Dr. Garry Nolan and Beatriz Villarroel: Why UAP Matter | The Sol Forum

Transcript

[Music] Um, I I want to ask you both a question and and you guys should ask each other questions about this too or follow up with each other, but I I want to know I mean what what what do you say to colleagues in academia and the sciences who find your pursuit of uh data pointing to the existence of of UAP or UAP technologies to be puzzling, unjustified? even unscientific. What are you saying to those colleagues? >> Give it time. I mean there is stigma. There are going to be people who try to like discourage you from that. Just give them time.

Everyone need to some time to accept the ideas to think about um these possibilities and to see how this field becomes real slowly step by step. I don't think one can push anyone to believe you or to think like you also one just needs to >> question back to them is how much time do you have and second how much time have you spent actually looking at it >> rather than paring somebody else's conclusion. Uh, and what you very quickly find when challenging them that way, uh, that they admit that they know almost nothing. And then I say, well, have you read the book, for instance, UAP or UFOs in government by Robert Powell and Swords? Have you read anything in this field? Um, do you know what Project Blue Book is and was and what the pros and cons of it are? uh and you know in basically two minutes you can show uh just how ignorant they are of the matter and then I follow up with well I've spent time and read all of those books cover to cover as well as about 200 more. So, it's kind of like you coming to me and telling me cancer is not real.

And then I uh basically take you into a pathology lab and show you thousands and thousands of preserved blocks of human tissue representing cancer. uh and that pretty much in very short order uh shows who's doing science and who's not. So, we all need for those of us who are in positions like B and I uh to have at the ready those kinds of immediate challenges back because they can always ask a question that you can't answer or you'll say, "Well, where's the evidence?" Well, there's lots of evidence. Evidence isn't, you know, evidence is contextualized data. There's enormous amounts of data.

Uh it's just whether or not it meets the uh reproducibility test. Uh so um for me reproducibility is materials or medical damage. For B reproducibility is you know do I see the same thing on a photographic plate on day one versus day two and or from multiple observatories. >> Yeah. Um, and so that's reproducible science that again once you've stepped into that realm there is no argument to be had.

The data is is indisputable. what it means is interpretable. And as long as you stay on the comfortable side of that line for the audience, you can keep them with you. I mean, I might have my own personal beliefs that's on the other side of that line, but my personal beliefs are different than my scientific conclusions. And getting that across to people often takes a bit of a longer conversation, but you can have that first conversation where you basically get people to admit that they know nothing uh about the matter that they're attempting to appide upon uh and therefore they might as well just go to a Facebook forum and spew their guts there uh and their opinions because it would have as much value.

Beatrice, any further thoughts about that? >> Well, I agree with Gary. I agree with Gary. It's like my my scientific conclusion from this this work we've been working we've been doing now is that we see something that shouldn't be there in these images from the early 1950s. Something that happens to look like something very flat and very reflective and in high orbits probably. And that's my scientific point of view.

And if you ask you about my personal, I'm going to say I think it's artificial and it's not ours. >> Right? >> So, >> I mean, look at what AI is going through right now with the more recent U meteor coming through our solar system >> where it appears to have an internal light source. >> And there's lots of natural reasons why it could have that. um which he goes through. Uh but because one or two lines of his opinion say that well it could be a nuclear reactor or an artificial energy source, >> that's all anybody focuses on and so therefore dismisses all of the other more uh prosaic answers that he's even very comfortable with.

And so, um, you know, I I think sometimes holding back the speculation of what it might be, even if the question is on the table and you believe that it's true, is better to get it into the public realm first as an accepted paper, and then speculate after it's been published. >> That's true. That's true. I I'm very bad with holding back anything, I think. So, >> um, but yes, it's true.

It could be easier sometimes because people want to poke holes on arguments. They don't want to read what you say. They want to don't want to read what you write. They will not read when you listen among an explanation. They will go and try to attack the more interesting explanation.

So >> yeah, >> you you guys have both shown um I think immense uh courage in uh engaging in dialogue and and debate with your colleagues and and doing research really at the edge or beyond the edge. Um and you you've also both shown and I really believe this is true um remarkable imagination in how you've you've approached the questions that interest you. So it it may not seem this way even to yourselves, but I think there are younger generations of people going into the sciences and um uh starting out in science right now um who are probably looking to both of you as as um you know possible models or even inspirations for their work. So what would you say to them? Uh I'm really asking you know for like this is a fundamental question. What would you say to both of them that science is um or what would both of you say science is? What what what betric is is science? >> For me, it's expl datadriven exploration.

That's what science is to me. But of course, there's a you can if you're a theoretician, you think differently. So, but I'm this is at least my personal point of view of it. It's a um you just you just want to explore and the unknown terror I mean the the unknown domains that you can't get I mean get answers to in any books when the books don't give you the answers then you have to go and check it yourself somehow so >> yeah I think where hard science and theorists overlap is that you know the hard scientists will collect the data often with uh a preset understanding of what they think the answer might be and the theorist is there to either explain the data as it's collected or explain the outlier. Um and where you know astrophysics and where I think uh for instance Avi has a lot of problems with astrophysicists is they come up with uh magical theorems that are inherently untestable.

Um, and so I mean in retrospect looking at my path or through science, it's always been the either the unmet need that drives for me the creation of an instrument that lets me collect more data until I get to the point where the data doesn't make sense. And then it's that data off the curve which then redirects my interest. And I think this is where Bee is at right now. You know, this data off the curve is redirecting her interests into understanding what it might mean. >> Um >> yeah, that's how my whole career path has been that you you find these weird things you don't understand and you try to form a hypothesis how to test it and and it just goes on like that.

>> So you're actually a theorist. I know that's a dirty word amongst material scientists, but >> no, I I am sitting at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics. >> Oh, okay. All right. Okay.

Good. All right. [Music]