removing
the least the beard and having a that was my
porn stash days.
Speaker 1: All right, uh oh, what are we in the eighties
or not? No, probably nineties there, right.
Speaker 2: This is this is us I think late grad school
is that. This is at my parents' house.
Speaker 1: Ah, okay, well that's definitely nineties, I'd.
Speaker 2: Say, yeah, that's that's uh. Yeah, that's me at a
friend's wedding in Hawaii. And actually the guy on the
left was my one of my best friends in college.
He was not at Cornell. He was up over at
Ithaca and that was his girlfriend there.
Speaker 1: So, wow, you found a you you found proof.
Speaker 2: I finally found one. Yeah, there was a there was
a small cancer meeting in upstate here in Marine at
a winery. And uh, this was an art exhibit that
the winery owner had, you know, next to the drinking room,
and so of course I had to have a picture
of it with more in it. I thought it was
I thought it was hilarious.
Speaker 1: All right. Now you were working for the city animal
control there, I see, Were you like a dog catcher?
Is that what was going on?
Speaker 2: That's a big party on a ship that was a
it was a gay cruise. I'm quite openly out. And
that was meet with a bunch of friends and the
evening was the jungle and so we were supposedly animal control.
I had somewhere lost my hat, Sarah, I didn't have
my animal control hat.
Speaker 1: Did Did you have a dog catcher net with you?
Speaker 2: We did actually have nets for a while, but they
were just a little too cumbersome on the dance floor.
That's me at another party. This one was actually out
of the Mediterranean. The first one was in the Caribbean.
That's me at another on another ship at a party
with actually the same group of friends. We traveled together
quite a bit. It was a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: I love that. And who is that a handsome man
with you there?
Speaker 2: That's my husband Tim. And this was actually at the hotel,
the Royal Stockholm Hotel, for the Nobel ceremony for my
friend Jim Allison. And this was one of the pre
Nobel parties. We were getting ready to go out to
the actual parties themselves required full on tucks. There was
there was an after party. Uh. We weren't allowed to
go to the to the big part already with the
King and Queen. That was just for immediate family. But
Jim had invited about one hundred guests, which was more
than wybody else had invited because he's so loved in
the community. And so anyway, that was that. Uh, that's me.
In Antarctica, we had climbed up a small glacier. Uh.
This was Tim and I uh and uh below was
absolutely gorgeous and we later kayaked around it and you
can see in the background some of the some of
the glaciers. Yeah, and they were constantly what they call
calving off into the water and uh. In the they
warned as many times, don't get close to the glacier
sides because you might find yourself, you know, under a
wall of ice or the or the wave.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, both both wouldn't be good. H Uh. That
is a fancy looking machine. What is that?
Speaker 2: Ah, that's the site off. That was one of the
companies that we eventually sold actually for a modest fee. Wow,
all right, And it was co developed with this guy
at the University of Toronto, Scott Tanner and a few others.
Speaker 1: That that's probably about the size of Arrow's budget. I'm
imagining monthly to hire, to hire disinformers, Yeah, exactly. Yeah,
Hey I'm I'm I don't come cheap, that's for sure.
Speaker 2: But this instrument was an outgrowth of really work that
I had done in Lennon Lee Herzenberg's lab. They had
they had invented let's call it the precursor to this
instrument that had already revolutionized I meanology at a level.
It had limitations in the numbers of parameters that it
could measure at a time, and this instrument allowed us
to leap forward in terms of the numbers of parameters.
And so the work that came from this we eventually
published in Science, and also along it brought in so
much data that we had to develop whole new algorithms
to what's called de dimensionalize high parameter high dimensional data
into something that was, you know, mortally understandable. And so
it led to something called pseudo time and novel kinds
of clustering techniques that I mostly worked with with a
colleague by the name of Donna Pierre, who is the
head of bioinformatics. Now it's slung kettering. She had been
in George Church's lab. If anybody knows him, George is
a colleague. I don't see him often, but he has
started more companies than anybody I know. But one of
them is let's let's resurrect the Siberian mammoth mmm, right,
and and other animals. So he's he's quite a visionary.
But just Donna had had trained with him, and she's again,
she's just an extraordinary woman.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, just make sure you rewatch Jurassic Park. Things
didn't go too well. Yeah that all right. Let's see,
this is what a death ray that you're working on there.
This is.
Speaker 2: Let's call it the next generation of UH, an imaging
device that had been developed by two former post docs
in my lab, Sean Bendel and Mike Angelo.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: They had we had published the first version of it,
let's say in UH, I think it was nature medicine.
And then when they left my lab and started their
own labs at Stanford independent of mine, UH, they built
this as a way to study tumors at the using
the same kind of technology of that as that orange
thing that that you just saw, using metal tagged isotopes
not radioactive, but sorry, metal tagged antibodies. So we developed
a chemistry that allowed us to attachment to antibodies. Antibodies
recognized the proteins or and or rna. And they had
this bright idea that you know, rather than shooting the
cells one at a time into a servy five hundred
degree kelvin flame, that they would shoot a beam of
ions at the sample to read tumors. And so this
was the start of let's call it the tumor immunology
solid state work that my lab had done. So when
people say Gary doesn't know anything about metals and isotopes
and how to do with them, okay, well there you.
Speaker 1: Go, sure you go, yeah, and you do clearly understand
the scientific method, I understand.
Speaker 2: I think. Yeah, I kind of think more of course
from certain people.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that's right. Okay, let's see, got one more
picture here? What the fuck is that?
Speaker 2: Oh? God, friend, were you in g in San Francisco?
Where did you get that one? So that was you know,
we were about to go swimming? That was in San
Francisco Bay. I wish I still looked like that.
Speaker 1: I certainly don't. And let's see, Uh, last one, I
think I love this shirt. May not be as normal
as I first appear.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was probably Let's see, that was the house
I'd already gotten tenure. I was up in San Francisco.
That was my house in San Francisco.
Speaker 1: Love that. Yeah, Well, anyway, I appreciate you. Uh, let's
here go back to the right right thing. I appreciate
you showing these these photos. So I want to talk
a bit about the whole disinformation thing like with you said,
the Wall Street Journal reached out to you, uh, and
and is what do we do to fight that kind
of stuff? These these mainstream media articles that are clearly
meant to debunk and discourage Congress from looking into UAP.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the first thing you do is look
at the history of the writer. If they have no history,
then maybe you talk to them, but you do try
to get them to tell you what it is that
the article is going to be about. But one of
the things I found is that they can tell you
whatever they want, but then they'll they'll end up doing
whatever they want with what you say. Uh. And what
you say is not always context in the way that
you meant it. I mean I've been recontext recontexted many
many times. You know. So when when President Trump says
fake news, I understand what he means, uh, And I
thoroughly agree with when he says that that you know
that you know that information can be slanted, and so
it's you know, mainstream media is looking for opinions. They're
unlike in the sciences, where you're where your opinion at
the end of the article is about what you think
the data means still has to be supported by the data,
which has to have the methods. And so unfortunately that's
just not how the news operates. And I don't know
if we're ever going to get around that. So at
this point, my you know, my leanings or just don't
talk to them, right, you know, I don't see what
the I don't see what any additional value it is
to put another piece out about this matter, when all
that you're going to do is give somebody else who
doesn't have any credibility equal standing as yourself because they're
mentioned in the article. So I can say blah blah blah,
you know, in the Wall Street Journal, and then and
then they'll say, but this garage experimenter says otherwise.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, And I want to talk about that now.
So I understand you were contacted by the folks at
CBS News regarding this appearance on the program forty eight hours.
Tell us a bit about what happened with that.
Speaker 2: Well, So, if I was intrigued at the beginning, because
they were, she was very nice in her original ask
in the email. So I called them up and I said, well,
what's this about? And they said, well, we want to
I mean, they said we want to have a debate.
And my red flags went up, and I said a
debate about what? And he said about UAP And I said,
well what about them? And he says, you know, whether
they're well you know, I said, and with whom? And
she said, Nick West? And I'm like, are you go
come on, it's I mean no, I said right away,
and she said, oh, he said you'd say that. He said, well, well,
I said, at least he's right about something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, right.
Speaker 2: So you know, look, I I appreciate I am a skeptic.
I don't need to sit across from a debunker who
claims to be a skeptic, you know. I mean, let's
go back a little bit, almost almost fifteen years now,
when it came when the Auto Kamma Mummy thing came
out and people said that I had debunked it as
an alien. That actually got me mad because I didn't
enter the conversation with Stephen's career to purposefully debunk anything.
I entered it to understand it. And I even remember
a couple of times driving around in the car when
some of the initial data was coming in, I didn't
understand what the genetic sequences meant, thinking this might be real.
But then you know, the scientists in the back of
my head said you better go check this out before
you say anything. Of course, I sent emails updating Stephen
as to where my thought process was, you know, so
I went and got the necessary experts, which is what
you do as a scientist. We're not all good at everything.
So you bring in additional people who said, well, now
here's the reason why this can't be you know, unassignable
or is like novels, because it's because the data is
you know, collected from degraded material, and this and this
and this can happen, and you need this many overreads
to be able to be sure, et cetera, et cetera.
And so, you know, the when the paper finally came
out and people were calling me saying I was a debunker,
it actually angered me because I didn't set out to
prove or disprove anything. I would love if somebody were
to go back and redo it and say, hey, Gary,
you're wrong, here's what you missed. I would love that.
But for now, you know, for Stanford professors, fifteen ish
post docs and grad students, a very large diagnostics company,
Roche Diagnostics, to whom I had sold the genomics technology
that allowed to do some of the analysis, and they
became Rocha's you know, the core bioinformatics team had all
worked on it together and you know, put our best
efforts with the data that we had and the material
that we had, and came to a reason and just
basically put the data out. And if you read the
paper you read it's full of caveats. I mean, but
the but what we could say was there's nothing that
says that this is anything other than human, and here
are some mutations that might explain how it looks what
it looks like. End of story. But of course, you
know the newspapers were all Stanford Scientists sequences, alien baby.
Speaker 1: Of course, yeah, exactly. So so you turned down this
CBS thing. And I think there's probably a very high
probability that Mick West is watching this show right now.
He was in the trash.
Speaker 2: I wish you well, Mick finds on one well, I
have said, why don't you go on with Susan Gerbage
and you can have a conversation with Susan about all
the wiki articles that you've edited or that she edits
or that Gorilla skeptics edit and why they do it.
And I mean that would be a fascinating I would
watch that.
Speaker 1: Of course. But are there any conditions that you would
debate Micwest on stage? If Mix watching right now and
you were to talk to Mic, what would the deal
look like? What would you say Mick, you got to
do this. For me to do this thing.
Speaker 2: Well, I think I would have to have the Gorilla
skeptics delete all of their editing accounts, openly admit what
they've been doing, admit who their funders are. Mick should
admit who his hunters are exactly. I mean, they have
a pretty decent budget. Maybe they should donate to a
whistleblower's charity, you know, a significant amount, one or two million,
I think would be would be good. Publish a peer
reviewed paper in a Tier one journal on any of
the work that you've done gimbal M. You suppose it's
done a lot of work on gimbal supposedly. I think
Marrik should be I think Merrick should be the the
one of the reviewers. Publish. Publish it with Merreck, see
if you could put a paper together with him, collaborate
rather than collude against. I mean, I think that's what
it is. I mean, you know, I mean it's funny
because I I basically put this in a Twitter post
somewhere about how I think the whole Gorilla Skeptics thing
is an ethical u and made a number of other
sort of statements about what I thought would be appropriate,
and Nick did ask in the thread somewhere, well, I'll
have a conversation with you, I said, because I only
have a conversation. But he conveniently left out all the
other terms that I done, which seems to be his
m O. Yes, which is I'm going to pick the
thing that I want to talk about, but I'm going
to forget about all the data that is necessary for
the contextualization. And so it's just not someone. Whether he's
doing it purposefully or not, it just doesn't matter. It's
not some I don't need to have a conversation with him.
He needs me. I don't need him, you know. So
they're desperate. It's like why yah to just why don't
you just publish a whole bunch of things that you've
already done, you know, point to rename metabunk.
Speaker 1: You know what would you name it?
Speaker 2: Skeptic's folly? I don't know. I just yes, yeah, you know.
I mean it's it's because the term debunking implies you're
coming to the table with a preordained conclusion. That's not
what a skeptic is. I'm my own skeptic. I mean,
I offered the CBS person, I said, put me on
stage with another scientist and we could play Devil's advocate
against each other. I'm rather than happy to take the
side of this is all rubbish and and argue that
against somebody who wants to say that the data is real,
because I can do that. I do it every day
in my own lab. I just did it with you
with that.
Speaker 1: You know they're a job post, right is.
Speaker 2: You know I can be my own skeptic. I don't.
I don't need to. People like that can't teach me
how to question my own thought processes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well he could probably teach you how to make
a pretty bad ass Balsewood model. I'll give it.
Speaker 2: I'm sure I love him. I mean, you know, look,
I you know, you know it's it's play acting on Twitter.
I'm glad that there's a voice out there like him, because, frankly,
if I mean, if that's the best there is, then
I think the narrative has changed.
Speaker 1: I completely agree that. Then that goes back to where
we started on the program. So I know we only
have you, I think for like fifteen more minutes. We
have a just buttload of questions. I'd like to try
and get through as many as as we can from
the audience. This is from cool guy. Thank you very
much for the super chat. If the NHI would have
monitored alien reproduction vehicles research just like nuts to prevent
blowing up the planet? Is the safety argument against disclosure
and for amnesty really valid?
Speaker 2: It's interesting and I think that one through what the
meaning is? So is the meaning? I mean, I know
the person is not there to answer. This is the
is the meaning that if we have already reverse engineered something,
is the threat narrative still operable?
Speaker 1: Was that what it think? I think that's how I
would interpret that.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's less operable. But just because just
because I figured out what a wheel is and how
to make a bicycle doesn't mean I have you know, ah,
you know, a super duper Honda motorbike, right, I mean
figuring out the basics of something. All it says is
one of the things that I've been talking about openly
is that if there is something here, it is very
likely it's been here a very long time. I mean,
you know, because you don't just show up flying around
and stuff like what people allege overnight. You probably developed
it quite a long time ago, right before likely humans
had even crawled out of the caves, and so I
don't think there if something like this is real, I
don't think we're a real threat to them, but they
probably have enough foresight to realize that we might be
a threat to somebody. I mean, you know, let's say
there's another civilization in a star system one hundred or
two hundred light years away that isn't one hundred million
years old, is maybe only a few tens of thousand
years beyond us, But the elders might know that people
like us will soon be able to get one hundred
light years away or two hundred or whatever, and so
we might become a threat to other civilizations that are
perhaps at near parody with us or behind us, and
so maybe they want to keep an eye on us.
I mean, I'm just making stuff up as I go. Yeah,
there's nothing, there's nothing, there's no truth to this. It's
just you have to wargame out these ideas, right and
to try to figure out, well, what might be the reasoning?
I frankly, I frankly don't think even if the government
confirmed that there was that there was something here, that
we would ever know what the true intent is. And
we can barely understand what other humans intents are. Yeah,
never mind alien intent.
Speaker 1: Yeah that's yeah, that's true Orange Man, that comes to mind. Okay,
this is from Adam Martinez. Thank you very much for
the super chat. How significant could the data collected by
Skywatcher be to the disclosure movement given your insider knowledge
of their operations and how close are they to releasing
that data?
Speaker 2: I just shouldn't say anything. It's not because there's like
something imminent. I just think that there is some decent
preliminary data. We've learned a lot of things about how
data needs to be collected, and that's as really as
far as I'm going.
Speaker 1: To go understood. Okay, all right, next one actually just compliments,
not just a compliment. It's from the great science Bob Maguire.
This is a needed interview. Thanks Matt and Gary, Thank
you Bob for the super chat. Let's see here going
back through from gene Sticko. Disclosure won't come from stories
or demands. That will come when we act like organized community,
applying science so publicly and persistently that the government can
no longer ignore that. I think it's a really.
Speaker 2: Exactly I mean, thank you, Yes, that sums it up. Perfectly,
you know. I mean, look, we can't even agree that.
I mean, I don't know if climate change is the
right word or whatever. The climate is changing. The climate
always changes, that's certainly true, whether it's anthropogenic. I mean,
the correlation is certainly there. And we know CO two.
You know, traps heat and there's a clear line going on,
and you know, whether humans did it or not is
irrelevant to the fact that you know something is is happening.
So people just want to get in arguments about that.
So you know, it's and people still think the Earth
is flat. So I don't know what to do about
that except to be certain of your own data and
your own your own proof. I mean, we would like
Daddy and mommy government to come out and validate it.
But if Daddy and mommy government, and I'm not taking
any sides here, I mean I'm recently actually registered now
as an independent, changed my party affiliation. If Daddy and
mommy government are going to change every four years how
they approach the world and how they approach truths, then
waiting for the government to say one thing this administration
is only going to change next administration. I mean, of course,
coming out and saying oh, aliens are real. There's something
you can take that back. But so yeah, I yes,
I think it's just got to come locally. But I
mean again, there's there's an incredible, incredible amount of evidence.
Anybody says there's no evidence, it's just like just doesn't
understand science, right, There's there's not proof that the kind
of But then you have to ask, what is your
standard of prove? You know, I said this last night
on Twitter. I was busy running some AI projects and
while they were running, I was, you know, messing around
on Twitter late into the night. It's you know, it
has met my standard of This is really interesting. It
has not met my standard of proof. But if it
were a research grant and I was writing something about
let's say cancer, I have far less evidence for some
of the things that I do in the grants. Then
the evidence is already sitting out there about UAP. But
because people believe in signaling biology and cancer and all
of the rest, that the preliminary data that I have
fits into the mold of what people already understand about
the system. So they say, Okay, this is a credible idea,
let's go ahead and do it. And so you know,
if anything needs to happen, if it ever does, is
you know, for the NSF or NASA or somebody or
an independent foundation of considerable means to come forward and say, hey,
we're going to fund this independently and then hopefully it
would make it to the level of a national laboratory,
you know, where you could have some kind of semi
at least reasonably transparent analysis of you know, either the
flotsam and jetsam that seems to drop off some of
these things that I have access to public materials, or
if somebody could release claimed materials. I mean I've always
I've been very open about this. Sure, it's like, if
there's stuff that's available and there's technology to be learned,
that's what I want. I frankly could almost care less
about what they are and what they are intent. Is
the Brothers of Light or Galactic Love, etc. I mean, sure, great,
if that's the case. I'm interested in what they do.
I'm a technologist, I'm a tinkerer, you know, because I
see it as being able to help mankind. Yes, it
will be used for war, you know, at some level,
or at least used as a defense of course, a threat.
But I'm interested in progress. Yeah, and so I don't
like the idea that progress might be hindered because something
is held back.
Speaker 1: I would completely agree with that. Here's another really interesting
question from Mad s Key twenty five ninety five question
to Gary. Would you support disclosure if the whole truth
would cause immediate havoc around the world? If not, would
you support a partial disclosure that confirms intelligent alien visitors?
So if everything were to go go to hell in
a handbasket.
Speaker 2: I don't want anybody hurt. I just don't want anybody
hurt at all. I mean, that's just the end of
the story. If it meant absolute social disruption, no, now,
I mean I think there's plenty of partial truths that
society can handle. And so yeah, certainly the latter Okay,
this is wrong, but how put Off and others were
on a committee, and the RAND Corporation has put out
very similar studies, very detailed over the decades, which at
various points of time, supposedly having had access to the
real data, have said that whatever is known right now
shouldn't be let out. So I have to trust I
despite some of the things I say, I do actually
trust the government, mostly to do the right thing. I
have to trust at some level and that decisions are
being made in the right way. But what I don't
like is that if there is a decision that it
shouldn't be released, that people should be hurt to prevent
the informations. Yeah right, Or like what happened with David
Grush and having his medical records released by that scoundrel
of a reporter who was then found out later he
openly admitted stupidly on a TV show that CIA operatives
had given him the information. Yeah yeah, and is now
the subject of a court case.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah. I hope Obi gets his asked suit off.
This is another question from Mississippian. Has doctor Gary Nolan
tried psionics personally?
Speaker 2: No. I mean I've sat in my backyard sometimes and
looked in the sky and said, okay, guys, are you
guys going to show up for me? But I can't
concentrate more than thirty seconds on that. I mean I did.
Actually once there was a guy who somebody told me
about who lived way up here in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
He used to be a doctor at Stanford who claimed interactions,
and I drove up to his place, which was way
up in the woods in the Sequoia Forest, in the
woods and down his windy road, and we sat in
his backyard and he claimed that he was interacting with
something on another place, and you know, we did see
a couple of things move in strange ways. And I said,
what are you interacting with? And he said, well, you know,
I'm interacting with this alien or whatever that lives by
itself off in a hut. And I said, it sounds
like you're interacting with yourself. I mean, you live out
here in the middle of nowhere. So I don't know.
That was fun, that was interesting, But no, I haven't
done so I don't. I don't. I've been present when
people have tried it. I've seen the commotion, but I
didn't see anything personally. So I just again, I just
it's kind of going back to what John Mack said,
is that people experience and or see things that I
believe that they believe that they experienced or saw it.
And mean, look, I've also been very open. I saw
things when I was a kid, I mean, quite clearly,
and that motivates my conviction. But it's not a proof
I can hand to somebody else.
Speaker 1: Right, So.
Speaker 2: You know, it's just just another story. But you know,
I know what I saw. Isn't it the title of
a movie, that one about the the Phoenix Lights?
Speaker 1: I think, so, yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: I know what I saw, you know, and so maybe,
you know, maybe that's what's necessary. Maybe they need to
fly over again and fly over Mick West House and.
Speaker 1: Yeah, drop drop. A few few didn't.
Speaker 2: Mix say that he wasn't wasn't part of this thing
that he he was scared of? Some like was it
ghosts or something?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Some I think he had like hallucinations as a crossing. Yeah,
something's going.
Speaker 2: On there, Okay, And that's and that's serious, and that's real,
and I don't discount it, and I don't think that's
a negative whatsoever, you know. I mean, we all have traumas,
but I don't think that we should pass the trauma
on by traumatizing other peoples to make ourselves feel better about.
I mean, putting somebody else down to make yourself feel
better is just passing on historical violence.
Speaker 1: To me, I'm with you on that. Okay, here, just
a couple more we know, we have this, few more
minutes with you, Thank you, Matt, Doctor Nolan. This is
from the guy for Tado. Thank you for the super
chat question. How can society instigate scientific thinking on the
layman's level and promote a healthy factual curiosity?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I think frankly, one of the best
data driven books that I've read is Swords and Powell's
book UFOs and Government. It's just chocol block with data
and instances. And I've given it what pointed many of
my colleagues at it and those who've read it, and
so they've read it as well. I didn't even know
that this kind of data existed, and so, you know,
I mean, certainly nobody's going to read you know, it's
a tome. I mean, it's but it's so well researched
and so well done. You need sort of a I
wouldn't I hate to use the thing a chat GPT
version of it. You need a lighter version of that
that can be gotten out, that is, you know, more timely. Uh,
and you can still have all of the all of
the older stories, but it needs to be sort of
repackaged into the media expectations of today. And uh, you know,
but we have some great producers and cinematographers in the
you know, in the way of Frankly, you know Spielberg
and his many organizations that do this regularly. I mean
they're a little bit more entertainment obviously, But then you
have Dan farras incredible work, James Fox uh and several others.
And I apologize, I've had been on your things and
I'm not I'm just terrible at names too. You know,
I think that we we we have people and it's
just you just need to have a drum beat. And
you know, if anything, Dan's movie caught the world by surprise,
and even Netflix, so you can bet because you live
in Hollywood, you you know what it's like. Yeah, a
wind causes clones to happen, and so you know, they
they know that it sells CBS News, it sells. It's
why they're called me up. Yeah, no, I can, and
I wish them well, I really do. I mean, I'm
not disparaging them at all. I'm just I'm just saying
that's not the approach and the venue within which I
want to talk about this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm with you on that. Well, doctor Nolan, thank you
so much for joining us. How can folks at home
follow your work and support the Soul Foundation?
Speaker 2: Well, you can go to the Soul Foundation website certainly,
and there are donations there. I've personally donated quite a
bit of money myself to my to the Sole Foundation.
So people who say that I'm making money on this,
if they knew how much money I've spent on it,
you know, they'd say Otherwise. People think that I get
money for speaking tours. I've never been paid a penny
about this thing. Even for my own cancer research. I
might get one hundred dollars check from the graduate students
at you know, Harvard to pay for my meal, and
they'll pay for my flight. That's about it. So certainly
that you know, I mean, I'm just gonna I'll say it.
If there's anybody out there who is interested in supporting
cancer research, you can donate to Stanford and my laboratory
and we'll put it to very good use around artificial
intelligence if you want to. If you want to donate
to Stanford for my UAP research, there is a fund
set up and I've had about almost one point two
million dollars donated to my lab for the work that
I've done for UAP. It's amazing, and Stanford's quite you know,
open to it so, you know, but donating for my
cancer research means I have to write fewer grants so
I can maybe spend more.
Speaker 1: Time on you.
Speaker 2: Ap.
Speaker 1: There you go. Hey, it's a win win. I love that. Well, Gary,
thank you so much for joining us, and thank you
for helping us kick off our premiere episode on here
in twenty twenty six. Thank you for doing all of
the work you do to really make this world a
better place.
Speaker 2: And thank you Matt. I mean I real class that
following you. And again, thank you for sort of being
the canary and the coal mine, let's call it that
for some of the efforts recently especially, but I think
your dedication is momentousciate.
Speaker 1: That that that that you made my day. I really
appreciate that. That's yeah, I'm speechless. Well, Gary, thank you
so much for joining us. Have a great weekend, and
hopefully I'll maybe making it up your to your neck
of the woods here in a couple of weeks and
we can meet for lunch or whatever.
Speaker 2: Great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, awesome, Okay Gary Nolan, Ladies and gentlemen, Yeah what
what a just a fantastic He's Gary, much much like Avi,
is a scientist that walks the walk, and he has
this scientific curiosity that frankly a large portion of the
scientific community just does not have.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: He you know, he looks for the outliers in data.
He he looks for the things that are not expected
and that piques his curiosity. And that that in my opinion,
and I'm not a scientist, like you said, wasn't the
best college student, but we need more people like that
that that are frankly brave. They you know, they have
courage to stand up to their their academic colleagues who
might laugh, or or administrations at a at a university.
That's real courage, speaking your truth, not giving a damn
what other people say about you that you and I
venture to guess that that has served Gary doctor Nolan
very well in his life, and that is probably why
he has been so wildly successful. That that fearlessness that
that he has. And and I remember when we had
doctor Avi Lobe, he made some comment that he looks
at science and in the same way that with the
same level of curiosity as he looked at life as
a young kid. When you don't have all of this
bad bagage that the media tries to put on you
or other debunkers, people that are trying to really interfere
with people's efforts to find the truth, and really that
at the end of the day, that's what this is about.
We're not saying, at least I know, I'm not saying that,
you know, we know where this stuff is from, or
what it is or what it wants. We're walking into
this and letting the data lead us where it where
you know, where it leads us, rather than walking into
something with a sort of predetermined conclusion. And I think
doctor Nolan really kind of touched on that, the difference
between being a healthy skeptic versus being a being a debunker,
you know. And I completely agree and support doctor Nolan's
decision not to participate in this CBS show. I know
that there were other people that were approached by CBS
with this thing, and actually I had heard that Mick
and these debunkers were up to something with a major
news network. It was probably around six to nine months ago,
although at the time I didn't have the didn't have
the details, but you know, but this this was going on,
and I think that when you have when you're it's
not it's not a fair debate when you are debating
with someone that is going to leave out evidence or
misrepresent evidence, uh all for the purpose seemingly to to
come to a particular conclusion sort of just it's it's
like gaming, gaming the system. And if I were to,
if I didn't know anything about the UAP topic, I
would certainly trust doctor Gary Nolan over mcwest or some
of these other folks, because it'd be clear to me
that doctor Nolan is all about the data. He is
not about an agenda or forcing a conclusion without the
scientific evidence to back it up. He's all about the
data and seeing where the going, where the data leads,
rather than operating from an agenda, which is I think
where one of the where all of these debunkers, particularly mcwest,
operates from, which is why, in my opinion, you really
can't trust much of what comes out of these folks.
But I want to talk about something else here, and
this is really pretty serious. The the UAP Disclosure Act,
which was I think the third time around that this
was attempted to get pushed through or become federal law
in the National Defense Authorization Act. We know that once
again it failed. This act, which from a cost perspective,
was virtually minimal compared to some of the other programs
that that legislation pays for, was absolutely minuscule. All this
thing was about was transparency on the UAP issue with
the American public to the extent that it did not
harm national security. It talked used the phrase non human
intelligence I think like twenty something times. And one of
the other important elements of it was it had this
in a domain clause that mandated defense contractors in possession
of vehicles of non human origin or biological materials of
non human origin to be returned back to the government.
This got derailed. You had this legislation written by Senator
Senator Schumer, Senator Mike Rounds, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, so
you have to ask yourself, how the hell did that happen?
How the hell did this legislation by three of the
most powerful United States senators not go through. Now you've
heard me speak on the program extensively. Really for the
life of the Good Trouble show about the UAP gatekeepers,
the fifties or so senior executive service level people spread
throughout different nodes of government who protect the program, protect
the legacy program. These are the people that are paying
for the disinformation and the debunking, and the gerrilla skeptics
of the world and the Wall Street journals of the world.
These folks, in conjunction with the intelligence community are in
many ways the bad actors, or at least a sort of
a section of it. You know, all organizations are multifaceted.
You have factions, so to speak. But these are the
folks really from the inception of the security infrastructure and
creation of the Legacy program that are gatekeeping this. But
there is there are gatekeepers that I have not spoken
about on this program. And these gatekeepers are really, in
many ways probably the most important. And these gatekeepers are
some of the congressional staffers. Chris Sharp put out an
article in The Liberation Times, and actually this was I
had no idea that he had put this article out,
but essentially it said that Senator Mitch McConnell's office was
the one that killed the National Defense Authorization Act for
twenty twenty seven. And in his article he stated that
chief of staff Terry Carmack, Senator Senator Mitch McConnell's chief
of staff, Terry Carmack, was the guy that killed the
UAP disclosure Act. I actually received this same bit of
information from a source earlier yesterday. UH. And and I'm
going to read, uh just a let's see if I
can find it here. But this, this is not how
you operate a democracy. When you have United States senators
uh that are are being undercut by their own staffers,
you know, it really makes you wonder, well, who who's
really running things? I'm going to read read this. Uh.
Sources identify Terry Carmack, McConnell's chief of staff, as the
staffer who pressed to have the UAP Disclosure Act stripped
from the National Defense Authorization Act after Eric Berlison had
submitted it as an amendment. UH. The source that Mitch
really wielded his lease like a cudgel, and the response was, yes,
it was true. It was Carmack. Carmack is not the
only powerful staffer involved as agents of Senator McConnell. Senator
Senator McConnell chairs the powerful Senate Defense Appropriation Subcommittee. His
staff director was also involved. So here you have the
chief of staff of Senator Mitch McConnell and the staff
director killing this stuff. And I have to tell you
I've heard this from other sources. As well that some,
not all, some of these congressional staffers they're the ones
that get harassed. They're the ones that are offered sweetheart
deals working for lobbying firms or whoever. They're the ones
that the legacy programs approach and say, hey, we need
you to kind of tamp this thing down. So my
question to the speaker, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson,
and the Senate Majority Leader, who I'm blanking on his
name for a second, you know what is going on
in your house, what is going on on Capitol Hill?
We would have this UAP Disclosure Act if Speaker Mike
Johnson had done his damn job. We would have the
UAP Disclosure Act if Mitch McConnell's chief of staff and
apparently a staff director guessing from one of the committees,
had not blocked this legislation. Who elected these congressional staffers
to make those kinds of decisions. Who elected these congressional
staffers to go against the will of the American people.
Who elected these congressional staffers to undercut the very people
that they are working for. By that, I mean congress
members of Congress or members of the House and the
Senate's it's frankly something that we all need to be
asking about, because if certain congressional staffers are tanking legislation
that their bosses actually want, what else are they doing?
What else are they blocking? And again, and I have
relationships with staffers and members of congres This is not
a an all or nothing thing. Just like just like anything,
you've got good actors and bad actors, and and I
would say the ones that I've interacted with fall into
the good actor category. But this is, this is something
that we really need to be talking about. We really
need to be talking about why Speaker of the House
Mike Johnson did not uh it seems to be avoiding
this topic, and why the Senate Majority leader, who is
no longer Mitch McConnell, why this guy his chief of
staff and uh and this staff director killed the legislation.
I don't know, I you know, I'd never heard of
these guys prior to this whole thing. But it's got
a it's gotta stop. As I've said time and time again,
members of Congress, the people that we all act to
represent us, cannot do their jobs when they are not
given the information. When they are you know when they're there,
when they go to the Pentagon or the Intelligence Community
and a door gets slammed in their face. You've heard
that from Congresswoman Anna Polina Luna and Eric Burlason and
Tim Bershett, the literal backflips that the Pentagon and the
Intelligence Community and the Department of Energy do to keep
this from lawmakers, to keep this from the people that
we sent to Washington to represent all of us. And
then to find out that at least in Senator Chuck
Schumer's orbit, he's got a chief of staff that is
killing legislation that three of the most powerful senators in
the United States Senate have put forth have spent their
own political capital on. And here you've got this staffer gatekeeping.
You've got Senator Mitch McConnell's chief of staff gatekeeping, Terry Carmack.
People should look up Terry Carmack. These emails are very
easy to find for staffers on Congress. You just need
to do a little little digging. But these exist in
databases on the Internet. But people need to be reaching
out to these to these congressional offices. Call Senator Mitch
McConnell's office and ask why in the hell, Terry Carmack
and whatever staff director went in and torpedo this legislation
and spoke about this earlier. It's probably well over seventy
five percent of the public want to know what the
hell's going on and also what is not going on.
But because the government continues to lie to all of you,
all of us, we have no idea what's going on.
When you have former leadership of the Pentagon's UFO office
insulting members of Congress while while still on the taxpayer's dime,
and you've got another guy, former director of Aero, Tim Phillips,
going on podcasts seemingly spilling classified information, you know, you
just you got to wonder what the hell is going on?
And nothing is going to change if we all just
lay down and take it. If you want things to change,
you got to make the phone calls. You've got to
go to protests, make your voice heard, call email. But
you've got these gatekeepers out of the Legacy program and
the folks that are three layers down from let's say
the Secretary of Defense, the deputy undersecretaries and all of
that who are doing the gatekeeping, the people that are
there for life. But then you've also got these members,
these certain congressional staffers who are fucking it all up,
and it's un American. We did not send these staffers
in there to undermine their bosses, to undermine the people
that we voted in Republicans and Democrats. And trust me,
this corruption goes on both sides of the aisle. But
we can't just sit back let this happen again and
again and again. Who who are these staffers that are
blocking this stuff? Why is there not an investigation? Why
is there not a right you know? Why why is
there not a DOJ investigation into what is what are
insider threats in Congress? Because that's what it is. These
are insider threats. These are people who are doing damage
to this democracy. Where is the Department of Justice? Why
is there no Attorney General investigation into which congressional staffers
are compromised? Where is that? Where is an investigation from
the Department of Justice, from the Attorney General into which
congressional staffers are compromised? Which congressional staffers are taking backroom
deals from defense contractors and backroom deals with the legacy program?
Why is there no investigation into what is being promised?
What carrots are being dangled to these congressional staffers to
shut this shit down, because that's what's going on. Money talks,
bullshit walks, and unfortunately, there are some folks operating in
Congress who are not doing it for love of God
and country. They're doing it for themselves. And whether they're
being bribed by the intelligence community or a defense contractor
legacy program or whoever, when whatever, non government organization, the
fact is you've got people in there that are compromised
and they are affecting federal law. We can't just let
this lie. So when you hear about gatekeeping gatekeepers, it's
not just in the intelligence community. It's not just in
the Department of War or Pentagon. It's not just in
the legacy program. You've got gatekeeping going on right now
in the offices of members of Congress by some of
these staffers. It's It is no wonder that people do
not trust the government. It is no wonder that people
do not trust the mainstream media. I used to make
fun of Trump and his deep state stuff because well,
I'm about to switch to independent, But you know what,
Trump was right. There is a deep state. This deep
state is all over the damn place, and it undermines
things that they do not want to happen. It undermines presidents.
I'm not a Trump fan, don't get me wrong there,
but it undermines presidents, It undermines legislation, It undermines you
at home knowing the truth about things. And these are
folks we didn't elect. These are folks that we are
operating in congressional offices that are gatekeeping the UAP issue.
You know, these members of Congress, they got a lot
on their plate. They rely extensively on their staffers. And
there are good staffers, and there are staffers that are
there for serving the country and doing the right thing.
But then you've got this small subset that unfortunately is
very powerful, that is controlling everything. They are part of
this machine, this deep state machine, or whatever you want
to call if you don't want to call a deep state,
I don't know, whatever you want to call it. But
it's a machine, a cancer that continues to grow and
grow and grow on this Republic. So we need the
Senate Majority leader to do his damn job. We need
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson to do his job,
and they need to hold investigations all these staffers in
that are dealing with chief of staffs and national security staffers.
Put them under polygraph, find out who is compromised, and
get them the hell out if they are. You know,
this country is in a bad place. And when you
have congressional staffers gatekeeping and obfuse, skating and essentially lying
to their bosses, it's no wonder this whole thing is
a shit show right now in this country. It's no
wonder that Washington is dysfunctional. And again that dysfunction exists
on the left and the right, there is no doubt
about that. But the DOJ needs to hold investigations on
congressional staffers, who is compromised, who is paid off, who
is being promised things, what congressional staffers are interfering with
legislation and in particular legislation with on the on the
UAP issue. You know, we just this, This can't this
can't We can't keep doing what we're doing here. That is,
that is for sure. I want to thank everybody for
the super chats, and yeah, I hope everyone had a
really great, really great holiday, and I know I did,
got a chance to visit, go out of town, visit family.
But you know, we're in a new year. This is
twenty twenty six. Just because we had the chief of
staff of Senator Mitch McConnell tank the UAP Disclosure Act
does not mean we give up. You keep fighting for
what's right. They want these uh, these gate keepers in
Congress and the Legacy Program and the IC. They want
all of you right now that are watching this show
to pack up and move on. That is what they want.
And you can't give it to him. Then they win.
Then we all fail. Then we lose what this country
should be. And it is a damn time that we
get this country back on track and get it back
to the America that this needs to be. And all
of that starts with rooting out this corruption. And there
is no better demonstration of this corruption than in the
legacy UAP program and the tentacles that it has everywhere.
There needs to be investigations, People need to be held accountable.
There are some people that need to go to federal jail.
It needs to happen, because the longer we sit back
and let all this keep, you know, growing this cancer
on our country, on this republic, at some point you
reach a point where there's just no return, no point
of return. You have to hold people accountable. And once again,
you cannot expect the members of Congress that we elect.
They cannot do their job or make the right decisions
for this country. When you have congressional staffers cutting them
off at the knee, like Mitch McConnell's chief of staff,
it's unfair. It's unfair to their bosses, it's unfair to
all of you watching, it's unfair to every American and
every person in the world that wants to know where
they are true places in the universe. That decision is
not Mitch mcconnald's chief of staff to make. It's not
And frankly, Senator Mitch mcconnald's chief of staff should be
goddamn embarrassed and ashamed for what he did. But you know,
I'm sure this guy's laughing all the way to the bank.
Would be my personal guests, but call Senator Mitch McConnell's office,
email his chief of staff and say, you know, what
are you doing? What are you doing? Man? This? You know,
as Americans we deserve better. Anyway, Folks, if you enjoyed
this show, please tell all of your friends about us again.
Hit that like and subscribe. All of that stuff really
helps us out. And again we are completely funded by
people like yourself. We have rent to pay for the
studio at various other expenses. So we really appreciate people
support us on Patreon or on YouTube by becoming a
member of the show, joining us in that way, and
the super chats of course, all of that really really
helps us out. You know, at the end of the day,
the reason I'm doing this, it's not about fame or
making a bunch of money, which we certainly aren't doing that.
It's about getting to the truth of whatever the hell
this is and holding people to account because I don't
know about you, but I'm tired of being lied to.
I'm tired of the government treating us all like a
bunch of kids. We are Americans, We can handle difficult things.
We rise to the occasion. But when you've got a
a government that treats you, treats all of us like
a bunch of children, that's that's that's not the country
I want to live in. That's that's not a democracy.
That is not a government by the people and for
the people. It is an abomination of democracy with what
is going on in particular with the with the UAP issue.
There is no good reason why they cannot tell us,
to some extent exactly what has been going on. But
it's not going to happen. As long as we have
these congressional staffers and other gatekeepers spread out through government
chopping everything off at the knees, it's not going to
happen anyway. Thanks again for joining us. We will have
another a great show coming up this weekend, and again
tell your friends about us at the like and subscribe
all that good stuff, and we certainly appreciate everyone's support,
and everyone have a great week. We will see you
next week on The Good Trouble Show.