Developing Research Roadmaps for Investigating Non-Human Intelligence — Dr Garry Nolan

Transcript

The conversation on UFOs, UAPs, [music] and non-human intelligence has long been shaped by experience, speculation, and secrecy. What's missing is a coherent approach, one that separates data from interpretation and evidence from belief. Humanity now stands at a threshold. Encountering a non-human reality is not only a scientific [music] mystery. It's a civilizational challenge.

We must move beyond ideology [music] and secrecy toward a science of contact grounded in evidence, methods, and shared human [music] values. The human institute is building that foundation. The investigating non-human intelligence series is the first public multiddisciplinary [music] forum dedicated to developing the scientific and ethical foundations for researching our human encounter with [music] non-human intelligence. The series convenes leading scientists, philosophers, and field [music] investigators to explore new approaches, methods, and emerging data and findings to [music] ultimately generate breakthrough discoveries in non-human intelligent phenomena. These 1-hour [music] presentations bring forward serious work by serious people, charting a road map for a new science capable of understanding [music] and managing the unknown responsibly before it manages us.

We invite scholars, experiencers, [music] and all who seek clarity to join us. It's time to rise above speculation and take a [music] deliberate step toward a grounded evidence-based response to the existence of nonhuman intelligence. Hello everyone. My name is Ted Row and on behalf of the human institute and UAP Med, we welcome you to Investigating Non-human Intelligence, a series of multiddisciplinary presentations and panel discussions that will explore the development of a new science of non-human intelligence. Together, our two organizations have set out to create a multiddisciplinary forum to build the intellectual, ethical, and scientific foundations for humanity's next great field of investigation, our engagement with non-human intelligence.

This series will include lectures and panel discussions by professional and academic experts on the many facets of studying non-human intelligence and the types of research and inquiry that are necessary to detect and understand it. The investigating non-human intelligence series will chart a road map to investigating non-human intelligent phenomena exploring eight layers of this emerging field beginning with its scientific and research foundations then resolving uh science of intelligence exploring consciousness and cognition uh examining communication and contact psychological and social impacts exposure and direct encounters. public safety and responsible engagement, ethics, law, and international preparedness. The Investigating Non-Human Intelligence Series will bring together scientists, philosophers, researchers, investigators, clinicians, and experiencers to share emerging findings, data, and perspectives. It will provide empirical anchors for assessing the phenomenon independently.

And it will bridge the gap between expert research and lived experience, recognizing experiencers as vital sources of qualitative data. For the general public, this series offers a new intellectual framework for engaging with UAP and non-human intelligence claims and evidence. The outcome of these efforts will be nothing less than the emergence of a new field of study, the science of contact, both empirical and grounded in the ethics and human values that unite us all. Thank you for joining us as we explore the methodologies, frameworks, and investigatory practices that will become a foundation for detecting and understanding non-human intelligences. And with that, I will pass you to Reed Summers, who will introduce our next speaker.

>> Thank you, Ted. Great to be with you all and welcome back to Investigating Non-Human Intelligence, this public forum developed by the Human Institute in partnership with UAP Med. This series exists for a very specific reason, which is to move the conversation about a potential non-human intelligence out of speculation and into serious scientific, medical, and institutional inquiry. We opened this series of talks with a lecture by Dr. Michael Safone, in case you missed it, we'll put that on screen here, who laid out a rigorous philosophical and scientific framework for how claims of non-human intelligence can and should be considered.

This lecture provided a foundational look at um the science and research basis for investigating claims about NHI and I highly recommend viewing it. Tonight's talk, next slide here begins to build directly on that foundation. If Dr. Safone helped us clarify what counts as evidence, today Dr. Nolan will discuss what we might actually do next to validate, methodically research, and rigorously investigate the potential existence, presence or activities of a non-human intelligence.

The title of tonight's lecture is establishing uh a let's see here is uh research road mapaps for investigating non-human intelligence outlining a pragmatic agenda for scientific research into non-human intelligence and close encounters including biological effects sample analysis and pathways to professionalized anomaly research. And we are honored to have Dr. Dr. Gary Nolan with us live to present this original work and some original data to go with it. Professor Nolan uh is professor of pathology at Stanford University, a world recognized immunologist and the inventor on dozens of patents spanning biotechnology, diagnostics, and advanced instrumentation.

Over the past several years, Professor Nolan has also been at the center of serious efforts to examine the biological and material dimensions of reported UAP and potential NHI encounters. Work that sits at the uncomfortable but necessary boundary between mainstream science and anomalous data collection. Rather than dismissing that boundary, Dr. Nolan has approached it with a scientist's discipline, asking what samples, what tools, what controls, and what institutional standards would actually be required to investigate these claims responsibly. After Dr.

Nolan's presentation today, uh Ted and I will be moderating a live Q&A with you, the audience. we have up on screen here where you can access Slido, slido.comnhi or point your camera at the QR code, input your questions. We ask um that questions are thoughtful and pertinent to the presentation and uh and they will be moderated as such. Whether you're a researcher, clinician, a policy maker, an experiencer, or simply someone trying to understand how science engages with anomal anomalous intelligent phenomena, you're in the right place. Thank you so much for being a part of this new research and investigatory journey into understanding uh the reality, the presence, and activity of potential anomalous intelligences in the world.

So with that, thank you for being here and uh please join me in welcoming Dr. Gary Nolan. >> Great. Well, thank you to the human institute and UAP Med very much for the invitation. I I do appreciate it.

And of course, thank you to uh my uh fellow members of the Soul Foundation uh for the work that uh they've been doing with me on all of this. And thanks, of course, to the audience and the many uh individuals upon whose shoulders we stand uh in trying to understand this. And perhaps almost forefront in that is Jacques Valet uh and his efforts over the years uh especially how I've be framed this set of talks around uh the control system that he uh put forward years ago uh that uh actually got him in a lot of trouble with the so-called UAP uh community because of how he was uh talking about it. So I'll start with aspects of the control system but I'm going to move into how it is that uh we might uh start to reinterpret it in today's world but also moving forward and how it is that we will uh use the data that's being collected turn that data into evidence and hopefully proof. Um and so uh let's just get going.

So first of all, I think we've been asking the wrong question. You know, the legacy framework or the legacy program framework uh is are they real? And and and that maybe is too humanentric because that's looking at it from our point of view. Let's assume just for a moment that they are real. Uh the other question might be what is it that they want? uh and looking at it as what it is they want then immediately says well what is it that they're doing here and it then pivots the entire conversation towards the human phenomenon or the human alien or the human extraterrestrial or interdimensional or whatever it is you want to call it as an active agent that is co-evolving with itself as it understands both as we begin to try to understand what it might be and as it understands what it is that it's trying to do to or with us to the extent that is in interested in us at all. Now, I'm going to preface all of this by for those who might be total skeptics in the audience or who are waiting to tweet that Dr.

Nolan says that all of this stuff is real. Dr. Nolan doesn't say all of this stuff is real. Dr. Nolan says that these are some interesting hypotheses that are worth talking about.

And uh so I'm going to take it from that point of view. uh but towards the end I'm going to show some interesting new data that we've been collecting on the materials that again move the ball forward in trying to understand uh what it is that we're what we're dealing with. So first data is raw observations. It can be noisy and it can also be anecdotal, right? So but data is not evidence. Evidence is contextualized data.

So when people say there's no evidence, that's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. There's plenty of evidence. It's just not proof. Just like in a courtroom when one says the evidence says that the person is guilty.

Well, the jury still has to decide whether that evidence evidence sufficiently constitutes proof above a certain threshold and a standard. And we'll actually talk about mathematical standards in just a little bit. So evidence would be radar tracks plus flur plus visual confirmation. 10,000 eyewitness accounts are data. They're a kind of evidence, but how many anecdotes make a proof? We'll talk a little bit about that as I go along.

But proof is a wholly different standard. Proof is compelling. It's undeniable. It's reproducible to the extent that any of this is is reproducible. Uh and um you know recently uh Beatatric Villinarol God I always mess mess up her name uh showed something that was as close to compelling proof when she was talking about the transient signals that were seen before uh humans had satellites.

So that's the level of credibility that we want to attempt to achieve. Now even Beatatrice will not state that what she has shown is proof but it is of proof of aliens but it's proof of something that should not have been there. Uh and so hers is I think the very high standard of where we want to be able to to take the discussion. So kinds of proof might be physical artifacts which have either uh are made in ways that humans can't make. Now, non-aterrestrial isotopic ratios can be achieved by humans, but it depends on where and when the material came from, and were humans capable of doing it at the time that the material was supposedly found.

Other forms of proof might be something that's put together in a way that we don't have the capability to achieve uh and or it functions or has a function that we don't understand. Now, another form of proof might be an alien walks up and shakes your hand. Uh but you know I don't think that we're expecting anything like that to occur anytime soon. So what we're left with is what is it that we as mortals, we as humans, we as the standard people outside of whatever the inner circles might be that know something that we don't. Uh what can we do? Uh and and how do we talk to our neighbors uh and friends about uh what the data actually is and means? So what would constitute proof? As I just said, a physical artifact of one kind, biological sample of some kind that let's say if it had DNA or if it had some sort of morphology that looks uh biologic, uh does it look sufficiently different like uh from what we would expect from something we would expect to find on Earth.

Um so that would require uh high level peer review. The physical artifact uh requires verification by not only an individual lab but multiple labs. Information transfer might be another form of proof that we are given some information that does not exist anywhere in human databases, knowledge, libraries, experience, etc. that is verifiable by humans after the fact. So you're given some physical constant that humans don't know.

Uh and then once we're uh told how it is that you can now derive that number which was given or that physics that was given, you actually know that that came from outside and not from somebody here. And then of course physics violations, some demonstration of a technology that uh does not move by anything that we know how to how to accomplish. And probably it's that last one, physics violation, that uh has most people intrigued and has convinced even uh let's say the the policy makers that be and Dan Farah's film age of disclosure uh demonstrates that multiple times with uh individuals that you would consider to be um high level uh people in the no come forward and say, "Well, we don't necessarily know what it is, but we know that what it's doing violates our physics. Okay. So the language though of each era as uh Jacqu Valle and others have pointed out over the years is that it goes from things like angels, demons, fairies, the jin, etc.

the so-called supernatural, so this would be the pre-industrial age to way out to the 2020s, the interdimensionals, uh back in the 1950s, the extraterrestrials. Uh, and this was the the transition between here, the extraterrestrials and the interdimensionals where Jacqu Valet got himself in a lot of trouble because everybody wanted it to be an ET, but he said, "Well, maybe it's something else or maybe it's, as uh um, Halputoff puts it uh ultraterrestrial, something that's been here a long time. You know, does the planet really belong to us or are we just tenants uh renting from somebody else?" You know, back in the 1980s, it was actually seen as mechanical. People saw mystery airship. June Verl style uh objects that had sails or cogs that looked like flywheels.

Uh but definitely uh something that was nonhuman flying around in the skies, but we don't see those today. Now we see flying saucers, orbs, lights, consciousness effects. What would it be 100 years from now? The form changes, but the function remains constant. And that is you're not alone. Or think about what it is that you're seeing.

recognized that this is data off the curve. So as Jacqu file put it as long ago as 1975 these are not random visitations but he thought of it as a control system regulating how human consciousness or how it is that we perceive outside of us. I actually will turn that around a little bit and I like to call it an intelligence test. Do you recognize that what you're looking at is something out of context? Is something which shouldn't be there? which is uh data off the curve. Do you ignore it or are you the animal in the forest that walks past a mirror and growls at it continuously because you think it's it's another one of your species uh that you should be actually fighting and not uh actually having a conversation with? Do you recognize in the mirror it is you? Uh and that's an interesting thing to think about when it comes to is what the phenomenon is a mirror of us and what is it telling us about what we are.

So you know there's a number of hypotheses about what it is and why it might be. And perhaps the one which is most disturbing to people is the indifference hypothesis. Everybody thinks that they're here because of us or they're interested in us. We assume it's interested. What if our seeing of them is merely incidental and they don't really care about us? I mean, at some level, I think this is probably the most likely of all of the hypotheses because to the extent that they care about us at all, all they're trying to do is make sure that we don't walk off a a cliff.

We're not they're not sitting down and saying, "Here's the answer to your energy problems. Here's the answer to uh climate change." They're letting us work it out ourselves. And perhaps that's the way parents or uh somebody wise should interact because if you give your children everything uh they won't learn anything. They won't learn not to touch the stove when it's hot. Uh but the you know the other analogy is you know it's like ants building a hill you know their own nest next to a superighway.

They don't the superhighway doesn't care about the ant. You don't show up, you know, when the ants are in, you know, in your when you buy a new house, you don't establish diplomatic relations with the ants in the bottom of the garden. They're there. If they get in the way, you dig them up, but generally you try to stay out of their way. But there was a great uh book, a story written years ago called The Roadside Picnic.

Uh it's a Russian book originally. The aliens came, they had lunch, they left, and they left all the trash. And the whole story is about humans running around trying to pick up the trash and trying to in trying to elicit information knowledge uh from the trash that was left behind. Uh and so uh I think that's kind of where we are right now. We're not picking up well maybe we are picking up trash.

Maybe some of the maybe that some of the crashes are trash that things that they just don't care about and they leave behind. But at the very least, what we're doing is we're picking up signatures of things that are doing something that is not apparently human. And so, what is it that we're going to learn from that? For instance, we learned to watch birds fly. We desired to want to fly. Uh, we figured out how to fly.

Now, we're watching something which moves in ways that our physics doesn't explain. And so you have uh the likes of Aubier and then later uh people like again Hal Putoff and Eric Davis coming along and saying well here's ways that you can manipulate the uh our understanding of physics that had with the energy and the technology we could actually do what they do. So what they're doing is not impossible it's just impossible for us right now with our technology. So one of the things and this is the way that uh I when I first started reading a lot of Jacqu Valet's work uh before I even knew him uh what struck me was the constant use of the word absurd in his discussions that this is the the things that people are reporting are absurd not because they're unbelievable or that they didn't necessarily happen to these people but the interpretation of what was happening is is absurd. Why would a flying saucer land in a farmer's field, a little guy in a silver suit get out, uh, open up something that looks like a, you know, a control panel, fiddle around, and then get back in and and leave or ask for pancakes or ask for a glass of water or ask what day is it? And then uh to the farmer and then says, "No, you're wrong." And then turns around and walks away.

Okay, so what what is that? It's absurd. So these high stranges events, these contradictions, these let's say the men in black that show up the day afterwards that uh say don't talk about this are all thought of as rein by at least Jacques's interpretation as reinforcement schedules that get you to remember and think about it. I mean, if you saw something above your house and you that was odd, you're far more likely to remember what happened if uh some official looking individual show up at your door the next day and say, "Don't talk about this." Right? So, that's a what Jacques would interpret as a reinforcement schedule. And so, it's escalation and absurdity. It's a managed target state.

They're looking to at least as Jacques would put it or as I interpret it to be maintain uncertainty. And what do I mean by that? So first of all, plausible deniability is a feature. It's not a bug. Right? So the idea is you want them to think about what it is. Uh and there's all kinds of uh basically equations you can write around this.

And this is just a a a way that you would put it if if you were writing this in a in a JSON format. But the idea is to go from skepticism where the system might see skepticism and apathy and if you so if you're not looking at it, it will escalate to get you to think about it. So the goal here is force recognition. That's what I basically just said about when something shows up, you ignore it. You're apathetic about it, but then somebody shows up the next day, knocks on the door, says, "Don't think about it.

Uh, ignore this. Don't talk about it. You're going to remember it." So that's the system response. Uh the opposite side is that once you start getting certain about a certain way of thinking that it is this or it's that you think it's angels or you think it's you know flying uh sail ships uh the system response is a form of absurdity to change the narrative in such a way that you then question what it is that you're looking at. So the goal seems to be a system that regulates.

It doesn't invade. It regulates in a way that attempts to maintain uncertainty. Right? So the target state that is seems to be uh what's objectable uh or the objective is a level of uncertainty because we don't know what it is. And anybody who you do talk to who claims to be involved within the legacy programmer inside is they continually say well we know it's something we don't know what it is because every time we try to nail it down it seems to morph into something else. So that should tell us something.

That cognitive tension actually keeps us thinking uh about it. And if you're thinking generally you're learning and that might be one of the system one of the objectives maybe the system wants to keep us in a perpetual state of questioning because it doesn't want you to believe. It wants you to evolve. It wants you to evolve not just genetically but evolve in your thinking because maybe it's so far ahead and so different that it's still ratcheting up what it is that it might be to a point where we can better interpret it because again the the point is going back to this analogy of uh of the ants. How do you explain to ants Instagram right? How would you do that? What would you have to do? How many levels of translation down to what an ant thinks even if it were intelligent? How would you explain Instagram to it? How would you explain the stock market? Uh, and so, uh, if you've got these totally different levels of interpretation, how are you going to approach that? So, you know, we actually have already on our doorstep alien intelligence in the form of AI.

And if any if you follow any of the any of the current uh discussions around artificial intelligence today uh and you ask do we understand how it's thinking or how it came to these conclusions the short answer is no we don't so we actually are developing our own AI and so that AI is if anything a platform through which we can begin to think about well what happens if if we can't even if if we can't even understand what our neighbor is thinking. If we can't even understand what another human is thinking or even another culture on earth, Western versus Asian cultures have different mindsets. Uh and we can't even understand the own AI that we are making and programming. How are we going to think about alien AI? So the alignment problem of how it is that you interpret who it is that you're talking to, you actually have in your brain when you're talking to another human, you actually have a model system uh that is modeling the other person and you're constantly thinking about what they are and what their response is going to be to what you are saying. Uh and you're reading them back and forth.

So that interaction is something that we're going to have a hard time dealing with whether an alien is uh never mind whether an alien has its own AI. So that's another thing to think about is that you know we talk about interdimensionals, we think about extraterrestrials, etc. One supposition is that what we're dealing with is not an alien at all, but is an alien AI AI avatar that is interacting with us because the real guys in control have got other have got other problems on their on their hand or thinking about something else. So um you know because imagine what we're going to be a thousand years from now. It's unlikely that we are not going to have advanced assuming we don't walk off a cliff or blow ourselves up.

uh that we are going to have developed AI that is so powerful that it could be uh really the kind of thing that we're interacting with today that was sent by another civilization long ago. So think about that. So alien AI. So again, how do we deal with advanced AI and translate those human thought modes down to human level? Now I don't have the answer to that. This is more a sociologic and a social anthropologic problem.

But like I said, the beings that we think we're encountering or that people claim to encounter may not be the intelligence itself, but a user interface, a guey, if you will, designed to translate concepts that are fundamentally incomprehensible to us, but to bring it down from the level of Instagram to how you tell an ant what Instagram of the stock market is all about. So studying the biology of a gray and tr saying that you're now studying the intelligence or studying what a gray might or might not tell you should you talk to one. Uh it's kind of like studying the pixels of a video game character and then using that to interpret how the CPU works. That's that's the problem is there's not a onetoone relationship with what it is that we think we're interacting with and what might actually be behind the scenes. And I'm not saying that that's what is behind the scenes because I have some secret knowledge.

I'm saying that you have to keep that level of dissociation in mind so that you don't fall into the constant trap of bias and premature conclusions. So the as it says over here, the source code might be unreadable and the avatar might be generated simply for human interaction because so I'm a I'm a geneticist. I'm a evolutionary biologist, uh, molecular biologist, immunologist, you know, all these biologyists types. And I have a hard time thinking that whatever it is that people are seeing have two arms, two legs, and more or less look like humans. From a genetic standpoint, it just doesn't make sense that something might have evolved on another planet and it looks so much like us that we might misinterpret it as us or it is is we we we look at it and it looks anthropomorphic.

So to me, when I hear these stories, all I can think is that these things are designed for us because it could just as easily look like a rudabagga, right? Or have evolved, you know, from some with something which has 10 legs uh or is completely different. So it's I I think when you see what it is that you're looking at, don't assume that it is the reality. And that's one of the things that Jacques very often uh would u point out to me is that you know when a scientist gets 95% of the solution or they get five sigma they think they've got the answer. No, all they've got is a probability. They don't necessarily have the answer.

But from an intelligence standpoint, if you're a counter intel or an intelligence agent, you if you have 99% of the problem or 99% of what you think is the information, you might worry that you've just been given it to distract you and that it's the 1% you don't know that is in fact the answer. So don't come to premature conclusions. I'm certainly not. So you know the other way to think think about this is that you know humans because of our living in a t in time think with linear narratives things have a beginning a middle and an end cause effect. We have all this processing approach semantic symbolic emotional through which we interpret stories.

You know, humans are uh I think as intelligent as we think we are uh because we tell stories from one generation to the next. But really the question is what's the story, right? We project intentions onto the system that may only have functions, but it may have a different way of interpreting things. So a non-human intelligence, let's say it maybe it can think in higher dimensional geometry, right? I mean I I can look at my dog and it can understand how to how to when I point at something to go over there sometimes. Uh but a human would see me point and immediately know the solution. Maybe there are higher levels of thought that we are not capable of understanding yet that we don't understand what the intent is of what is being told and that we still need to think about it.

So you know structure it might be higher dimensional right so it might think and be capable of of perceiving five six seven dimensions even if it only lives in a threedimensional world right it might think in different ways and that cause and effect don't matter where it is because it might have the ability to think across time or to retrospectively act right it might live in another level that we don't necessarily really appreciate. And before you say, "Oh, this guy's ridiculous." How many of you are religious, how many of you believe uh in a soul or in God or in heaven and hell? I mean, as far as I'm concerned, heaven and hell are other dimensions. They're not, you know, down at the center of the earth. So humans have not had a problem for centuries thinking about other dimensions and believing that other beings sit in these other dimensions or have higher level uh understanding of where humanity is going. So scientists don't need to be religious to think that there is a non-causality relationship with a higher power and a higher being or a higher intelligence.

So you know the really the question is for us what's the story for them it might be what's the current system state and is it moving in the direction that we want it to go. So intent as we think as humans, you know, what do they want? That assumes a kind of goal- directed behavior. But again, this is projecting human psychology onto a system that might work an entirely different way. And so what I'm all all I'm asking for people to do is perhaps come up with other ways of representing it. The model might be emergent that the system doesn't think with a goal in mind.

The system is a complex narrative like a storm that doesn't necessarily want to destroy the house, but because it is forming the way that it does, it does things right. So, you can be in an intelligence without having an intent is what I'm saying. And so there's, and I'll be happy to share these slides with anybody who wants, there's a way that you can put this all out into a systems diagram of where the human observer is interacting symbolically with analyzers, symbology, physics constraints, etc. The NHI is a, let's call it a cognitive substrate. It has, let's say, an intent or directive, what, however it is.

Again, we can't verbalize something that we don't necessarily understand but except to call it an intent and it interacts with us but it's through this feedback mechanism that we're interacting with it at some level. So there's a call it AI the translation layer from the source to the semiodics and where the human is sitting down here uh is uh all about this control system adjustment that there's this constant feedback that we're getting. Um and so we might be mistaking system dynamics for a conscious strategy. the storm doesn't know what it's doing, but because of the state of the planet, the storm ends up dumping water uh on your on your property or in the mountains, etc. So, as I said before, you know, the first intelligence that we actually agree is real might not come from out there, but is already being talked about.

You know, if you're Elon Musk, you say it's next year. If you're Sam Alman, you say it's within five years, that it may come from our own circuit boards. But I say that what we need to think of it as the AI that we're generating is a training ground for thinking about how we might interact with something else because already the AI that we have is almost uninterpretable as to how it comes to the conclusions that it does. So we have a training ground that we're working with. We have an interface that might actually be the way by which we eventually interact with actual alien intelligence because it might need entirely different modes of thought that humans don't necessarily recognize.

So the communication layer between us and whatever it is might be the AI that we're making, right? Because we might need it. We might need not artificial general intelligence, which is what's just around the corner. And frankly, some of the AI stuff that I work with is just about as good as what I would call AGI as anything else. But we might need artificial super intelligence to actually help us interact with whatever it is or somehow down modulate whatever that thought process is to help us interpret what the totality of the information is. And an example of this is I've been using artificial intelligence a lot in my own laboratory to uh understand uh cancer biology and the complexity of the how the immune system interacts with cancer uh and uh you know so we get this tons and tons of data so much data that no human could possibly uh encompass it all and yet with the AI that's currently available today it can be every immunologist I ever needed to get on a phone people who are specialized in in myoid cells or cancer cells or T- cells, B cells and all the hundreds of different cell types and it can consolidate and synthesize the information in a way that is so exciting to me that I think I'm frankly talking with a super intelligence or at least a general intelligence.

So now let's say that we were to collect all the kinds of data that we know we can collect today. Everything from historical records to the data that we might collect from sensor systems etc. as well as sort of intent. And maybe there will be a time when the AI that we work with will be enough to tell us, hey, here's the signal that you missed. Here's the wow signal uh that has been sitting and looking at you, but you just weren't able to put a plus b plus c together to come to the right conclusion.

So, you know, one of the things that I often get asked is, you know, what what do they are they exposing themselves? Why do they expose themselves? You know, one of the things that I've just been talking about this whole control theory thing is it might be a slow form of, you know, acclimatization, the boiling frog strategy. You know, that they're basically slowly getting people up to speed so that hey, there's enough scientists who believe that this is interesting, enough people believe it's interesting. If you were to do a poll, I think the polls say people believe that there is something. So to the extent that whatever the work is of the collective community that part of whom are on this you know have set up the this series of talks it's working there's a whole cottage industry now of groups that are moving the conversation forward in a way that we're not relying on daddy government to come in and answer it for us. So, the other one that's been out there is the zookeeper protocol.

Intervention will only occur when we threaten the habitat, uh, nuclear weapons or otherwise. And the goal there is not contact, but containment and maybe a little bit of course correction because maybe they're looking at us and seeing themselves several million years ago. And, you know, we're just right now uh just getting to the point where we can maybe interfere with them. You know, I often, if you've heard some of my podcasts before, call us the angry monkeys. The angry monkeys are going to be probably at least reaching out into the solar system and maybe uh into the local arm of this galaxy.

And maybe the elders just want to keep tabs on us because uh we're we're still, you know, a problem. You know, I I don't like the harvesting hypothesis, you know, as to why they don't expose themselves. this idea that somehow uh we have something that they want genetic novelty soul energy or something like that. I I I just you know I have a hard I don't disbelieve it. I just have a hard time with it because um you know if any if anything is so advanced they they wouldn't need uh to harvest us unless there's something you know some sort of emotional energy or uh soul energy that um I have no proof for you know but I again I I I end on this one the indifference I I think that they do expose themselves to us but they don't really care but they're not going to land and shake your hand.

Um, you know, and our our our reaction is irrelevant to their um to their intent. But there is something a little bit different and and this is, you know, this is actually Col Kellahers uh has been uh over the years really refining these ideas. Whatever it is that people interact with, it seems to be reflective. It's almost like it knows you're looking. And of course, a control system would do that.

It not only would know you're looking, but it would respond. But how many stories do you hear of, I noticed a light in the distance. Uh, and once I noticed it, then suddenly it got closer to me. It's almost as if somehow the interaction and the and the recognizing of it and recognizing that it's anomalous is sufficient for it to respond in a way to confirm it's an anomaly. Right? So it almost is like a a quantum system but on a on a macro scale.

Quantum system meaning that even physicists admit now that nothing happens until somebody notices it. Nothing happens until consciousness uh basically uh looks at it. The the quantum state doesn't uh doesn't cohhere until something notices it. Um and that drives physicists crazy. Um you know, maybe there's a direct neural interaction.

Um, I don't have a problem believing that something has a sufficiently sensitive sensor system that it can recognize when something at a distance is sees it. Uh, I don't know how it would do it, but I don't have a problem imagining it. Um, and then there's this notion that uh once being recognized uh there's this so-called hitchhiker effect where once recognized it likes to be continued to be recognized and so it continues uh showing up. But the problem is that this often ends up into the realm of what some would call woo uh because it seems to uh manifest as uh what some people would interm as as or or interpret as as poltergeist activity. So I don't know what that is.

So it but it's clear that once recognized it seems to show up uh and to and to follow. and what it means I I don't know uh I c you know but there's plenty of stories out there so but I think the takeaway is you don't just see the phenomenon but once you see it and inter you interact with it it's a birectional information flow you've recognized something anomalous so you think of it as a teaching system for physics maybe as I've said before maybe it's evidence that mind is not local um certainly our materialism uh is being challenged as to whether or not dreams and reality are the same. So, you know, is is what we seeing real or is being manifested only in our brain? And one of the best stories I know for that is um again from Jacqu Valet, a family driving down the highway uh in France. Uh they had a glass topped car. the the woman who was driving and her family saw what they claimed to be a UFO over their head.

Uh the children took a picture with their cell phones. They get home, they look and by the way, and she's looking around at the everybody in the in the on the highway and nobody else seems to see it. Nobody else is reacting. They get home. They look at the phone.

They don't see a UFO. They see just this little star-like object over their over their car. Seems to be, you know, maybe about 30, 40 feet away. So, what did they see? Or what did they take a picture of? And why did nobody else see it? Was it being projected into their mind? Is the reality the object, the little star-shaped object they saw? Was the reality the UFO itself? And I have a picture of what the children claim to have. I I I have a copy of it.

Uh, and it's fascinating. But what it's telling you is that what you think you see is not necessarily what it is. And it seems to have an ability to, as Jacques would often say, take a hold of a local area of reality and manipulate it to its own good. But what I'm constantly driven towards is this notion of evolution that it it creates stress. It prompts adaptation.

Uh and in to the extent that you can find anybody else to talk to about it, it brings unification and perhaps advances. And the advances would be of course uh let's say in in forms of physics that we can see happening but we don't have yet. So it's mutual, right? The study is their study is maybe looking at us. Our study at least what I want to walk away from. I don't necessarily care so much about what they are.

I'm more interested in what they can do. And we'll start getting into that in a minute. So, you know, all of these things have been talked about over the years. Uh, how would we talk to them? Mathematics, there have been movies about this kind of thing. Highdensity symbology.

Uh, you know, AIs that I've talked about as an intermediary, consciousness interfaces, maybe the audience has other ones that can uh they can come up with, but we have to have some way of interacting. And frankly, I think we're going to end up with needing some sort of AI to as an intermediary. We just hope the AI that we develop is on our side when it's talking to them and telling us. So, full disclosure may be impossible because the truth is incomprehensible. I've already talked about the antill, right? There might be a dimensional mismatch.

we can't comprehend something which is higher dimensional or has an IQ of five 500 when we're you know we're lucky if we have a few humans at greater than 170 and simply obviously uh a language barrier so think of it as disclosure is not a file that you can open and just say ah here it is you know top secret uh cosmic level whatever but it's an upgrade humans have to eventually somehow survive we have to upgrade somehow our thinking processes to or our capabilities to the point where we can interact with them at a higher level. But if they're a million years ahead of us, we've, you know, we've got a long way to we've got a long way to go. So, this is just another way of putting this together. uh and you know what our relationship is to reality as a human observer and the projected construct from whatever the source intelligence might be. You have to think of it that it has to translate down to it after having culturally scraped our reality to say, "Okay, well, how do I talk to these humans uh in some way that they understand through what I would call a dimensional compressor downststepping uh what it is that your uh the real intent to something that we can understand." But remember, whenever you compress something, you lose information.

So it ends up looking like high strang and and absurdity. Uh but now you have to project it back down into our spaceime so that we can uh observe it and see it. But there's an interaction here. Um so how do we break this loop? Right? Because we know we've got institutional stigma which reinforces let's say for academics or study funding denials. uh that of course causes lowquality data uh and then ambiguous results because we don't have the money to collect the data we want.

Maybe somebody does have the data uh and they're basically making sure that the stigma stays in place to prevent the money from being they use stigma and uh all of this to ridicule and this of course amplifies itself. So the the outstep is we need to step into it with uh better classification systems, better data uh etc and reframe the claims. Uh and as Reed uh basically and as the promo introduction video said, it's about you know reframing this as science at least for me hard engineering problems uh and not the abstractness of of intent. uh is where uh that could basically at the very least lead to defense and physics interests because every time we invent something we we tend to use it for uh either protection or projection of power. Uh but that could break the loop and step out of this trap into a new one.

And my, you know, I and I'm open about it, uh, is I I think that this is the way and by attracting the likes of Silicon Valley and investors is the way to break the loop. And I know that there's people on Twitter who hate me for saying this kind of stuff and think I'm some sort of CIA plant, but no, I've done this. I did the same thing with my cancer research years ago at Stanford where it was not the norm to take your uh inventions to commercialization. I nearly didn't get tenure because of it uh because people didn't like it. But now it's the norm, right? So uh you know it's because I I see commercialization at least today with current human mentality and consciousness as the way to you know to get incentive moving.

Maybe we need to evolve into something else, but it's just not in our in our DNA literally yet. Um, so, okay. So, what is verification? People have been doing it for years, you know. So, the UAP nuclear correlation claims and so Beatatric's work uh is the most recent version of it, but it's actually been uh going on for years. Um, you know, there's there's a way to take data uh and this was done uh in France.

uh and I I I made this here but it's like they take complex data everything from uh visual uh and sensors social media you know rumors things that are seen they didn't have social media at this time but at least it was it was uh me media reports legislation uh and then I'm I'm putting here Matt Sudakus's uh model uh as well signal processing all of this goes into uh what's called what we need to do is create what was is the null hypothesis firewall. In other words, data needs to be cleaned, needs to be filtered. So you need to start before you even put any data into the system to make sure that you get rid of the garbage first, right? So it's you need a but you need lossless decomposition, meaning that you don't lose the data. You just throw out the data or at least set it aside until perhaps it can be better recognized. and only then do you begin analysis and there's a variety of mathematical approaches that you can do uh everything from what are called spatial residuals I'm going to be talking about basian posteriors uh but there's also graph topology and other game uh theory methods to basically validate uh whether at some level of confidence uh you have uh a uh the residuals that you have are reality.

So um there's an architecture that you can develop and that I've actually put together of how it is that you can collect data in a way uh that goes through this process so that at the end you have uh some level of reality and and this was uh applied to the to the um system I'm going to talk about in a moment in France. So you can take for instance civilian reports pass them through now it's much easier a semantic stripper uh meaning you can use AI to uh organize the data for you uh does it have high strangeness uh maybe you put this off in quarantine to think about later uh or do you use it to say hey it's it's not so strange that I want to ignore it uh but it's actually I see I see a physics here that might be useful. And then you can use what I think of as the the Robert Power uh filter sort of a veracity matrix. How how reliable is the observer? Do you have instrument corroboration? So you split them down into the different types of multimodal sensors and now you use that and you put it through what's called the basian scoring system. And that's a applying prior probabilities.

Basian scoring is basically how the human brain operates. If I've seen it before and I've seen it before several times, I'm expecting it more likely to occur again. And there's just a mathematics of how you can use basian inference to apply probabilities because the binary it is this or it is that is not how science works. No matter what it is that the that newspapers say, scientists always think in probabilities. Always.

Um and that's how we need to approach this. So the the French system, this was done by uh several several decades ago where they were looking at nuclear sites versus population versus observed uh anomalies. Uh in the in this case it was uh UF UAPs. uh and they looked into a number of different uh observables and one of the interesting things that there were a fair number of observations at the borders as well as where there were uh concentrations of um of uh nuclear sites. So without going into all of their results uh the older results were that there was a very high correlation uh with a p value of 0.013 3 uh that there was a correlation of the observations to uh to the nuclear sites.

They did show uh others showed later that light pollution uh can lower the observations. And then of course I won't talk about it because uh Matt would probably uh would consider me having butchered his work um that there's this the disclosure model and maybe uh the um he he could be part of the uh of the series but this very high p value basically said that there was a 247fold increase in UAP sightings around nuclear sites. And this narrative continues today, right? We're we're we're we still see these these things around our nuclear sites. And this was of course a lot of this was before uh we had drones uh that could be mistaken. Uh we we're seeing it around our nuclear aircraft carrier.

So it it is interested in our higher technology, right? And so this was uh long published and the original data was CNAS and Gapatan from from France. Um and uh basically it verified at least statistically that there was the existence of these objects whatever they are uh by doing spatial analysis and doing very complex math and I would point you to to to this paper if you if you'd like it. um over representation of these things even after you consider the light pollution uh from low density meaning where people live to high density. So it was it was over represented near these sites. Uh and as I said before, the light pollution brings it down a little bit, but uh it didn't it didn't sufficiently lower it uh such that you would uh dismiss it as just uh misattributed observations.

So um now and this is the Medina work and surprisingly Sean Kirkpatre on this uh an environmental analysis of public UAP sightings and sky view potential um basically again validated that these observations appear not to be random and not always to be uh something that should be ignored. So, and that was when he was director of Arrow. So, I've already basically just said this. So, the the audit summary of the published papers that I think are out there that are good is that the nuclear correlation is real and I haven't added uh Beatatric's paper to this yet. the light pollution uh does not uh does not dismiss the observations.

Matt Sedakus's work suggests that there's a for that there's at least 50% chance of future disclosure based on the current trends. Um and a derivation of this uh is that there's a bifurcation that is happening right now. uh and that the internal models you know uh would predict from some of the basian work that I've been doing that like that there is some sort of legacy program uh with some reasonable level of of confidence. So the audit passes not as proof of something but the mathematical audit says that the preliminary data is sufficient to justify further questions. Okay.

So here's how basian works. Binary truth is how people like to think. Is it true or is it not? Stanford professor says this. Harvard professor says that. No, nobody said one way or the other as an absolute.

They always imply underneath a probability because that's how humans actually work. So the probability is somewhere between zero and 100%. So certainty is asymptomatic. We update our probability based on data and that's really how basian frameworks operate and that math was has been around for literally a hundred years. So but there are different standards.

There's the so-called extraordinary proof standard, what people would call the Sean standard. Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary proof. Well, I I think that's actually a little overused. evidence and proof only requires evidence. It doesn't need to be extraordinary, you know.

So, it's but what people use that for as a way to dismiss any observation as if it were not extraordinary enough. And so, therefore, we're not going to continue it as consider it as part of the story. Um, but there's strong evidence and we're certainly in this realm here most of the most of the time. Um and but you know one of the things that you have to correct for in the math is something called independence decay and data integrity. So meaning that there's a social contagion problem is that it the moment something gets out into the public it be starts to be it starts to infect and uh and corrode the absoluteness of the truth and people might just be copying and so just because you see a thousand Twitter posts that might be because there's a there's a uh a server farm in you know Eastern Europe that's pumping out uh disinformation or a reinterpretation.

So you you can't you can't count on social uh media anymore because there's this social contagion problem. So sensor isolation though is where really it's required. And here's what's interesting because I've been doing some some work on well how many sensors do you need to to come up with uh evidence? So there's raw sensor data, human testimony, and physical traces. So this can all go into a reliability filter. All of this can go and help create a ratio generator ratio of reality.

Do you pass the so-called sean barrier? You use the information and you update your priors mathematically. Uh and then this basically comes out. Have I reached the crown jewel extraordinary evidence level uh that is desired or am I simply somewhere in the either noise or hm this is really interesting it's worth more questions um so again there are these three levels civilian anecdotes trained observers multi-ensor fusion and the likelihood ratios that would be associated with each of those so with a basian prior we actually start with the skeptics. The chance of this is one in 10 million. So now I'm the worst skeptic on Twitter.

Imagine who that might be, right? Uh so I start with and when you start with these equations, the ones that I've run, you start with a 0.001 probability that it's real. But when you start adding in multiple different observations, you actually very quickly with only a few truth observations with different sensors of the same object, you very quickly actually reach the probability. And so this is my analysis of that. uh basically showing that it actually only takes three or four high confidence simultaneous observations to reach the p value the multi-igma uh extraordinary evidence threshold that's required. Um you need thousands of uh of civilian witnesses seeing the same thing.

trained observers few but radar plus visual three highfidelity multi-ensor fusions breach the standard almost immediately if you believe your sensors and if you believe that your sensors haven't actually mistaken something for that it that it shouldn't have been. So the sensor the independent sensor is what's needed. So what we need obviously then are more independent sensors and funding for more independent sensors and of course a lobe and is and the Galileo project is doing a remarkable job of that. But I also know of several other groups that are attempting the same thing. Um and so and that this is work that basically I've been doing in the background.

So the proof is not an infinite problem. we the barrier for proof is achievable mathematically at least proof to what a scientist would consider. So, you know, but let's get back to, you know, what evidence have I ever seen? You know, my first response when people say is there's no evidence. Well, have you have you even done any research? Do you even know the difference between data, evidence, conclusions, and proof? So the first one that I got involved with and the one that actually brought me into the area originally was when uh basically people representing the government came to me uh with what ended up being Havana syndrome. So when I saw the data and the data was uh MRIs of damage and internal scarring from people uh the medical reports uh and then I actually went out uh and spoke to a lot of these people to make sure that you know I that I could at least verify as humans my the truth the truthiness of what it is that they were telling me.

Um that is a kind of evidence which is reproducible, right? So I should be able to take an MRI of that person the next day and show the same thing and know that they didn't have this problem the week before the incident occurred. [sighs] So one of the interesting things about people who have in you know when we've taken out of the equation the people who actually had Havana syndrome and have been you know part of the what appears to be an energy weapon used by some of our adversaries. Uh you know we take them out of the out of the equation. Um there are actually uh triggers and methodologies that we can use um a as in biomedical terms to determine that something odd or they were exposed to an energy that has affected their system. And again this this goes back to Colm Keller.

He was the first uh at least that I'm aware of to think of the human as the sensor. And not that he was using the humor as as bait, tying them to, you know, a pole in the middle of the desert and hoping something would happen to them, but it's like if you can get to them fast enough, you can perhaps pick up the necessary uh systems or at least the the the feedback. So, I've seen plenty of evidence of this dermal epidermal interactions. I even had a biopsy from somebody who had had some sort of interaction. Uh, and the biopsy, and I had it done here at Stanford by a Stanford pathologist, said, "This is not a burn.

This is not a dermal contact with a hot iron. This is not chemical." Because if you look at the layer of the skin and you look at the cells that were the immune system cells that were collecting underneath, there was no evidence of any normal uh approach. There was some sort of energy transmission that only manifested uh a few cell layers below the top of the dermis. That was fascinating, right? It's not proof of anything except that something anomalous occurred. One of the things that does show up a lot of times with people who claim interactions with these are autoimmune triggers.

So something has happened to their autoimmune system, their immune system in such a way that they've triggered an autoimmune uh reaction. I mean a common uh autoimmune trigger is Epstein bar virus uh which uh c which if you have a really bad uh Epstein bar virus infection at one point [snorts] uh you can actually in the long term end up with autoimmune triggers. this this might be a marker that can be used. But there's actually another interesting marker that can be looked at almost immediately if you can get a hold of a sample within a short amount of time. And that's demethylation of the DNA changes that occur uh upon certain kinds of radiative signatures where the DNA starts to or the cells begin to look at the DNA and survey it for damage.

And one of the first things that are happening is forms of demethylation and DNA damage uh cleavage events. So if you can get to them soon enough after the claimed interaction uh you might be able to find evidence for some of these incident energy transmissions that have occurred to these individuals. So there are three at least uh places where one could look for the damage. And then of course the other one which isn't on this map is the internal scarring that I saw in the some individuals in their in their brains. So you know my protocol and the things that I have uh told committees that I've I've worked with with the government is that we need a procedure to immediately upon claimed interactions uh is to go and get samples from those individuals.

I don't want the samples 10 years after it happened. I need the samples immediately at least stored immediately because then there's all kinds of diagnostics that can be applied cytogenetics, dermatology and neurohysiology uh as mentioned here. So chromosomal aberrations uh that are not yet fixed by the normal processes in the body can be picked up if you can get to the individuals fast enough. So it requires teams to be ready to access. I've again I've given necessary committees whether they just put my suggestions in a drawer or actually implemented them I'll never know.

Uh but there are processes that one could do and use um because especially the chromosomeal interactions are months they can last for weeks to months depending upon the scale. Uh but you got to get to it because well what happens in the in the later years is actually potentially cancer. So there are there are known biological processes that you can get to to basically prove high level interaction with gamma. H2AX is a protein uh that forms FOSI on the DNA um and uh that is immediate and it's a DNA repair signal. Uh and then there are these so-called other DNA anomalies that are more longasting, harder to find uh and depend upon the total amount of exposure, right? But uh so you want to be able to get to things as soon as possible.

So that's that's how you collect data that is biologically relevant and usable. Um and this is the fingerprint of the methylation of how you would how you would look for it. It's pretty straightforward. But I'm going to finish with the work that I've been doing on anomalous samples uh and and what it is that we've um we've looked at. So, you know, we know it's a class of phenomena, not a single thing.

Um so, there's how do you fingerprint a UAP material? So, there's physical and chemical looking at the structure. And this is the one that I'm most interested in. I'm actually building an atomic microscope uh as we uh as we speak. I'll show you actually a picture of it. I'll have to open up another window uh in a second.

Um there's functional analysis. Does it do something interesting that you know functionally? I'll show you some evidence of that of what we've got. And then there's all kinds of corroborative research. So here's an interesting one, the so-called Ubatuba event. Now the the history says that uh as this was collected that it was magnesium.

But two sources of evidence, chains of evidence, uh, that at least I have access to say it's not that. Or if it was magnesium, there was also silicon because all the material that I have access to is silicon. And that's that's silicon. In fact, pure silicon. Um, so they originally identified as highly pure magnesium.

I've not seen this material. Uh there's supposedly small amounts of it, but there's multiple grams of this highly pure silicon. How do I know it's silicon? Because I did an atomic map of it uh with an instrument called atomic probe tomography. uh where I know that it was 99.99% silicon with a smattering of magnesium in it which the first time we had read this in with this instrument I had it been I looked at it with a high resolution uh instrument called secondary IM spec for magnesium because everybody said it was magnesium and I thought this is strange because it doesn't look like magnesium and it's only in the last few months having looked at the data that I recognized that there's something wrong with the silicon ratios of what it is that we've got. So we literally are counting millions of atoms here.

The silicon ratios are wrong. It's not it's supposed to be 92% for silicon 28. It's 73ish 72 70. This is a different and so a very astute student with whom I'm working over in applied physics and somebody in uh in bio in engineering noticed that uh well those ratios are interesting because there's there's less of the lowest there's more of the next up in mass meaning has an extra neutron and there's another one here. So, um, let's let's run some numbers cuz he could think of a way that you could take pure silicon, uh, and turn it into these ratios if you exposed it to a neutron beam because humans actually use that.

We actually take pure silicon uh and we pure silicon 30 expose it to neutron beams to embed phosphorus within it because silicon 30 will with another um another atom uh another mass uh you can turn it into into phosphorus. Um, so the way that it's done is, so his idea was could the isotopic anomaly that we see be the result of neutron absorption where 14 goes to 15 goes to 16 because you're bombarding it with neutrons and adding forcing neutrons into the into the nucleus. So he came up with a neutron absorption model. The math is all here. And it turns out that you would get exactly the ratios that we saw.

I don't have the right thing here. you would get exactly the ratios that we saw if you were to expose h uh natural earth level silicons which has the ratios that you would expect what you'd find on a sand and a beach to a neutron beam which is 25 kilo electron volts for and for something like 10 the eth years something that we don't have but if you did it the ratios that we got would be correct So let's ask a question. You could get those ratios by pre purifying each of those isotopes. Humans can do that. And then you would have to mi then you would have to mix them at a level that would give the numbers that we see and you would have to drop it on a beach 30 years ago in Ubatuba, Brazil with the expectation that some some crazy scientist at Stanford would determine the ratios and figure it out that you would have this.

So So why would you do that? First of all, why would you drop pure silicon on a beach in Ubachuba, Mexico? That's first question. Second question is, how did the ratios get to be what they are? And now that we know that there is a process that it could be, why would it be the exact ratios you would expect if you were to expose it to a neutron beam of a level that humans can't accomplish today? That's just a question. So, that's one interesting piece. Then there's the claimed material, the so-called uh um bismouth magnesium piece that many people have access to. Um and that had been supposedly studied by the DOE and dismissed as missile casing.

Well, that's just rubbish. Um first of all, it's pretty clear that this was exposed to uh heat and deformed. Um, but we've now been doing ultraructural analysis of it. Uh, and others have as well. Um, and uh, I'm not going to show uh, all of their work, but it's clear these bubbles and things that you're seeing is is clearly exposure to extreme heat.

It has a layering and how put off has, you know, just said, hey, maybe this is a meta material and a terraertz wave guide. So we exposed it to terraertz waves and it absorbs in exactly the place you would expect. Um and so there's a basically an absorption uh where you would expect given the uh layering that we're seeing. So the material absorbs the energy in the necessary range. We haven't yet seen if there's any we haven't we've shown absorption.

We haven't shown uh emission yet. It needs a different kind of instrument, but we're clearly seeing that it's doing something similar to like what Hal suggested it might be doing. That's interesting. So then we did a different technique, something called electron back scatter defraction. And what this is really doing is you're you're looking at the structure of the material.

And to the extent that the structure of the material reflects the electrons in certain ways because the grains are crystallin, it tells you something about the orientation of the grains. So this took a long time to get going. So we took small piece of the object that we had. We had to we had to um uh finish it, refine it uh to you know to had to look like a mirror and it took a lot of time and we had got uh an expert at Stanford graduate student who was able to uh basically figure out how to mill the thing down and make it the right kind of plane. Uh and so here's some of those results.

So what you're seeing here and the different colors are indicative of uh the orientation of the grains of the magnesium within those layers. So what these black layers here is the is the bismouth and lead and then each of these columner objects here is our magnesium. So it's not a uniform field of of this that at least post whatever the event was or pre whatever the event was these these exist as granular columns of magnesium each with a slightly different or internal orientation. So the open question is are the differences that we see in the orientation of the grains due to the damage that occurred of to the material or was it purposeful for some reason to enable whatever the actual function of this should be? Um and so we have further work to do on this. Uh but we certainly know that these are individual grains.

It's not something that humans do. So there's something very unusual about this or it's something that humans did and because it went through a crash and let's say uh that our good friend Dr. Kpatrick is right and it's just a missile casing gone bad uh and that this is the result. But I'd like Dr. Cook Patrick to explain this to me or somebody to explain how uh something a human would make would end up looking like this uh and have the kinds of back scatters that we observe.

So more work to be done on that. So what this rules out though it wasn't put together by rolling and bonding because that would have crushed the grains. So traditional human approaches are not possible. It wasn't cast. It isn't the bottom of some melting pot and it wasn't made by electroplating, right? Because there would have it just what we observe rules those out.

It possibly vapor deposition, but the time at which it what that this supposedly was found, claimed, etc. vapor deposition uh manufacturing wasn't possible. could have been bulk layering but even now at the 100 micron scale that these uh interfaces are is not possible. So we have further tests to do um high resolution transmission electron microscopy going to be looking at the interface. uh we're actually we tried atom probe tomography uh already and um we weren't able to get uh it to um basically uh stay solid long enough and the tensions for the instrument um basically ended up breaking it.

>> One second I'm bringing up another video for you guys to see. So, uh, the next the next step here of what it is that I want to accomplish with this is to look at it at the atomic level. And I'm going to turn off my video for a moment. I'm going to open a new a new window for you. Media player.

Here we go. Can we see that? I hope we can see this. Say yes, someone. >> Yep, we can see that. >> Okay.

So, this is an instrument that I'm building. Uh, it's a new kind of atom probe. Um, and you know, its purpose is not to do that. It's actually to do another kind of to do basically looking I'm interested in using it to look at DNA and the 3D structure of DNA. Uh but this inter this instrument in here uh has a ultra high vacuum.

Um and uh it's at 4° Kelvin. Uh here's the uh the liquid helium projector that basically allows us to do what we're doing. Um and we're in the basically we're in the in the rundown phase for uh making this operable to um for doing atomic imaging at a level of resolution that is currently unavailable on the planet today because if I do eventually get a hold of something that is uh usable or that is let's say from some other exotic place uh then um I would like to use an instrument like that to study it because we need to understand our material world at the atomic level. It's inevitable that devices like this will be invented whether it's by me or somebody else. Uh and so uh I would uh I just want to get there first.

Um and because I've always felt in all the instruments that I've developed have always been because a capability doesn't exist, why don't we do it? So there's a road map that one can project and this is the ending talk ending thing that we can go from where it is that we are today. Uh hope to head towards what we call cognitive what I would call cognitive sovereignty. uh we need to vac vaccinate ourselves against the negativity by using real data. Obviously part of that data are whistleblowers providing safe harbor. We can have all kinds of material or other uh let's say medical tests.

There are multimodal systems now coming online and AI is our friend at least for now. Um and uh this infrastructure is global will allow for data integration. Uh institutionalization of this so that everybody agrees uh that the data that's being collected is real and then hopefully uh we get to the next level of cognitive adaptation as to what it is that we think we're seeing. uh and whatever it is then it decides to represent itself in the next you know 10 or 20 years will hopefully live to see. So um my quiet colleagues over in applied physics and engineering uh Stanford's uh continual uh support uh for me in this and uh Jacqu Valet who of course uh mentor to many of us uh but it you know I'm framing it in his narrative of the control system uh and we're in the middle of the feedback loop still.

Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Dr. Gary Nolan. That was a uh a mind-bending journey. Definitely put your thinking cap on folks and and take that in.

And again, this represents the broad base of inquiry that I know UAP Med and the Human Institute want to encourage to create a foundation for responsible scientific research-based investigation of the reality of non-human intelligence. So, thank you, Gary. Uh that was a lot. uh first time I'd heard it. So, I'm going to be re-watching that several times.

I know. Um a lot in there to unpack. There are a lot of questions and a lot of people watching. So, again, if you're with us, thank you so much for being here. There's still time to get your questions in the queue.

I'm going to walk through these questions in in relative order of most broad andor introductory to most advanced or nuanced and we'll just kind of go that way. So, um, I'd like to, uh, begin with this question from Jason Albertson. Given your deep expertise in genetics and cellular analysis, what are the specific scientific criteria you use to decide whether an anomalous material or physical sample merits serious investigation? >> [sighs] >> So I mean the first would be I mean I you know I think people focus on isotopic anomalies uh because it's it's kind of relatively easy but isotopic anom anomalies are also easily dismissed because humans can now isolate isotopes uh and um use them. I mean the problem is humans mostly use isotopes for making uranium and blowing stuff up. uh you know occasionally we use it for um for medical purposes or tracers uh but we don't really much use isotopes until recently for purposeful design um except silicon actually interestingly um people are are now making uh and and purifying certain uh silicon isotopes because they make better cubits uh and they keep the decoherence they keep the coherence current state longer uh some of the isotopes than others.

So um but we don't we don't use isotopes at scale. So really you know I mean look I'm making that instrument that I just showed you because I'm really interested in the 3D structure of DNA because I think that's where the real code is. But you know the most complex machines that we know in existence today is life and it's a dynamic machine and DNA is a dynamic computer constantly computing its environment and then working with the proteins and the cells at multiple scales to accomplish life. As humans have evolved our um let's say material uh capabilities of making new things, we've gone from melting ores to starting to build complex computers and circuits etc. and starting to move into the atomic realm where we're designing things at the atomic level.

We can't make things at the atomic level but we can design things. So if I imagine a technology from a distant place, I don't think that they're going to be making their computer chips with resistors and uh capacitors and you know and transistors etc in modular arrays. They're going to make things at the level of complexity of life >> where one protein does a thousand things depending on its context. You know, now life is dynamic and things can move around. So life has more capability I think but I would imagine that if you're going to make a complex computer that is solid state you could make it as a solid block of something uh that uh if I could decompose it and show that it is put together the atoms are put together in just the right ways or in a way that no human would ever think to do.

I mean, that again isn't proof that it's alien, but it's proof that it's interesting. >> And once again, I'll get back to this point. I'm not interested in who and what they are. I'm interested in what they can do >> because I'm interested in scraping capabilities off the surface of what might just be their trash. >> All right.

Thank you. Uh, great answer. and and so much to to be understood based upon simply what might be the junk and the detritus and the squella of their presence, not their intentful deposition of material even. >> Um the questions are wide and varied and I'm having a bit of a challenge organizing them. So I'm just going to kind of go as best I can through this.

There are a few questions on um the potential bipedal nature of NHI and and I guess I'll start with the question that um I asked which is uh what are your thoughts on the potential for a convergent evolutionary dynamic being the cause for similar body plans biological morphologies between humans and potential bipedal quote humanlooking end quote NHI >> right so um I I mean yes but since we don't have I mean convergent evolution of course is a thing I mean you know we can look at marsupial uh you know um the marsupials in Australia and Tasmania uh and we see convergent evolution to form you know marsupial moles look like you know mamalian moles generally uh because you know function defines the ne the necessary form. Um I can't necessarily see a reason why two legs are better than four. >> I mean the most >> efficient energy wise more efficient in gravity environments of similar gravity to our planetary environment. But I mean, you know, why there's no there's no particular reason why crabs couldn't become intelligent apart from, you know, getting enough oxygen, right? So, they run around perfectly fine. You know, uh, octopus have eight arms and in fact they have a distributed neural architecture where the arms have their own necessary intelligence.

So, I just I I'm not against it. It just bothers me because I can't come up with a good reason why it should be just that. >> So, we have a next question which segus perfectly and welcome Ted to the stage. And Ted, please feel free to help me with with this uh Q&A mediation moderation. Um this is from Levy regarding your comment that bipedal beings coming to Earth may not represent higher intelligence.

Could the gray ETSs be the workforce of higher intelligence beings who are not bipedal to get >> right that that these entities were designed to interface environment >> Lebby is exactly correct. It's a it's it's you know if you happen to have tentacles and you know waving fangs but you're still a nice guy you might not want to show up because you'd scare the Jesus out of the people. So maybe you make something that looks a little friendlier. But just like with the ants if if I need to talk to an ant make something that looks almost like an ant. Not so scary that you're attacked, but scary it but different enough that you recognize it as different.

It's back to that intelligence test. >> Can you recognize that what you're seeing might not be exactly what it is presenting itself as, >> right? And you know, uh, species interaction, ethmology gives us examples of insects using mimicry, stealing each other's young, uh, using each other's food sources and not hunting on their own. There's all sorts of evolved traits that might explain what we see as being made for us to see. >> I I mean, I'm perfectly fine if bipedal is a universal norm, but you know, I'm I I still have a problem with it. >> Yeah.

>> Well, great. Let's go to the uh the next question. And um the folks in the background can either call it up or I'll call one up. Let's um actually let's go to a question. Here we go.

Let's just go right to the top there with George Metaf's question. Thank you, Professor Nolan Reed and emergent and the human institute for an amazing presentation concerning recovered biologics of non-human origin. Where is the crossover between exobiology and xenobiology? What protocols theoretically would be enacted? >> Let's see where is the let me see uh recovered biologics. So there's a crossover. Well, exobiology and xenobiology.

I mean to me to me they're kind of the same thing, >> right? Exo meaning not of Earth. Zeno meaning not human, >> right? So I mean I think well I mean perhaps the intent behind the question is what is the danger >> of uh that might you know of things that are not harm you know let's say microorganisms on or in the exo or xeno uh that are not harmful to them but are harmful to us you know I I I think the danger is there certainly, but to the extent that anything that has been showing up had anything and they've been around for, let's say, longer than humans have been intelligent, it hasn't wiped us out yet. So, I I I'm I'm not saying just go up and shake their hand right away. Uh, but I I I'm I'm not >> I'm not concerned that it's in an incipient danger worthy of, you know, Steven Spurleberg level, you know, decontamination chambers from, you know, ET phone home, >> right? >> Uh, you know, but, uh, but I'm I'm also not BL uh about the potential dangers. >> So, >> Right.

>> You know, >> okay, good. um in this cosmic colombian exchange. Yes, the trans the the transfer of viral, biological, technological mimemetic substrates might might play a part. So, um next question, we'll take Stephanie's here and Ted feel free to jump in and and tag team with me on this. What are your thoughts on psionics? Who can tether with technology and the conversations they can have? How does this relate to AI data and the control system hypothesis? Well, so psionics is a hypothesis.

Um, you know, I I know it's kind of in vogue right now uh to to talk about and people claim psionic interactions. Um, I have and my hesitation is because I know people who who claim to have this ability. I have I have not seen the kind of scientific study done uh that validates it. Now I know of people who claim that they can do it on a regular basis and I know the people who claim that go out and and do it. So I it's it's a hypothesis yet to be at least confirmed at a level that I know I could con I could talk to another one of my colleagues uh you know in in my arena and say hey you should look at this paper that just got published on this.

Um, so but I'm going to kind of switch it around and you know because psionics often gets misinterpreted as magic or or woo the the you know the the bad word um the three-letter word uh because it could just be technology you know and that I mean I'll think of it this way our brains and everything that we are oper I'm interacting with you via quantum waves. You are just a series of quantum waves that happens to manifest looking like read, you know, and that's how my meat brain thinks of you. And and yet we're communicating via quantum signatures or quantum forms. Uh now who's to say that down at the base level of reality where quarks and everything that we think of as what form atoms etc exist that there's not information flowing around that just the right way of twiddling with it from a distance could either be detected or information transferred. I mean, we already know it drives the physicists crazy that you can get, you know, quantum entanglement.

It just doesn't make sense, you know? I mean, they use it. We use lots of things that we don't understand. And so, maybe we just don't understand what it is yet and somebody else has already figured it out. So, I think of it as technology. >> I don't think of it as magic.

>> I But it's technology that we don't understand. and I don't know how yet to reproduce it. Now, what I do find interesting is that when people claim they have these capabilities, they seem to follow families or in families. So if it follows in families that that at least suggests genetics >> and since the DNA designs your brain and the architecture of your brain then what that could say is that there's an architecture written in the blueprint of the DNA that might make some people more capable than others. >> Right? Mhm.

>> Just a hypothesis. >> I'll and I'll slip a tag kind of like a second question in there. Hypothetically, if there were ever a desire to affect human functionality or prefer one more smarter, taller, shorter, or different ethnicity over another, how would that kind of genetic intervention hypothetically take place? How should we look at that? >> You mean intervention? I I Yeah. So there's a again there's it's kind of in the in the gestalt of the discussions here that somehow whatever they are are interacting and changing human DNA. >> Well, if at some point they wanted to to alter us at that level as a geneticist.

I mean, sure they they could, let's say, but you would have to have a totality of understanding of how DNA operates that we don't currently have. It's not like you're going to splice DNA in and just, you know, I mean, one of the things I'm known for is having developed the retroviral transfer system that allows you to move giant chunks of DNA, you know, into into cells. And all all human gene therapy uh with retrovirus is done using a technique I you know I developed uh with another with another guy by the name of Warren Perry in David Baltimore's lab years ago and that was on top of something that this actually brilliant guy uh Richard Mulligan uh invented in the first place. I just made his system a little faster, but the original invention is was his. Um, it wouldn't be so crude because I mean, and this is the explanation I often use.

Where's where's the gene for nest building in birds? There is no gene, >> right? There's plenty of places that you could change in the genome that would break the nest build. But that the structure of what makes one kind of nest versus another is encoded at in the DNA and starts way at the beginning of the first cell division when the DNA has a different structure. >> It's not just genes turning on and off. The DNA literally has a 3D structure. That is the compute.

That is the code. And that's why I wanted to build that instrument I just showed. Mhm. >> And each time the cell divides, you think of it as a as an unzipping program that's unzipping into a new environment of that it expects it expects the new environment and it's building the structure of the brain of the of the bird in a way that accomplishes the nest build. So for us to design a bird that makes a different nest, >> we would have to understand all of those unknowable processes at a level of complexity that is a super super intelligence.

>> Right. >> So if they're if aliens are interfering with humans, they're not doing it by some gross DNA splicing. They're doing it here and there in a way that would be frankly to me at least almost impossible to trace >> and would be so >> because every change you make is has the has the conse potential consequence of having a downside. So not only do you have to change the thing that you think is making it better but you have to consider all the negative consequences that might occur in another way. So every advantage in one environment or niche is a disadvantage in another.

>> Fascinating stuff. Ted, why don't you take us to the next question? >> Um, sure. Um, is is it up or >> I think we'll bring it up right now. >> All right. All right.

>> Um, that one at the top we've already asked. >> Okay. I talk a lot about the job the the get into AI and understand how to use AI. >> Yeah, that that would be the top one, right? What what academic areas should a college student pursue? I I think learning to learn, you know, I mean, I'm in less than two weeks I'm going to be 65 years old and I'm still learning and and I'm only excited again more recently because I have AI to help me deal with the complexity that I know exists and organize. I mean, humans are visual creatures.

You know, when we were monkeys, you know, swinging through the trees, we weren't looking at spreadsheets of where the tree branches are. We were visually processing and, you know, and our cortexes were making decisions subliminally, subconsciously. So what I found AI great at is taking complex data and representing it into forms that um you know I can visually understand and instantly interpret. >> Um that entire presentation that I just gave now it still needs still needs tweaking. I basically every one of the pictures almost was made by AI for me today because I know how to tweak it the right way to give those pictures all those complex diagrams.

>> Etc. Where I just I laid out what it was that I wanted. >> I thought you worked on it for weeks, Gary. Come on. >> No, I I didn't.

No, I'm >> reveal. I only I only I only work under pressure. It's the only way I can focus. >> Me, too. For sure.

Good stuff. Uh, we have another another few AI related questions here. Oh, here's one. Okay, we'll jump around. What is your opinion about people that claim direct exposure to non-human intelligence as evidence itself? >> Um, you know, I I don't I certainly don't deise dismiss it.

Um, you know, because as everybody knows, I publicly stated when I was a young boy, I saw little things in my room that, >> you know, only 20 years later do I was I able to look back and say this is what other people were seeing, >> right? Now, I don't see that as proof. I mean it could be some sort of you know Yungian uh um you know uh unc you know the subconscious uh what's the what's the term um >> collective unconscious >> thank you the collective unconscious >> um so it could be just a a metaphor that anybody would see um but you know uh I don't dismiss it and that's why actually I publicly asked for help Then actually a statistician reached out to me is how many anecdotes make a truth. >> Um and so uh he says and his answer was well we can apply basian prior to it. >> Uh and the problem of course is what I raised was social contagion >> um in that you can influence others uh and their stories um just by having heard it previously. Which is why for instance Jacqu Valet says if you think you've had uh an experience don't don't go undergo hypnosis because you're contaminated by you know stuff you've seen on TV and all the hypnosis might do is consolidate an untrue memory >> right so um you know it's what I would ask for if anybody's going to interact is one of the things that I raised in the talk itself which is tell me something I shouldn't know.

Tell me something humans shouldn't know. >> Tell me how to make a machine I shouldn't know how to make. >> You know that's to me evidence of interaction with something. >> You know Gary you you mentioned in your talk earlier And I'll update sorry I I'll update it just slight slightly because you know I make fun of Neil Grass Tyson all the time but he's he's right in this context. He says you know bring me an alien ashtray.

Well aliens shouldn't be smoking in the first place. He should know that. But you know but but I I think the proof of I mean the the truth of what he's saying is bring me something that they have that we don't have >> that I can trace back to non-human. So from from that viewpoint, he's 100% right. >> Right.

How should we regard the complete or near complete lack of such hard proof given such a potentially pervasive and long-standing global presence? Is it is it leave no trace? Is it cover your tracks? Is it the evidence is actually all around us, but we just don't have the conceptual net to to capture it or the data collection net? Well, it's it's like with scientists. I mean, when another scientist tells me something about what they result in their lab, I don't need to go stand over their postocs or their PhD students shoulders to validate it. I contextualize it with other things that I know >> and as long as it conforms, I believe. Um, sorry, what was your question again exactly? Oh, simply just how should we regard the near complete lack of proof? Is it government secreting it away? Is it NHI? Is it part of the control system avoiding leaving it out for us to find? >> I mean, you depending on the viewpoint, you could say it's the the control system continues to lead you on >> into some future. you could claim conspiracy theories um uh or that they've gotten darn good at picking up the evidence before anybody else can.

um you know or maybe the only you know maybe the only proof maybe proof isn't global maybe proof is personal >> you know I mean that's really what the point I was getting to about about um scientists is I can I've never seen DNA when I was a postoc I cloned the gene that turns HIV on that was my project and it's called of Cappa Bad, P65, REL. Um, and but I've never seen it, >> but I know what it does. And, you know, I was competing against dozens of other labs. Luckily, we won, >> you know, and if I hadn't done that, I would probably wouldn't have got my position at Stanford. Um, and so, um, I don't need to see it.

I just need to see its effect >> to know that it's real. And most biologists have we've never seen a protein, but we know how to tweak the system to make the protein at least our view of what's in the black box operate. >> I But I don't need daddy's permission to know what I know. And I will continue to operate it personally on the assumption that there is something. >> I just don't know what it is.

>> The effect is becoming apparent. Go ahead, Ted. >> Um, really appreciated your talk, Gary. I look forward to hearing more from you and thank you very much for for u making this opportunity available. Um, I wanted to ask you, um, you mentioned earlier about medical teams collecting data, uh, from individuals with exposures.

Um, how do we get the interest of medicine onto this topic? Because my experience with MDs is that they're very sensitive to image issues. Uh, the stigma seems to work against them pretty well. How how do we how do we move the interest towards people claiming exposures? >> Well, I mean, one of the things you could do is frankly, I'm just looking it up right now, anomalous health incidents. So, you know, frankly, due to the extraordinary, I think, bravery of um a number of people who came forward and then the work of Chris uh Kit Green. I mean, go look at the website health.mmill.

It's a military website. uh anomalous health incidents because of his efforts and the efforts of certain uh subcommittees that I lightly advised I don't take any credit for this uh they basically got Havana syndrome uh put forward uh as something that is now has a patient registry has a formal way that if you are a military or veteran or associated with the government you can uh basically go and get uh veterans uh benefits. They have an they have an intake system. So they've written it broadly enough, interestingly, to not just be Havana syndrome. It they've written it so broadly as to be a catch basin for any kind of anomalous event that might occur.

So if you want to convince your medical colleagues that any of this stuff might be real, you can just say this might just be Havana syndrome, get them interested. The the point always is that I find is you you if you can convince somebody that the data is real, which is what convinced me when they showed up in my office and showed me the the medical records and the scans, then it's not my responsibility only to give an answer. Now, if they're sufficiently interested or curious, now we can have a discussion about what the data means. So, it's not about convincing people that there is a conclusion. It's about convincing them that the data is real.

Um and so for instance, my work on the codate patamon that kit green and jacques and uh um column and I noticed the area of the brain the head of the codate infotainment you know being involved in cognition uh and potentially intuition. So when I work on what might be, let's say, some people think of as remote viewing, um I'm not going to call it remote viewing in a grant. I I call it intuition. And then I point to not only our own papers that we published with a group at Harvard, three of them now four. uh I point to the several dozen other papers that others have now already published that show the root of intuition sit at the head of the codate and the containment right so and if you wanted to place remote viewing anywhere that would be exactly the right place to do because it's it's the central interpreter of all environmental cues so if you wanted evolution doesn't work by creating new organs it overlays functions onto pre-existing systems that it can adapt towards something else.

>> Fascinating. [snorts] I just want to thank we're we're almost at the top of the second hour here. I want to thank the nearly 1,000 people who are watching live right now. Um great great um audience and community and great questions as well. Uh we were just talking about this so I thought I would put this up.

Um, and I know this you went through some of this uh just now with us, but are there any other noted effects of exposure on the human brain in alleged NHI encounters? >> I mean, the only ones that I've seen have been the overt damage uh to a few people, but the maj vast majority of those ended up being uh human uh caused Havana syndrome interactions. And um so I I I you know, damage would be one thing. I I've not seen well I've seen one but um any that are reproducible enough. Um >> I think what you might want to do is you know put somebody under an fMRI or other kind of um [snorts] you know electron you know uh EG etc. Uh while people claim to talk to something >> and you know and see what's going on.

Um I but the the short answer is no. I wish I would had all the time in the world to do it. It's a great question, >> right? Yeah. Here's another followup, I guess, an expansion of the same question. What do you think of the possibility that they may have advanced technological ability to produce desired effects in the brain? >> Yeah, absolutely.

That's exactly what I was saying before. >> I mean I mean, look, Elon Musk is already building neural interfaces and now, you know, half a dozen other companies have been set up to to create them. We now have the ability to put something on your head and I can read your dreams. >> Right. >> I mean, unbelievable.

>> Is it conceivable a device could be powered such that that that effect which is already happening in a non-cont sense like there's millimeters or centimeters of air between the device and the brain could be projected at distance at >> I scaled up to affect a group of people not just an individual. Every invention that I've ever come up with, I was told was impossible before I showed it. And there's nothing that infuriates me more than being told I can't do something that I know is possible. And there nothing that drives me more to do something. So I would say to the audience out [snorts] there and especially the ones who in for instance said, "How do I what kind of job should I have in the future?" I would just say imagine what you want.

Right? Or better yet, imagine what is inevitable. >> Right? So that instrument that I showed is inevitable. Whether I make it or somebody makes something else, someone is going to create a device that can map atoms in 3D uh at a level of resolution that we can't do today except by making crystal structures or a few other you know limited >> senses. Nobody can do amorphous 3D mapping. That instrument is a step towards it.

But there's better ones I could I already know that I could potentially make, but I won't even dare go there until I make this one. But other people are smarter than me and there's plenty of people who will do it. But you have to feel confident enough to say to the critics, get out of my way. >> Yeah. I if I may digress for a moment, I love Jordan Peterson's uh brief kind of side journey into commenting on papers and the and the writing of an abstract and how patently backwards it is.

You don't just follow what everyone else did and then arrive at what you think might be possible. It's like you have a hunch. You have an idea, >> right? >> You have a gut intuition that something is possible and then you go figure out how to substantiate that. So for those who are watching, if this issue UAP NHI uh triggers something for you and and you feel like you know there are realities at play that need to be substantiated, there's your future career path articulated. >> You finished with a quote from Diana Pulka, which I absolutely love.

I love Diana dearly. Uh but the quote was at least attributed to her uh was if you don't want to believe in UFOs, don't start studying them. Uhhuh. [laughter] >> Don't look because you might find what's actually there staring you in the face. >> Exactly.

>> Hindsight. Great. We have a few kind of closers and I'd like to if you're able, Gary, to stay on for another few minutes. >> Yeah. >> Okay.

Great. >> Here's one from myself and I I put it up only because it taps the question of uh of experiencers and experiential data. How should experience how I'm sorry. How should researchers be engaging with experiencers and experiential data towards substantiating the characteristic profile of reported physical NHI encounters and potential entities observed? Well, maybe some of the groups, some of the many, let's say, the cottage industry of groups is maybe uh a reporting structure should be uh instituted that's quicker, you know, than um than [snorts] just telling your friends because standardized reporting is what's necessary. I mean, you know, one of the one of the things again that that Jacques did so brilliantly over the decades is he didn't just read what people said.

He went he went to you know distant countries uh like Brazil you know etc and did a direct interview because you get so much more humans communicate more than just verbally um our body language is so important which is why I wanted to go talk to the pilots and others who said that they'd seen things you know as part of the study I did with kit um so you know I I I think that um we need a standardized reporting uh approach. Um, and maybe you if you think you're interacting with us, say, "Would you mind showing up when somebody else is here to validate, you know? I mean, if there is a two-way communication, and I don't know. I'm just I'm just guessing, >> you know. Uh, I I I wouldn't say go sit out in the middle of the desert and ask them to show up because you might not you might not come back, you know. Don't make yourself debate.

Uh, don't do stupid things. Um, so, uh, I don't know. I mean, it it's a great question. Um, but the only way that you validate an individual experience is that other people have seen it or it leaves a trace, >> right? You know, one of the obstacles we have in reporting is how quickly we get the reports. It's usually at least three months for a witness to to actually come and tell somebody about it if they do it.

Otherwise, it could be years. Sometimes we've got pilots that wait till they retire to tell people about it because they don't want to risk their their image at at work. Um, we we have to find a way to speed this up. This is personal observation. We have to get things turning around quicker.

If you see something or you think you saw something, tell somebody, say something, you know. Um, but I think there's a campaign necessary to actually kind of accelerate the response time on this or we're we're always going to be lagging. We're not going to get that quick medical information that we're looking for, that kind of thing. A perfect example actually was um you know the council bluff episode that I published on the materials uh few years back now uh that Jacques got me the thing and so because I had spoken about it publicly on the Joe Rogan show. I got a phone call or an email first and then a and then a phone call from another witness and he is 85 years old and he came on with his brother uh on the Zoom call and I got Jacqu on to help you know talk and he said look I I saw it too >> you know but I didn't tell anybody except my brother >> and I didn't think to ever mention it again until I I saw you on Joe Rogan.

Um, and so I mean like you said, it's decades later, but it was so exciting for me to talk to a guy who corroborated it. Uh, and you know, in a way that and and he had, you know, he he wasn't lying. He just wanted to tell his story and he was glad to finally find somebody. And that's what I mostly find is that most of the emails that I get, which I get way too many. >> Um, I mean, don't not send me emails, but I can't read them all or answer them all, unfortunately.

Uh, are the ones that just say thank you. I'm not asking you to do anything for me. Just thank you for being there and accepting that something might have happened to me. Mhm. >> And which is why I think places like UAP Med and um the unhidden group in the UK are so important.

Validation from an expert, let's say, is so important for people. Uh and that's what's opening it up. So, you know, I don't I don't expect everything to change in a year or in two years, but I I I like having been part of a process uh that has opened it up to other people to feel comfortable to step in because I can't do it forever anyway, right? I'm not going to >> fact. Yeah. >> And so, but just but just providing people road mapaps of what to do and that hey, it's okay.

You know, I I'm still getting science awards. I got the, you know, lifetime achievement award, you know, in the name of two Nobel Prize winners, you know, last year at Stanford. >> And in the video that they made of it, it they talked about my UAP interests. >> So, you know, >> it's it's it's okay, but you have to talk about it the right way. >> You can't jump to the conclusions.

It always comes back to this notion of it's the data, not the conclusion. >> Convince somebody You know, I think back to 1999 when Dr. Haynes and I introduced unidentified aerial phenomena as a proper noun with a definition. >> Oh, was that you? Great. Thank you.

>> Yeah. Yeah, that was that was our group. That was Dr. Haynes originally and Dr. Belie was with our team at Narcap for 15 years or so.

Um so we had a lot of influence in in in our work but um the uh um it would have been unheard of to even have your UAP work mentioned say a decade ago >> uh you know in in that context of being recognized for your work. I I >> um there change is happening. It is happening and the more we can talk about this the better. Um the I I tell you I I I get a lot of stories. People contact me all the time and a lot of them are traumatized.

A lot of them are hurt. Um they've got issues with their families. They've got issues with their work. They've got issues with other situations because they're not comfortable in their own skins or they're terrified, you know. Um so the more we can talk about this, the more work we can do, the more legitimacy we can bring to the inquiry, you know, whatever the right answers are, the better it is for everybody in my opinion.

That's why we do UAP NED and I'm sure as part of Reed's reasoning and yours. >> I mean, just take the null hypothesis that it's all fake, it's all false >> as as as truth. Let's say it's all fake. Why does why do people think things are happening? >> So if it's if so just I mean just that itself should interests >> psychological right the psychiatrist community, right? >> And and etc. and say say it's completely fake.

None of it's real. It's all imagined. It's a it's a and it's all a big to the extent that the government talks about it at all. It's all a giant scop. >> You know, ignore that.

People still have these experiences. >> And so what is it? >> You and that was John Mac's approach. you know it wasn't that you know you know I think later in his life he basically came to the conclusion that it was real but you know he did take the right approach um from a scientific viewpoint uh that look it it's happening to people think it's happening to them so at least to them it's an experience let's figure it out and de-raumatize them at the least >> yeah great stuff well I want to kind of end on on a final question and a kind of a look back to the first lecture in in which you know a new science of non-human intelligence was was was beginning to be described maybe framed out at the level of the philosophy of science and Gary in your presentation you had a slide on a new decal strategy a decal strategy and a breaking free of this of this loop in which we are trapped with low data veracity um you know uh abstract or unclear results faults, ridicule and and lack of institutional interest etc. So what are the fundamental shifts at a higher level that would take us out of that loop and into this new decal strategy in which data becomes available data on the the the presence uh and potential activities of non-human intelligent phenomena? How would we get that data on the ground in real research regimes and paradigms in this new decal strategy? Well, I you know I I I'll point to Avi Lobe's efforts with Galileo project and setting up multiple sensor systems. Uh that's one.

Um you know I I won't name the people on Twitter uh just so as to not get them all everybody all focused on them. But there are people on Twitter who have observational platforms that are almost available to anybody and are showing stuff in the atmosphere that look pretty odd uh reproducibly and and so frequently as to be um as to be well if if so easy maybe I should start something up in my backyard. Um and so you know I think um but I you know it it seems to be that the sensor systems are important you know and and Ryan Graves uh has said this it was only when their radar and sensor systems were upgraded was suddenly this stuff seemed to be everywhere >> which tells you something interesting that well what whatever let's say stealth that they these things have is not impenetrable. Um, or maybe it was just waiting to be seen and and then it's going to change itself in a different way so that it can't be. I I don't know.

It's always just out of reach, which is for scientists like me, catnip, you know, I just get drawn towards what I can't understand. Um but maybe it's a warning to people like me that you know don't throw good time after bad. Uh >> so you know it's it's I would anybody listening I would just warn don't go down the rabbit hole of a conclusion because the moment you conclude something you are walling yourself off from other possibilities just like this whole thing of like are they an avatar? Don't assume that what you're seeing is what it is. Mhm. >> They're in and and that um that cover of the book Passport to Monia.

I'm looking so I can find it. Um Jacqu Valet uh the the reissuance of of a puppet hand uh holding the an alien which has many masks that it's holding. But >> the puppet hand is sort of a shadowy figure behind the scenes putting forth what you think is an alien. But the alien represents itself in different formats. Beautiful.

I mean, absolutely gorgeous. I've I've offered the original artist a very large sum of money uh to get the original, but he won't he won't give it over sadly. >> Um and uh you know, so I think that's what I just would warn people is don't go down the rabbit holes. Don't assume conspiracy theories. Just be careful >> because also >> you can drive yourself because you can you can drive yourself into a psychosis >> as people have seen now with AI kids treating AI as if it's a psychotherapist and it uh it drives them down rabbit holes.

So don't don't get caught in that. Just be careful. Should we also be open in the years to come as data becomes available to to take a more conclusive not stance but but an assessment that that is informed by that data that would inform then the action the plan you know the the the policym the civilian or societal response to whatever this is because if it stays as possibility forever and never lands on anything conclusive >> then we also kind of we we might empower the the control system to to re-replicate its enigma and elude our human response. >> You know, I mean, when I do experiments in the lab or I write a grant, even though I write it as hypothesis and what it is, I think I'm going to it is mentally I've concluded that it's true >> or I at least use that internal belief that it's true as the engine to drive my going forward. and and and working on it.

Um, you know, but I keep myself open to the possibility that it's wrong. But there's, you see, one of my original mentors, uh, I Leonard and Leonora Herszenberg, professors at Stanford, they were my grad student mentors. She taught me something really important. Um, is that there's two ways to ask a question. One way is if the answer is no, you just wasted all your time.

Sometimes you can just reformulate the question that no matter what the answer is, it's interesting. >> So those are the questions that you should ask. >> And so I I think that you know to your point Reed uh you know the is it an alien is not the question. It's what is it that's in the environment that it's causing that is anomalous that I can record to prove that there is a force >> or an object or an effect, >> right? and slowly over time shrink the boundary of possibility into a tighter range of probabilities that maybe at some point it could be said it is an alien or an extraterrestrial or an ultradimensional ultra dimensional but if you know there's a process to arriving at that at and even if that's probably not the final conclusion itself that's the doorway to a new line of inquiry that that has to then entertain a whole set of new possibilities >> right right >> well Gary thank you so much anything you'd like to share before we uh close up the lecture. >> Oh my god, if I talk anymore, I can [clears throat] I'm done.

I'm done. But thank you very much. >> Thank you so much for this honestly original work, original presentation. Even though the the slides or the the images were knocked up with AI in the day of, I know you put a lot of careful thought into what you devised and and presented. Um, so TED and I, UAP Med Human Institute, thank you so much for your original thought leadership and and beginning to lay down this research roadmap for substantiating and validating the potential existence of a non-human intelligence.

Uh, it's very important work. Ted, anything you'd like to share on UAP Med before we begin to close up? only that uh this is uh this kind of conversation is very important for the people that we try to support and serve the the folks who claim to have exposures to non-human intelligence and unidentified aerial phenomena. So, uh the more of these conversations we can have, the more serious engagement we can get, the better off it will be for people who are having issues with this. >> Yeah. Well, thank you so much for UAP Med, your work on the medical side of of this potential set of anomalous encounters that people are having.

It's I think you know in in the latter part of Gary's lecture on on the medical proof um and someations of that that just stood out and I think it would for the 1100 people watching as as vital to understand the nature of of what is going on in the mind in the brain in the body of those who have had these encounters. >> Absolutely. um experiencers are are on the front edge of all of this and we can't ignore them. Um they there's too much information there. We just have to learn how to contextualize it and and and divine its actual meaning and then we got to get to it quicker as I pointed out earlier, you know.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Good. Well, uh thank you Ted. Uh I'll give some closing remarks here and I invite everyone watching to uh to pay close attention to the next speaker in the series.

Uh it'll be Beatatric Via Royale talking about techno signatures signatures uh of of multiple modes of a potential intelligent presence in the earth's upper atmosphere near earth space environment. So uh January 9th, Beatatric will be giving the third lecture in the series and then it's our hope to host a panel uh with Beatatrice, Michael Safone and Gary Nolan basically looking at standards of evidence and and the roadmap going forward for how science and research can begin to make inroads into this enigma and generate credible, solid, reliable insight into u the nature of this anomalous intelligence, its capabilities, what it is able to do as Gary so eloquently described and and um called out uh to help inform whatever our human response plan may ultimately need to be to it. So u very important work. Uh I think it's it's a it's clear there's an exigency driving this new initiative to um to research and investigate the foundations and fundamentals of the phenomenon at this at the level of its intelligence and its interactivity. So thank you so much for being a part of it.

Uh please like, subscribe, and share. Get this conversation to others. If you or you know someone who would be a potential speaker in this series, please reach out. You can email us at info@humaninstitute.org. You can submit an abstract right on the website and uh we have a great lineup of speakers heading into 2026 as we go down the eight-part road map that Ted wrote presented at the beginning looking at signs of intelligence and all of the various dimensions of this potential encounter and engagement that is taking place.

Um again please thank you for uh subscribing to uh the channel here. uh register for the series going forward to get notifications of all the lectures, priority Q&A with the speakers and um and we'll build the community as we go forward. I also want to just call out before we close um that human institute is hosting a UAP summit in February, February 7th and 8th. Dr. Gary Nolan will be one of the speakers and it is on the topic of detecting and tracking UAP.

Not sure if we have something to put on screen for that. Um, but for those who are interested in what Gary was speaking of, which is the technologies, the sensors that that could be used to observe anomalies in in the atmosphere and generate real data about UAP, that is definitely the place to be. The UAP detection and tracking summit will be an amazing forum bringing forward um many of the technology research and academic groups that are cracking the code you could say investigating the skies and generating uh key data to drive disclosure itself. And so uh the UAP summit is has limited seating. So please go over and grab your seat and we look forward to seeing you there.

And with that I'll say good night. Thank you so much for joining Ted Row, Dr. Dr. Gary Nolan, myself, and uh we will take this investigation forward. Thank you so much.