Garry Nolan: UAP Disclosure, Data & the Future of Research

Instagram teen accounts come with automatic protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see. Learn more about teen accounts at Instagram.com slash teenaccounts. Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. That's software overload. Udo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Udo for free at O-D-O-O dot com. That's Udo dot com. Hi everyone, and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. As always, my name is Andy, and my guest on today's episode is someone many of you will already be familiar with, Professor Gary Nolan. Gary is the Ratchford and Carlota A. Harris Professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine and one of the world's leading immunologists. Over his career, he's published hundreds of scientific papers, made major contributions to cancer research and immunotherapy, and built a reputation as one of Stanford's most respected and innovative researchers. In recent years, Gary has also become a prominent voice in the scientific study of UFOs, or UAP, bringing a credible data-driven approach to a topic that often sits on the fringes of mainstream science. He's also the co-founder of the Sol Foundation, an organization dedicated to advancing academic and policy discussions around UAP and related phenomenon. Always fascinating, always thought-provoking, and I'm really glad to have him back on the show to discuss the recent Sol Foundation, Sol Symposium, the third annual, I should add, his thoughts on Skywatcher and his part in that organization and their progress. We touch on CI Atlas, we touch on Whistleblowers, the Age of Disclosure, and a whole lot more. So let me hand over to the interview folks. Welcome to the podcast, Professor Gary Nolan. Gary, welcome back. Thanks so much. Happy to be here. Good to have you on. Now, it's been just over a week since the Sol Foundation held its third annual symposium. I've already shared my thoughts with listeners in a previous episode discussing my experience, the talks, the whole weekend. But I'd love you to start off just by sharing your thoughts on the event held in the Lago Maggiore. So, I mean, well, the feedback has been extremely positive. But like anything, you can have 99 great things in one, let's say, constructive critic. And that's the only one that you remember because you want to fix that. So I'll get to that maybe a little bit later. So I think, you know, the general purpose of the meeting was, first of all, to, you know, acknowledge the fact that UAP are not a U.S. phenomenon alone and that there was a lot of, there's a lot of worldwide interest in it, but not necessarily a lot of worldwide organization. I mean, there's certainly lots of local community groups. But coming together within, let's say, the Sol Symposium as an umbrella so that all these groups could find common ground was probably one of the first purposes, as well as just enable a lot of lay people or professionals who are interested in the matter to say, okay, well, gee, let's just hop over to Italy and hear about it. So the purpose of the meeting was, at the very least, to give the audience, both European and world, a sense of the breadth of what's going on with, you know, researching to the phenomena, the reasoning for why scientists or military or others have come forward with their notions that there's something here. It was not meant to go into depth. So if you were an aficionado or somebody who's totally up on everything around the matters of UAP and its extended agendas, people looking into it, then maybe some of the talks were not, you know, to your liking because you already knew about it. Well, that's great. But there's a lot of people who don't know anything about it. And so those are some of the people that we want to be able to reach. But I think what it tells us is that one of the things we need to do as a community is, you know, you're not going to convince anybody in five minutes that this is real. I mean, I'm not even convinced what is real about it. And I've been in it now for 14 years. I know that there's definitely something and I have lots of notions about it and there you can nail it down. But to definitively say it's one thing escapes a simple five minute conversation. So I think the real purpose of meetings like this is to give people the, you know, here's a bit of data that you can chew on. You know, if you trust that it's real, what does it mean? I mean, science in itself is not a series of statements about reality. It's a series of questions about reality of, you know, here's the observation. What does it mean? And so to the extent that anybody can be lured into it, then this would be the, you know, one of the purposes of the soul meeting was to say, here's something that you can use as a snippet to go on and talk to others about it who might not be as into the phenomenon as you are. In that sense, it was, to me, it was a great success. Absolutely. I think hearing people like General Pierre Bisconde, Fabio De Masi, sitting on stage and having discussions, Fabio De Masi himself, a member of European Parliament, saying he's only really been interested or paying attention to the topic for a short period of time, a couple of years at most. But there were shoots of progress and ideas springing up and suggestions on stage of perhaps Sol could be the, you know, the launch pad for this or perhaps, you know, we could get together and discuss this. And I imagine people expect a lot of the progress to come from the conversations that happen after the talks over dinner at the bar and going forward. Is that fair? Yeah. So, you know, you're going to actually have conversations with people in their own time zone. You know, I mean, just think of it. The totality of the European community is bigger than the size of the United States in terms of the total number of people. So, you know, there's a lot there to be done. And I don't think that, you know, there's this, there's a pushback in the media, especially more in Europe and a reticence about talking about the phenomenon. But, you know, to, to the point of data, Beatrice Villarreal, who is sort of the breakout star of the, of the moment, we had by chance put her as first speaker of the meeting. And her two papers, three papers, had just come out and one of them in one of the nature family of journals peer reviewed about the transience and the statistics around it. And, you know, that has gotten worldwide attention. I mean, and a lot in all the major newspapers in Europe. So, you know, the, the, the subject matter is not off the agenda. It's just the European community or European journals, newspapers, media, et cetera, had a bit of a higher standard of what it is that was required to break through. And Beatrice's work broke through that barrier. And so a lot of conversations are being started around that, especially, you know, I've seen some back and forth with Beatrice and let's say a certain individual in the debunker community without naming names. And it's not make less. And he takes his usual snide and smug approach. Well, I've got to say, Sean Kirkpatrick, that could easily be dismissed. And I, I, I read his comments and I was like, this guy's never going to get it. And no wonder nobody likes him. Sorry, Sean. I'm sure he's listening. The, the, the talks themselves took place over two and a half days. Those are going to be up and available eventually on the YouTube page for us all. The, the streaming date has now passed. I believe that was up until the 2nd of November. But one thing I really enjoyed personally was being able to follow up with some of the speakers. And I was really fortunate on day one. Big shout out to Marek von Renningkamp for handing me the microphone for two, two questions. Um, and I want to get your take, uh, first off, Carl Nell, um, he was speaking with Richard Dolan just last week or the week before now, uh, during the Nash, uh, New Paradigm Institute's global disclosure day. And he had talked about, and it went kind of viral on the UFO scene that this cycle of disclosure had ended with the UEP disclosure act failing for a third time. There had to be a change of tact. And I wonder what, what do you think about that? Do you agree with that? And what do you see as the way forward? Well, first of all, Carl gave, I think the second, or, uh, he gave, he gave a talk, which was as usual, tremendous, you know, with his insights and scholarlyness about the matter, um, you know, and, and depth, you know, in typical Carl's style, uh, you know, just barraged with data, information, insights, et cetera. So, um, so, um, so I, I thought his talk was, was great and can be, and his PowerPoint, frankly, could be mined for, uh, a paper or two if Carl were, were willing to write for Sol. Um, second, uh, you know, I, I, I don't fault Carl for saying that this round has, has ended because I think he's very connected, of course, um, to the writing of the UAPDA. So probably feels, uh, disheartened, uh, because of the politics that he cannot, um, change. But having said that, uh, it's also clear that it's not over, you know, that there still seems to be some life in the UAPDA, uh, as evidenced by things that some politicians have been saying, as well as workarounds. So I think, um, Carl can take heart in that, in the fact that he's driven it to this level. He's opened the door at the congressional and senatorial level, uh, and although the bill hasn't got passed, I mean, look, lots of bills don't pass, even things that should pass that have nothing to do with UAP. So, because of politics. So, uh, but the conversation has started and that's mostly what we wanted to have happen. Of course, there needs to be some legislative action, but I think as well, and I said this publicly at the meeting, it points to the need for us to not depend upon the government for disclosure and go about our own way of doing it ourselves. One organization that is trying to do that and had a speaker present, it was Jake Barber, uh, co-founder of Skywatcher. Um, again, I got to follow up on Jake's talk, which was fascinating and it closed off day one. And I asked him about his statement that was made earlier this year. Where we, where he said Skywatcher was conducting field operations to bring hard data to the UAP mystery, aiming to deliver definitive results by the end of the year. I asked Jake about that statement and is that still plausible? And he told me there's no reason that they can't at least, at least release some quality data soon. They're going around through around 10 terabytes worth currently being analyzed, though that claim of the end of the year might slip into early 2026. And from your perspective, as part of Skywatcher yourself, what's your sense of where things are with Skywatcher and what they can potentially bring to the table? Well, I mean, we did show a couple of the videos of the, of the sightings, uh, as well as pictures. Um, uh, that was, those were Jake's, uh, pictures. Um, and James, of course, talked about his work, uh, on the last day. Uh, you know, I'm literally deeply involved in, in the data analysis and that probably won't be ready by the end of the year. We're still, still dealing with, um, some figuring out what the files are, the timing of the files, et cetera. So there will be results, but they're not going to be frankly as definitive as, as I would like. But what they are, what they're doing is, you know, there's lots of cool stuff there. Um, but I can't write a paper, uh, if I don't know exactly what's going on with all of the dates that some of the files were collected, et cetera, and aligning the various sightings and the various sensor meetings. Um, I think we're going to get there. Uh, we're figuring it out, figuring, uh, what's, what's going on. The file structures are incredibly complex. And unfortunately the radar operator company is not telling us exactly how to decode their file structures. Um, they're just being obstinate. Uh, and that's nobody's fault except the radar company who made the instrument. Um, I, I'm, I'm perplexed as to why that's, uh, the case. Um, because they sold us the radar. Okay. Um, so, uh, so we'll fix that. But what it is doing is setting us perfectly up. And we had a long conversation yesterday amongst some of the Skywasher group for the next, uh, events that will run. Um, they will not be as public. The, uh, revolution will not be televised, uh, but, um, we will be doing some other data collections with actually a very formal, uh, group that works on radar who are helping us set it all up properly next time. I missed the James Fowler's talk. I missed all the talks on the Monday because, uh, I booked my flights. I think several folks did for early on the Monday morning and big shout out to a friend of yours for giving me a lift back to the airport, uh, Gary. Um, it was, uh, when I was really disappointed to miss James Fowler. Now he of course left Skywatcher back in, in August. And I just wonder having missed that talk as, as there an impact, has there been a big loss not having James Fowler as part of the organization anymore? I mean, James is officially separated, but that doesn't mean that the conversations, uh, haven't been continuing with the data that was collected with him, uh, and by him. And he's, he's, you know, he's as involved as he needs to be. And that doesn't mean I'm not, that's not a legalistic way of saying he's not. It's, it now is in the hands of data analysts. Uh, and so, uh, you know, that. Uh, that won't change because there's been a handover of what it is that we need to do next time. Uh, and we'll just run the next one. So, you know, the, the, the Frank answer is no, because James is still at least advised and, you know, involved in an, in an, in an advisorial role. Um, and you know, he's gotta, he's gotta make money and that's what the main separation, as far as I understood it was that I, basically he needs to run a company that makes money for his family, uh, and using some of the, uh, the, uh, detection and sensor systems that he has and working with the government. And that's separate from, let's say the more scientific mission of Skywasher, which isn't to make money despite people who say that it's a grift. I mean, everything, everything that people don't understand or want to have something negative to say about is a grift. Um, so, uh, to some people, which just instantly signals to me is that they're the equivalent of a bot and will be, and will be blocked. The bots will be blocked. Um, so, uh, so no, I mean, you know, and he, as you might've seen, he was hanging with the Skywatcher group, uh, continuously. Yeah. I think for many, you signal the canary in the coal mine for Skywatcher because you've, you've made comments that if they were doing or behaving or acting in a way that you felt was inappropriate morally, um, if they were trying to shoot something down, they shouldn't be shooting down. You would walk away. You made those comments and the fact you're still there for me and for other people as a positive sign. And I take it, that's a mark of the work they're doing that you're still there. Well, I, I think the way to look at it is you've got, you've got three, um, communities, uh, within Skywatcher and cultures. There's the science community that I represent and a couple of others. Um, there's the military. I mean, you, people might not have noticed, but there were several guys, uh, with their little friends or wives hanging around with Jake who actually were all out, uh, on the range with us for each of the events, uh, as security or, um, you know, helping set things up. Uh, and so they were all there. Great guys. Um, scary at first, when I first met them, uh, but, you know, very professional guys. Um, so you've got the military community or military culture, and then you've got, uh, Alex Clocus who is, you know, funneling money from other people as well as some of his own through, uh, uh, a, uh, corporation, um, again, it's nonprofit, uh, to make, um, to get money to Skywatcher to collect data. Um, and so there's a, there's a move fast and break things aspect to a lot of the entrepreneurial groups that fund things like this with expectations that the data, you know, you, you collect the data and the next day it'll all be done. Um, and so, uh, the short answer is part of this, at least what I see is the delay has been merging of the cultures and getting it and getting everybody to understand that we'll get nowhere unless frankly, you do it my way with the science at least. And so everybody's just going to have to adapt. Uh, so it's been like, um, you know, but I mean, there's still pressures from, especially the financial side to say, well, let's just get something done so that that's the, that's the whip that keeps us going to move fast and not just do it as the normal academic rate. But there is a, a process that at least I've gone through for decades with complex data sets, uh, and then teaching people how to do things. I mean, I've had to, I've had to teach some of the data analysts we're working with some of the more complex statistical systems that we use for gene analysis because they can be adapted. You know, basically gene analysis is you have multiple vectors of information that you want to group like with like. So if you've got tracks of data of things moving in different ways, there are statistical regimens you can apply, even if you very know very little about them, uh, to, to track, uh, and, uh, organize, um, things that are like with like, uh, so, uh, you know, adapting the programs to that, which is actually going to be my, my role is to rewrite some of the algorithms, uh, to do that. And it's, it's a, it's a form of cluster analysis, advanced cluster analysis. No, that's, I appreciate that. And I suppose, is it, is it difficult to put a time scale then on when we may see more public data, the next kind of set of results from Skywatcher at this point? Yeah. I mean, maybe winter, I mean, I'm not going to put a number on it. I mean, it'll come, but you know, it's, it's, you know, people have lives. I have lots to do. Uh, and so, uh, you know, but we, we have weekly regular meetings and there's about eight people on it. So, you know, that, that tells you that it's, it's not just sitting there and people are being paid to work. So, um, I'm not being paid anything, but people are being paid to work. People think that I'm making money left or right. I'm not. Make money elsewhere, but not a penny yet on this. And to be fair, Gary, I never saw you buy a single drink at Sol. So, you know, um, clearly you're, you're, you're not that rich for it. Um, but no, you were very busy the whole event, uh, for the two and a half days. I think I spent about 15 seconds talking to you at one point because I could see you were being stopped every single couple of feet along corridors. Yeah, it was, it was, it was nice and I really do appreciate it. But I think next time I'm going to ask people just to, you know, I mean, not approach me, but just let's not spend the first 30 seconds saying, you know, nice things about me. Yeah. Um, and, and I wonder then looking ahead, what are your hopes for the next 12 months of the Sol Foundation and will there be a fourth symposium? Um, you know, um, so we've been talking about that. I think, um, you know, look, putting together the symposium each year has been a huge effort, you know, because again, we don't make any money on it. Uh, I think we barely came out a little in red, uh, on it. Um, and, but yet there's to fund it was a huge effort. I mean, just look at, I mean, look at the number of people who are there, like 400 people, big place, getting the IT, et cetera. So I don't think we want to do that again next year. I think, um, we're going to make some smaller, more targeted, um, meetings, uh, because I think one of the, at least critiques that I heard of the meeting itself was that it, it didn't necessarily have an overall theme apart from just getting it something in, you know, I mean, there were multiple themes throughout the days and I don't think a conference has to have a theme per se. I mean, the theme was UAP. Uh, so, um, but there are targeted, uh, information settings, uh, and groups within the totality of the UAP community that we want to focus on. I mean, certainly one of the next meetings is going to be in DC and it will be smaller and it will be probably dedicated, uh, to trying to get staffers and or Congress people there. Um, and so there, and therefore it will be limited. We don't want a 500 person room. We want something just for a day, you know, because it, I think you can keep doing these things and not accomplish a goal if you don't focus. Uh, and so, you know, we're going to have a few focused events probably in San Francisco, LA, uh, London, uh, one of the participants in Europe, who's actually a good friend of mine, um, will help with getting one in Paris. Uh, so, uh, you know, I, I think that's going to be the goal is several smaller ones so that in totality, it will have equaled the 500 person group, but they're going to be in 100 person increments. And thinking about the impact of the symposium and some of the ideas that were discussed there, I wonder what areas of this topic do you think we are making real progress in and where do you see a lack of progress or even regression? Um, regression. I don't see any regression. You know, I think there were some complaints that, uh, because the notion of, um, uh, CE5, of some kind came up in my discussion with Jake. There were a couple of people in the audience who thought it was unscientific and that my presence was, uh, somehow condoning, uh, CE5. And I'm like, oh, I mean, look, it's been the, the notion has been around for 20 plus years. Uh, so, uh, that it was part of a discussion should surprise nobody. Uh, and I reject frankly, uh, anybody saying that it shouldn't be, uh, and, and that it's not science and I'm sorry, science is just what we don't understand yet. You know, I mean, we just need to understand it. Uh, I don't understand it. Um, I don't know that there's an experiment that I can do except correlation, uh, that would show that it's real. Um, so, you know, my sitting on stage is, is neither condoning it nor rejecting it. It's just saying, well, it is. So let's, it's, it's part of the discussion. Um, there's a claim that that was how one of the, uh, objects was, um, showed up. I don't know that that's the case. Um, so it's, it's correlation, not causation. Um, and, uh, so that's just, um, you know, my, my focus is going to be on, on electronic calling, uh, and not, um, so-called mental CE5 aspects because I just don't know how to control it. And frankly, I think if we, if we are to do it with humans, I would prefer to have IRB institutional review board clinical oversight of something like that, because it, it kind almost sounds, um, like it's, uh, it's working with humans. I'm not saying it's human experimentation, but I just, I, I would like some sort of, you know, oversight, uh, from a, uh, a clinical or psychological or psychiatric aspect, uh, because that would make it easier to turn it into, into real science. And in terms of any progress you feel either from the event or since, is there any direction do you think this is somewhere that should really be a route to focus on? Well, I think the last speaker, uh, sorry, I'm blanking, um, on whistleblowers, uh, needed, uh, that was great and very emotional. Jeff Nusitelli. Yes. Thank you. Um, Nusitelli, Jeff. And, uh, I, I think that there still needs to be work there done. I don't know that the Sol Foundation is the, is the best forum for that, uh, because in, in part that's lobbying, um, but there are other organizations out there. Uh, I mean, uh, I think UAP Disclosure Group, whatever they were before, um, UAP. Disclosure Fund. Uh, Disclosure Fund has just changed their name now to Disclosure Foundation. Okay. That's great. Um, it's actually easier to remember. Uh, and, um, and that's the one that Chris Mellon is the chair of over there. And there are several great people, uh, on that. And one of their focuses, of course, is, uh, helping whistleblowers. Um, so I, I think to the extent that we can help the Disclosure Fund with their efforts for whistleblowers, um, you know, that would be great because I, I think they should probably take the legal lead personally, I think, for that. Um, we don't want to be everything and nor should we be because it's, you know, it's just easier to work as, as, you know, multiple groups. So that is something that I think really needs to go forward. Um, you know, and, and Jeff underscored sort of the request for, you know, is there a way to get enough money for people who are, uh, whistleblowers who might lose their jobs, uh, to support them, uh, or to pay for some of their legal costs, you know, and that's, I mean, you're, you're talking very large sums of money there, you know, there's two ways to do that. You either get the money directly and, and pay them, or you get enough money that you can pay through principle of not principle through, um, in the investment, sort of an endowment, but you, I mean, to pay for people like that, you're really talking about honestly about a hundred million dollar endowment that would generate 10 million a year, let's say, or 5 million a year, uh, that could be used to pay for, uh, some of these people's longer term, uh, job losses that they might incur because of coming forward and legal costs. I mean, I've, I just had a legal case that I had to deal with, um, that was stupid, but out of pocket, it was a hundred thousand dollars for me, you know, and I wonder, I won, but it still cost me a hundred thousand dollars. Yeah. And it's a difficult conversation and I didn't actually know the UEPDF had changed from fund to foundation. And I think whenever people see money and like you see, I know you get a lot of bot comments and such online money fund asking for donations, selling merchandise for, you know, whatever cause a lot of folks get the kind of red flags up with that. Uh, but there is also the, the, the conversation that you need money to do X, Y, and Z. And how is that meant to come about? Yeah. I mean, look, if, if, if anybody were getting rich on this, uh, that would be great, but that's certainly not the case. So people can red flag it all they want. I, I just don't care anymore. I really don't. I mean, you're, you're just, you're like a, you're like a fly bashing against a window. I don't care. Um, one thing I found really interesting was the folks who came and spoke to me who were attending the conference, but they didn't want themselves to be photographed. They were sat at a certain section of the, the, the auditorium. Um, I had a few folks come up to me who listened to this podcast, who work for various interests and organizations, um, who were there. And I wonder, did you get to have some interesting conversations with folks like that? I mean, a lot of people came up to you, but I honestly couldn't, I mean, I was burned out, uh, you know, by the, by the conversations, uh, the numbers, uh, and, uh, so no, I, I honestly didn't have any, unfortunately meaningful time to have deep conversations. Uh, except with UAP Ireland, the, the group from UAP Ireland, I, uh, uh, spent a lot of time with them drinking. Yeah. Um, there was some time for that and folks who, if they haven't attended an event like this, it's my first proper UAP conference event symposium, whatever you want to label it. Um, how did you like it? Let me interview you. Oh, I genuinely loved it. I, my hesitation beforehand was, am I going to come away from it? Um, having just attended an event and having no real rejuvenation of the topic, feeling refreshed, feeling energized, feeling positive. And I did, um, like you, I felt quite burnt out. I was really grateful the amount of folks who came and spoke to me and I'm a nobody that's there compared to all these, you know, celebrities walking about and pilots and military personnel and academics, but yeah, it was, there was a lot of conversation going on a lot of the time. Um, and I, I, I would encourage anyone who can get to an event like that, even just from the networking perspective, it was fantastic to speak to people like minded people and the quality of the backgrounds of folks who were there. I almost felt embarrassed, you know, when folks who didn't know me were like, Oh, what are you doing? I'm a podcaster, you know, and you've got all these incredible titles and academics and whatnot, speaking to you with all these fascinating ideas. So I loved it. It was what I kind of hoped it would be. Um, and the, the setting and backdrop wasn't too shabby either. So yeah, no, uh, I, you know, I really have to honor, um, Jonathan and Mara for, for finding that site and picking it. It was just a spectacular background and the hotel itself was great. Um, no, no, no comments there whatsoever. Um, though, uh, I do think, um, I'm just going to say this on behalf of my assistant, uh, they need to find the things that they, that she left in her room. Uh, so please, uh, please do that or there's going to be some issues. Um, so I, I, I did have, I did have a little bit of problem with some of the, some of the staff of the, um, of the hotel overall, just to say it openly. I, I, I didn't think that they were always, uh, friendly even to me who's supposed to be the organizer. Okay. Um, I, I felt, uh, a little bit of, uh, snarkiness from them. So, uh, I'm just going to say that publicly. Um, so let's see. So I thought there was a really good talk, um, from the, uh, where is he? The, uh, Carl. Yeah, there he is. Um, Carl's disposal. Uh, his talk was fantastic. Um, on the, you know, stagnation in physics, inspiration from the skies. I think a lot of people had some really good, uh, feedback from him. Or about him. Uh, and, uh, you know, I, I thought his science was deep. I mean, so I thought it was great. Carl was the, I believe he was on day one. And I think he was the only talk I missed from the first day because I ended up being pulled aside from the, uh, there was a documentary crew there from the UK who I'd spent a bit of time with talking to over the summer and helping them get in touch with some folks. Um, and, uh, they pulled me aside to do a little bit of recording with them. Um, and then I, I missed that, but I heard Carl was fantastic and very funny from what I'm told as well, which I always appreciate. Yeah. So I, you know, I mean, all of these are going to be up on, um, on the website and we've been talking, maybe I'll just sort of put it out there. Uh, we've been talking about finding somebody with the energy to, uh, help us put out some little TikTok videos and, uh, Instagram videos, uh, of snippets from the, from the talks. I, I think we're going to make a, um, an effort to create a number of, of snippets, put them in a folder for people to TikTok and Instagram them, you know, both on behalf of Saul as well as run, run it with themselves. Um, I'll mention at the end to you when we finish, but I can probably help you with that pretty easily. Um, but yeah, um, I want to go on to a couple of things on recent headlines, Gary, just before we get to listener questions, uh, time will rapidly get away from us. Um, a couple of big news stories that I wanted your opinion on that have been kind of covering things. First off, 3i Atlas has been all over the news with a lot of misinformation flying around. And I wonder, have you been following that story at all? And what's your take? You know, I've been following it. I mean, mostly I follow Avi on it because I feel like he'll give, uh, the most credible science on it, you know, and I think as he's pointed out, it's doing a few strange things. Now, uh, strange doesn't mean alien, but strange means it's not a normal comment, you know, uh, by the, by the very definition. And I saw something again this morning I needed to follow up on that. There's a, there's a potential second indication that it's, it's, it seems to be accelerating. Now, I don't know whether that's real or not, you know, but it looked like it was coming from a credible source. So I think, you know, look what Avi has been able to do, um, is take what would otherwise be a banal prosaic event, uh, of just another, and let the, and, and, and let the astronomers hold the bag. Avi's ripped the bag off of these individuals and said, no, I'm going to show you that you still can't say that it's not a alien vehicle. And I think he's, I think he is magnificently frustrating, uh, the astronomer community who want to just stuff it in a normal old, boring comic bag. And so kudos to him on all of that. Cause he's relentless. Yeah. And I think if people have actually watched what Avi has said, and I've not watched all of his interviews, he's done about 5,000 of them the last couple of months on this. Um, he's been all over the place, but he, he isn't saying this as an alien mother shipper, you know, he's saying it's likely something prosaic in terms of it's an interstellar object. It's only the third one we have tracked. So when we say it's doing unique things, that doesn't mean that they don't commonly do these. We're just getting to find these for the first time and study it. And he's trying to pull along people's curiosity and the scientific community should jump on this to study not as an alien vehicle. I mean, if it turns out to be that potentially great, potentially not, it comes to destroy us, who knows, but Avi's just saying be scientific, be curious, let's study this, let's get involved. I'd like to think out there that are a whole generation of children, perhaps seeing this on YouTube, watching viral clips online and it, it pushes them on to get involved in that kind of arena to, to be curious. And maybe along the line, one of these things comes in that does show unique, you know, well, this is already showing something unique. I mean, I, I, I think Avi's participation in this has elevated the discussion, uh, and made it far more interesting to a lot of people. I mean, it's, it's, you know, it's, he's now, you know, as you said, on bazillions of, uh, you know, new shows or podcasts. And I think coming in at the same time as Beatrice's work is sort of was a great one too, uh, that elevated the discussion. If, if, if anything, I wish Saul had the money to put little advertisements alongside every article that came out on, on three I or, um, Beatrice's work, you know, maybe in retrospect, we still can, but, um, uh, I, I think that it's, I'm still interested in it. So let's see. Yeah. Um, secondly, the telepathy tapes season two has just come out and I spoke with telepathy tapes. Oh, okay. Um, have you watched or followed any of the work? I have not, I have not. And not because of disinterest, just because of time. I just can't do everything. No, that's fair enough. Um, quite a few listener questions came in about your, your work with the Kodadi Putamen. I'm butchering that, um, the idea that non-verbal autistic children may have telepathic abilities. And just from your opinion, is that an avenue of research you think is, is worth going down? I wish somebody would do it. I can't. I mean, I've got my, the projects that I'm doing already give me anxiety that I'm, I'm not spending enough time on, on them. And by that, I'm actually talking, you know, mostly about my lab, you know, my Stanford lab is, uh, you know, the last few months has sort of taken, uh, a second seat, but now it's time to put it back in the front seat. Uh, because I mean, that, that's really where my heart is, is in the cancer research. And fair play. I watched your Joe Rogan interview, um, and it was fantastic. And even that first hour where you don't really touch on UFOs, UAP, I found it really fascinating. And I've, I've got a close friend just now going through stage four lung cancer and advanced cancer and can see what that does to people and, and everything. So it's really important work. And, and, uh, I've donated a lot of money recently to cancer research organizations and stuff because of it. So if folks want to reach out at this time of year and donate, you know, it's always a good, good, uh, good way to go. Um, and also last thing this month, November 21st, the age of disclosure documentary is sent for release. Finally, I wonder if you managed to see the documentary yet. Oh yeah, no, I've seen it. Um, I was in Austin at the opening. It was great. Um, I was, I was in, in it briefly. We'll see if I made it through to the final cut or I got, or whether I got left on the, uh, um, uh, editing floor. Uh, but it doesn't matter because, um, you know, the real voices, uh, that are important here, uh, are saying what they're, what, what's there. It's funny. I saw some like on Rotten Tomatoes or something, a few reviewers who, who said, Oh, well, you know, this is just a bunch of people saying this or that. I mean, maybe just a bunch of people look at the names and the titles of who these bunch of people are. You, you idiot. I mean, it's just, it's just this, I don't know. I don't get it, but it's probably going to be number one on Netflix. So they can all go take a hike. Amazon prime. It's coming out on first. Um, okay, sorry. Yeah. Amazon prime first. And it is to buy, and then it's going to be available to rent for folks who've been asking about that. But do you see, um, do you see this moving the needle in a substantive way publicly? Oh, you know, I think a little bit, I don't think we should get our hopes up that it's going to change everything. Um, but enough people are going to watch it that it's going to create a receptive, uh, community. Uh, I mean, this is any change in culture, especially something as momentous as are we alone, uh, is absent the mothership landing, you know, in the Atlantic, you know, uh, where everybody can see it or what's left of the white house lawn, um, you know, uh, is, um, going to be, you know, important. Maybe the, maybe the changes that, uh, president Trump are making will make it more receptive. I do like the patio that everybody's complaining about though. I actually like it. You know, um, being outside the U S I do still follow the U S news. And when we've had a lot of talk around, um, uh, a building being over a UFO, perhaps that's just a whole plan all along. It was part of the white house. It was over the top of a massive saucer and they're just trying to excavate for it. Who knows? Um, I think, I, I, I think it's going to open a lot more people's minds and there's something more that one can talk about. I mean, I was recently on, um, before I came to the soul meeting, I was on Richard Branson's Island, uh, for a, a short gathering. It was six speakers. I was one of the speakers, multiple individuals who paid for the right to listen to us. Six people talk about cancer and artificial intelligence. Um, but I was asked to speak about a little bit about the UFO stuff that I'm interested in. And, and, you know, Richard Branson was there for most of the meeting. Um, and, uh, I'm not allowed to name everybody, anybody who was there other than myself. Um, the, uh, and there were some important people there. Um, I kind of made the, you know, I talked about the general notion of it. Uh, and I made the comment, oh, if anybody wants to know the real secrets, I can be bribed with martinis. Well, that was an opening that everybody used. And so I, you know, I didn't drink all the martinis I was offered. Uh, but all anybody wanted to talk about afterwards. I mean, a lot of people just want to talk about the UFO stuff. We were interested. Um, and I did the same thing that I did on the Rogan show where I spent the first, you know, portion talking about the regular science to establish credibility. And then I talked about the UAP. Um, so they knew that I wasn't just a, a total loon. I'm still a loon, but by some people's measure. And that certainly worked on the Rogan podcast. I like to check out the comments on YouTube below. And I think people really appreciated that the way you spoke, what you spoke about, and then to go into the, the UAP topic, it holds a credibility about it. I was actually shocked. I was expecting cringe reading the comments, but they were, you know, uniformly positive. Yeah, no, I definitely thought so. Um, you mentioned one thing earlier, just before I get to listener questions to finish off, there would be one thing you would fix about the, the symposium or solve, uh, effort this year. And you said you would get back to it. Did you mention that already? Or I did, I did. It was, it was, um, about, uh, theme. Yeah. About focusing. Um, and, uh, you know, which is one of the reasons why making three or four focused smaller meetings would be better. Uh, I mean, we'll still stream them. We have some problems with the streaming, um, you know, some, you know, glitches turning it on for some people and we're trying to make amends. Uh, we're sorry. Um, we really are. And, uh, so I, I think, you know, having streaming for each of these other events will alleviate people, you know, and their fear of missing out. Uh, but we'll get the people in the room who matter from, uh, you know, from, uh, you know, they're going to make the, they're going to make the changes we need point of view. Um, so, uh, so yeah, so I feel good about that. So that was really what I was talking about. Yeah. Awesome. Um, let's finish off with some listener questions and sorry to the, the many, many, many of you over a hundred people who sent in questions for Gary. I've picked a few of them to get to, um, first off was Melanie. She says, Dr. Nolan was the Kadati Putamen anomaly research ever published and if so, where? Um, well, I mean, the anomalies themselves were not, uh, published, but I published three papers, uh, and I can send you the links later to PDFs. I can send you the PDFs and you can just put them on your website and people can download them. Yeah, sure. Um, work that, uh, I did with Maria Modi at Harvard, uh, and a postdoc there that I paid for, um, on, uh, first getting baseline values for normal brains. What is the normal range of sizes? Autistic brains. And then that's the work actually, uh, the reason why Maria Modi was involved is that's her research focus, the shape of the shape of, um, brain regions, uh, and just, and differences in autistics. But luckily the data set that we used, I think it was the German data set of MRIs also included schizophrenia. Uh, and so we had for all of those individuals, deep, um, psychological and intelligence values set up. So we could do a meta correlation of brain region sizes. So we had written several years ago before it was wide, before anything, this was widely done, um, algorithms, which could, uh, call out the various brain regions, get volume, surface areas, et cetera, automatically, believe it or not, that was not anything commonly done. Um, and then, uh, we did all the correlations and lo and behold, uh, the caudate, not so much the potamen was highly correlated to all positive indices of, uh, intelligence and intuition full stop. Um, so that the reason for doing such a prosaic, I mean, it was still interesting. We actually could say here's a structure for autism, uh, or autistics. This seems common. So there's actually a brain region, uh, involved, uh, involved and here's the structure for schizophrenia. I mean, not all schizophrenia, obviously, but we definitely saw differences and that matched prior work that others had done that already pointed out differences in the caudate and the potamen and the basal ganglia related to autism and schizophrenia. So, um, it was already in the medical literature that these changes exist. So the question is, are they valuable changes, right? Because we call neurodivergent. It's a nice way of saying things that people used to mean as mean. Uh, uh, but that mean, that really means that there are differences in brain structure associated with behavior, uh, or capabilities. I mean, who would be surprised at that? Uh, the fact that we found it correlated to the caudate, uh, to me is the necessary baseline, uh, foundational work that was necessary before we go on and do anything more exotic. First of all, it establishes a track record that I can publish in neurophysiology. Um, I'm certainly not a neurophysiologist. Uh, but as with any work, uh, where you're outside of your field, you just get the expert in that field to work with you, which is what I did with the Atacama. Hmm. Um, question from Algo. He says, this question's about the physiology of NHI. Many are described as thin with large heads. What are the odds such beings could actually move or walk normally under earth's gravity? And do you recognize the features of a functioning living organism in such accounts? Great question. I've had that exact point to make myself is that it, if anything's proof that they're not really from another planet, it's exactly what he's saying. Um, that's at least to me, you know, it's, it's, it makes, I have a very difficult time understanding, first of all, why they would even look like us. I mean, that to me, just from, I just don't, I, I, I've yet to be shown a reason why two arms, two legs and a head, uh, you know, uh, make sense as the best form. I mean, it happened to us before us because a hundred million years ago, whatever it was that climbed out of the swamp happened to have two fins and two back, two front fins and two back fins that eventually evolved into legs. Uh, so, uh, so the, the form was set, uh, several hundred million years ago or a couple hundred million years ago. So I don't know that on another planet, it had to be two legs, two arms, and then ending up looking like us. Maybe, maybe it is a uniform, but we won't know until we get out there. Um, so, but then, then there's the gravity issue, which I think he mentioned, which is, um, yeah. I mean, you're looking at something that's really thin and yet able to walk in our planet. I don't know, maybe it's bolstered somehow internally, uh, you know, um, some sort of artificial ability to enable them to walk. So to me, if anything, it supports the notion that these things are created, you know, I mean, we, we see thin and we think not strong, but look at a chimpanzee of your same size and stature, and it's 10 times stronger than you. It could rip you apart, literally rip your arms off. And, and so there's something about the musculature, uh, and the tendons, et cetera, of a chimpanzee. That's perhaps no, no stronger looking than us. And so maybe that's, what's going on with the grays, you know, I, this is all maybe, maybe, maybe, I mean, I'm not saying any of this is definitive. So, you know, I'm just sort of get, I have to constantly say that. So to ward, to ward off the, the evil national inquirer or daily mail from miscloning me. Um, so it's like my little mantra that gets rid of the evil spirits. Um, so, uh, so yeah, I agree with him. Yeah. No, I like that question. And I love this one too. Uh, KR says, should we be engaging biologists more to understand how our own senses and faculties might limit what we can perceive as a way to better understand the phenomenon? Forgive the analogy, but if you put a starfish on an airplane from its perspective, it's entered another dimension. We, the higher intelligence, know where there's ocean, land and sky, but the starfish has no concept of flying at 500 mils per hour at 30,000 feet. Are we just starfishing someone else's ocean? And if so, shouldn't biology have more to say about how our systems filter out what's beyond our ocean? I agree. Um, I think there's, you know, there's certainly lots of consciousnesses, uh, discussions, consciousness discussions, and frankly, whole symposia, uh, about the nature of human consciousness and what it is. Um, I think Stuart Hameroff and, uh, Roger Penrose are in some ways leading the charge on taking consciousness out of the hands of the neurophysiologists and saying, it's not just neurons that there's something else going on. Uh, and no matter what it ends up being, whether it's neurophysiology and electric sparks between neurons, uh, and, or, or, you know, electrical signals, or is it something deeper, uh, a lot of the, um, tyrosine stacking in the microtubules? Uh, it doesn't matter. They're both embedded in space time. Uh, and so whatever those events are, whether it's sparks between the, uh, between neurons, you know, electrical pulses, um, the pulsing of the brain overall, uh, and the electric fields that are now understood to transmit information from one side of the brain to the other, independent of the, of the neurons or some contribution of the microtubules, uh, to computation, um, you know, uh, it doesn't matter because again, it's embedded in space time. So maybe as your listener or your asker questioner is, is alluding to is that maybe there's some changes down at the level of the Planck scale where all the things are really interacting that certain structures might be antennas or transmitters that we just don't understand yet, you know, and that if you could tap into that lower level, maybe you could see other things, not see things that aren't there, but perceive aspects of communication that might be just outside of our range. Um, you know, Jacques Vallée and I wrote, uh, a SETI paper for SETI. Um, we were asked to go, they said, okay, well, we're going to take, we'll, we'll accept Gary, but we're not going to accept Jacques. And I was like, uh, no, uh, that's rude. Um, but we still put the paper out, um, where, and this was basically a, a question about the, um, the Fermi paradox and, uh, et cetera, about, you know, why do we, why do we not see anything? Maybe because we're looking for the same thing. And maybe it's a, maybe it's a matter of finding consciousness where consciousness might house itself, uh, rather than, uh, techno signatures. Uh, and so, um, you know, I, I, I, I agree with her, right. Is that a woman? I think. What was that? That one was K R. So literally the letters K R could be anything. No idea. Um, he or her, uh, and, uh, you know, so yeah, it's, it's, but how do you think like an alien is the big question. Um, if we don't even understand how it is that humans think. So, uh, I actually was asked by, um, Stuart to do a talk, uh, I don't know, in a meeting coming up, about, um, you know, how do aliens think? I actually don't even know how to begin to put together a talk like that. So it's gonna, I'm gonna have to think about that. Um, because it's, it's really trying to think outside yourself. Uh, so it's, it's going to be a, it's going to be a hard thing to talk about. And so whether I talk about that or something else, I don't know yet. Yeah. Yeah. It's a little bit like smashing open the TV to try and find the actors inside, whereas they're coming from a different place and the signals somewhere else. And right. Yeah. Um, let me finish thing, cause we're running out of time, Gary, with this final question, and I'll let you keep it as short as you want from the human neutrino. Um, what do you see on the horizon for the disclosure movement? And are you aware of any developments that might move the needle? Um, I mean, yes, I'm aware of things that if they happen will be great, but I can't, you know, I won't talk about them and they're not secret, but it's just, there's, you know, one of the things I know about things that are on the edge of happening is that if you give them too much public attention, they don't happen because the trolls show up. Um, so, uh, yeah, I mean, I'm still, I'm still positive about it, but I, I'm personally less interested, pardon the thing. I'm less interested these days in going on podcasts and then just getting some work done. Um, you know, I think, I think it's, we've gotten it to a certain stage. Uh, we have to ignore the people who are screaming more and more and more. Um, you know, give me the, give me the proof. It's like, well, no, why don't you do some work yourself? Uh, and, uh, and just get down to business. And Beatrice, you know, as a, for instance, has shown the way Jacques Vallée gave a great talk about an incident from 50, 60 years ago that he's sort of finally wrapped up and publishes a paper, uh, uh, the Haynesville case. So, you know, just don't think that we're going to be the last ones working on the matter. And so, uh, you know, if you give up, if you give up the ghost, you'll, you won't get anywhere. So just, I'm still grinding on. And I take it Jacques won't give you that tree bark still. I'm going to make him give it to me. Yeah. Thank you, Gary. Great speaking as always. Okay. That's all for this episode of that UFO podcast. Thank you so much for listening and watching. If you enjoyed the show, please follow, subscribe and leave a rating or review wherever you get your podcast. It really helps others find the show. If you're watching on YouTube, hit like, subscribe and turn on notifications. So you don't miss future episodes. You can also support the show directly and get early access, add free episodes and bonus content on Patreon or by subscribing on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube memberships. All the links are over at thatufopodcast.com or in the show description below along with merchandise and more. Don't forget, you can also pick up a copy of my book Atlas of Unidentified Flying Objects available now in all good bookstores and through online retailers, including Amazon. Big thank you again to all of you for listening and tuning in until next time. Keep looking up. You never know what you might see.