Prof. Garry Nolan — “Tridactyl Mystery” interview (Disclosure Team, 21 Aug 2025)
Source: “Disclosure Team” YouTube channel, interview with Prof. Garry Nolan (Stanford immunologist; UAP-adjacent researcher). Title: “Tridactyl Mystery - Prof. Garry Nolan.” URL: https://youtu.be/zI4LLcbNy0Q (2025-08-21; ~1:06:18). Captured: 2026-07-01. OpenAI Whisper (whisper-1) via scripts/speech_to_text_remote.py; merged into timestamped paragraphs, verbatim. Two speakers (interviewer + Nolan), not diarized. Provenance only. Analysis: nolan-research-and-claims. What this is: Nolan discussing his involvement with the Nazca/Peru “tridactyl” (three-fingered) mummies and related anomalous-material questions, in his characteristically hedged register. Notable points:
- The fingerprints: he found the mummies’ fingerprints “of a different character than you would expect from human or monkey,” which he flags as relevant to whether the specimens are constructed/assembled versus biological — without asserting a conclusion.
- The DNA: he says that in sequencing “there was a lot of DNA that just didn’t look right,” and that the material was “nowhere near as ancient” as claimed; he consulted ancient-DNA experts. He stresses this is preliminary and contested, not a finding of non-human biology.
- Why he withholds raw data: he declines to “just put all the raw data out on the internet,” comparing it to ancient-DNA sequencing where “people will make mistakes about it” — a stated reason (avoiding misinterpretation), which also fits the base’s note that his refusal-to-release limits external verification.
- Academic stigma: he says the way these cases are portrayed online “absolutely” discourages academics — “it’s even discouraged me” — from engaging.
- The Maussan sphere (“Bugisphere”): recounts Jaime Maussan contacting him after recovering a metallic sphere and asking for help analyzing it.
- Consciousness / experiencer material: a later Q&A section on intent, “synchronicities,” non-local consciousness, plant medicine, and 5-MeO-DMT — his speculative interest, offered as exploration rather than claim. Weight as Nolan’s cautious, preliminary, and self-hedged commentary; the tridactyl DNA/fingerprint remarks are not published findings and the raw data is deliberately unreleased, so they are not independently checkable. See nolan-research-and-claims for how the base rates his work.
[0:00] Now, one of the things that I found interesting were the fingerprints that seemed to be of a different character than you would expect from human or monkey, so if we were considering that these things were constructed, you know, or hoaxed, the fact that they have fingerprints is interesting. Gary, welcome back to the show. I always appreciate our conversation. So, how’s your summer been? It’s been great so far. Let’s see, late spring, went to Africa for three weeks. Mid-summer, went to Nice, Monaco, met some interesting people there. Got on a ship, went around Italy and Athens, then to London, then to Brighton, then home. Amazing, some wonderful places. Glad to see you visiting us over here in the UK. So, are
[1:03] you recharged and refreshed? Yeah, pretty much. Like I said, it’s been a good summer. I like August because everybody is off-grid, or as many people, a lot of people are, and so, especially the Europeans, and so it’s nice that I’m not being as bombarded as heavily. Wonderful, excellent. Well, Gary, I’ve got a few subjects I’d like to touch upon here today. I’m going to start off because Jesse from American Alchemy just put out this piece on the tridactyl mummies from Peru, and it’s brought the conversation back into the zeitgeist as it were. So, I guess your thoughts would be really interesting on this, and you mentioned previously before we hit record that you’ve not seen Jesse’s documentary, I suppose you
[1:54] could call it, but they have announced that the DICOM files are available now. Can you tell us what DICOM files are and what can be garnered from looking at them? Yeah, DICOM files, think of them essentially as a number of slices through a sample. If it’s just a plain x-ray, it’s just one flat image, but DICOM files are sort of a number of TIF files all set one by one. I mean, they’re not exactly that, so people, please don’t correct me, I’m trying to make it manageable. And so, what they do is they give you essentially a 3D view of the image, and depending upon the number of other settings that might be relevant for the, let’s say MRI, you can turn on or off different features from the data collection that’s there, and it lets you see things in 3D. And it’s basically just
[2:49] a 3D animation file. Wonderful. So, it’s not enough to do a full analysis on these mummies, but do you think it’s a good starting point? Oh, I think they’re enough to do a very good analysis. It all depends upon the resolution of the imaging that was done. You know, I mean, there are DICOM-ish-like files for certain kinds of micro-CT or even near nano-CT that can see within bacteria. So, depending upon how much time you’re willing to wait, you could essentially analyze a specimen cell by cell, but it would probably take until the end of time to do it. But by that time, the aliens will have landed and set up an embassy in Washington. I mean, these mummies have been around for some time now. It’s not anything new. Like
[3:46] I said, it’s just been brought back into the conversation a bit more through Jesse’s work. But, you know, having kept your eye on some of the things that they’ve released, are there any red flags? Are there any positives, and in the same vein, negatives that you see? Well, I mean, let’s start with the negatives. It’s clear that some of the specimens, let’s just generally call them that, are constructed. Now, whether they were constructed with intent to deceive or hoax versus were they made in honor of something and then buried alongside, or maybe they have nothing to do and they’re just part of some story that’s been passed down. I mean, the carbon dating seems pretty clear that several of the specimens are old,
[4:35] very old. You know, the ones that are the most interesting to me are the three large ones because the ligature and bone system and all of the, how it’s all put together, I don’t mean that in a constructed way, looks as interesting as it could be absent getting higher level resolution. You know, there’s lots of really good scientists in South America, and if they take a purely scientific approach to it, they could settle the matter in, you know, one or two years. But I think we’ve known about them for at least six years now, one way or another. They might not have reached the kind of global understanding that, or at least view that there is today, but they’ve been around a while. So what positives do you see then so far? The positive of what I just said is that, you know, I’ve looked at the DICOM files, at least what’s downloadable, but I’m not an anatomist. So, you know, but I don’t see anything obvious and the anatomists and the forensic scientists who’ve looked at it so far say it’s worth, you know, further study. The DNA data that’s out there, I still have a hard time with because, you know, it’s like with the Atacama mummy. You know, when I first did the
[6:27] sequencing of that before I published the paper, there was a lot of DNA that just didn’t look right. And so I had to go to experts who knew things about ancient DNA or what I presumed to be ancient DNA. It was nowhere near as ancient as I suspected it might be. And so I literally contacted the guy who did the Neanderthal sequencing. And that’s what good science is supposed to be. When you don’t know the answer to something, don’t just, you know, carry on. Go and find the right expert. So I found the right expert for preparing the DNA. He gave me hints about what I needed to do to correct some of the DNA sequences because of what happens to even old DNA. So that was what I did with him. Then the actual biology of bone structure, I needed an expert for that. And so it looked like what we had at Stanford was the world’s expert in pediatric bone disorders, you know, etc., etc. So by the time we were done,
[7:40] we’d assembled a team of 13 or so people that ended up on the paper, each of whom had expertise in the relevant areas so that when it came to compiling the paper, I felt comfortable putting my name to it. You know, people often say, and there’s a, you know, there’s an individual out there, he who shall go unnamed, who happens to be bald, wears glasses. And, you know, his take on it was that, you know, I had purposefully and fraudulently changed the data, which is ridiculous, because, in fact, it was the students who are analyzing the data. So he’s really accusing them of fraud and not me. So, you know, the point of saying all of that is you can’t do good science in under the public glare, because people who want results and updates every week or every other week, what they’re doing is risking putting under duress the people who are trying to give the information, because you’ll give information, you’ll say, I think it might
[8:56] be this. And then, you know, a week later, you might think something different, but it’s too late, because the Daily Mail has already said Stanford scientists sequences alien baby, right? And so you end up chasing yourself across the internet for years to come. And that’s just not the way that science is done. When I do my day science in biology, when I’m ready to present a result publicly, even if it’s not going to be, we’re not even close to a published paper, it’s because I’m so sure of the result, and that all the methods, et cetera, that were done, I feel comfortable giving a little result. It might not be part of a larger story I’m hoping to tell that would make a good paper in a top journal. But it’s a snippet of information that’s sufficient and behind which I will stand with all the appropriate scientific caveats. So people asked, I saw in your thread many times, you know, have I been asked to study the mummy, the mummies? And yes, I mean, I probably a few dozen times, and by various people, but by serious people able to actually
[10:26] enact an outcome with the mummies or with money behind it. The first time I was asked, one of the requirements was that I would, every moment would be filmed. And I said, No, I’m not going to be filmed. This is not the Kardashians. That’s not science is done. My students certainly wouldn’t put up with it and Stanford wouldn’t allow it. Anyway, and and so that’s the first part of that. And second was, I, you know, I said, Look, I need a whole bunch of money. Not for me personally, I’ve got, frankly, plenty of money. And so I’d always like more, but you know, I can get on. And so the issue was, you know, I estimated, I think online somewhere about $5 million to do it right, which
[11:31] would be paying for postdoc researchers of various types and then bioinformaticians of various types. And essentially, the first thing we would do is collect all the data that’s already known, figure out what’s usable, what’s good preliminary data that would cause us to go look in a next direction. And not set it aside, but put it aside in a way that said, Okay, well, there’s all that preliminary data over there. Now, let’s based on this, do the next thing that, you know, we should do. And then everything needs to be collated, the instruments used, the methods used, etc. Because it’s all going to have to go into a peer reviewed paper, where you can’t just make stuff up about what the methods were. You can’t, well, I think I did this. No, that’s not what you can do. And that’s not what
[12:31] you will do if you’re going to do it properly. So, um, and I, and it would be probably three or four different teams of people that would need to be brought in to do it right. And so no one was willing to do it that way. And so I said, No, I won’t, I won’t do it. And, you know, I said, there’s, you know, there’s plenty of good scientists in South America. But they clearly aren’t being given the resources that they need, nor the power that would allow them to keep results quiet as they’re being generated. I mean, I could probably be able to get in the likes of the people, the guy, the guys who did the Neanderthal work, right, if they felt that I provided them sufficient information that would make it interesting to them and worth their time, and not get caught up in the circus that can be generated around these things. That’s the reason why a lot of serious scientists who I know are interested in it, but won’t touch it with a thousand foot pole because of the antics that go on. I mean, the similar thing
[13:57] happened, I’m just going to be honest with with the Bugisphere. You know, Jaime Masson contacted me soon after he had recovered the sphere. And I, I said, Okay, great. And he called me, he said, you know, can you help? What should I do? And I said, Well, you should get a mobile x ray machine, you can probably find one you’re at a veterinarian, you happen to know a veterinarian, because they would have one for doing x rays of cows and horses and things. And you need this, this. And so they literally managed to get it almost the next day, sent me some of the first results. And I said, Great. Okay, so let’s keep this quiet. Let’s do this, this and this. And now I need it at this angle at this angle. And he said, Okay, great, I’ll do that. And then I woke up the next morning, Saturday morning, it was all over Twitter. And I just wrote Jaime, I said, This isn’t what I thought we talked
[15:01] about. You know, his answer was, well, we need to get this information out because someone’s going to suppress it. Well, you know, here we are now, what, six months later? And where are we? Nowhere, you know, and maybe Jaime’s doing something, you know, I don’t, I don’t doubt his desire. But I said, I won’t be involved with this now. Because I can’t trust that the information won’t be ending up on Twitter the next day, before we’ve had an even chance to determine what it is that is going on. Yeah, no, it does. It does seem like everything’s a bit backward. Like you said, you know, it should be all done behind the scenes until you’re ready to produce something. But, you know, going back to the tridactyls, obviously, these big ones with the tridactyl appendages, you know, could they be simply some kind of already known mutation? Because, you know, in Jesse’s video, they’re saying, you know, look, there’s no evidence that these have been, you know, four, five
[16:04] fingered, and these have been cut off and tampered with, they are naturally three, three toed and three fingered. But, you know, isn’t there a known mutation GLI 13, or something like that, that’s known that this could be? It can, well, I that I think is, it might be that might be the gene for polydactyly, or, I don’t know, there’s probably multiple. But, you know, evolution doesn’t work quite like that. In other words, yeah, you can have a mutation that might cause something like that. But the, but, you know, three fingers, but there are other elements of those fingers that would have to be explained by one mutation. You know, evolution is, I’ll try this, and then I’ll add this, and then I’ll do this, and I’ll do this. And the mutations will be spread all the way across the genome, each of them compensating for the error that one other mutation might cause. And so I just don’t, I mean, yes, there’s a mutation that is in support of that they’re different, but you need a full genome to look at all at once. I mean, the obvious thing to do that I’m surprised nobody’s done. I
[17:21] mean, it really is so blatantly obvious. I don’t know how many times I’ve said it. Go PCR out a whole bunch polymerase chain reaction, amplify out a whole bunch of metabolic genes. Things that we know should be there if it’s, you know, somewhere in the vertebrate family of genes. And do it from several sites over the body. And then see if the sequences line up with, let’s say, alcohol dehydrogenase, if they weren’t drinkers, you know, you name the gene. And so, you know, trying to do the whole genome at once, it’s a huge, huge issue. It can be done, but there are enough easy first steps that would be preliminary that would allow me to go to friends of mine in the business of genomics, and say, Hey, look at this, this is really cool. Because there will be mutations that will be different, and not in the let’s say, the primate line and not in the reptilian line, and would give confidence that there’s next steps worth doing. You know, one of the
[18:53] things I felt very uncomfortable about, even at the beginning was saying, you know, what, how much would it cost? I said, 5 million to do it, right. I said, but, you know, for half a million, I could do the experiment that I just told you. Yeah. And then that would be a milestone that would maybe trigger more money. You know, I mean, I’m, I mean, whenever I write grants, or whenever I start a company, there’s always milestone based outcomes you would expect. And especially in company formats, milestones come with additional tranches of funds. And so those are the easy things that could be done. But I’m, I just don’t see anybody doing it. Yeah, I mean, it seems that they’ve got these partial human DNA matches up to a certain percentage, and then some anomalous percentages as well. But could
[19:52] it just be that there are some contaminations or even database gaps? Yeah, no, it’s I mean, DNA that cannot be matched to something does not mean it’s an alien. I’m sorry. I mean, part of what you just said is true. It could be just fungal contamination of growth. I mean, the diatomaceous earth keeps them from drying or allows them to dry out. But it doesn’t stop the internal contamination that would occur from rot inside of the body of bacteria, etc. And so, you know, there’s, but there are, there are sites in the body that are more protected from such contamination, for instance, the bone marrow, which is what the comma, I asked for a piece of the rib so I could get the bone marrow, because I felt that that would be the furthest away from the gastrointestinal tract where there would be a lot of bacterial contamination. And still full of bone marrow, basically, the immune system cells that would allow me to come to a conclusion and not worry so much about contaminating DNA.
[21:17] Do you think cases like this, you know, discourage academics because of the purely because of the way that it’s been portrayed on the internet? Absolutely. I mean, I mean, without a doubt. I mean, it’s even it’s even discouraged me. Yeah. So we’re, we’re our own worst enemies sometimes I feel in this field. And you know, it also seems that you know, these claims of alien mummies are being backtracked slightly to it could potentially be a new unknown hominid, which, again, is just as it’s just as exciting, but I mean, that would, that would be earth shaking. To say that it’s a new hominid, and had nothing to do with with aliens. And but I mean, the archaeologists
[22:06] who you would want involved again, or are going to be running away. Plus, this is, as you might know, it’s in a protected zone for indigenous peoples of the area who consider it, you know, these caves sacred. And so there’s a there’s a lot of checks and balances that need to be set up before you go just chopping things up. Now, one of the things that I found interesting were the fingerprints that seem to be of a different character than you would expect from human or monkey. So if we were considering that these things were constructed, you know, or hoaxed. The fact that they have fingerprints is interesting. Just as so there’s these tidbits of information that still, you know, give me, you know, diplomatic hope that there’s something there. But I don’t even know who controls the things now. Is it the Peruvian government? Is it some museum? Is it scientists? You know, what access do they have? What are they allowed to do? All of these
[23:31] things are just, you know, I, and I haven’t spent the time to look into them, because I’ve got my own work to do. Of course, of course. I mean, it just sounds like it’s just one big, complete mess. And rather than, you know, sticking on this subject, I suppose my last question would be to limit limit any more sort of damage to the credibility of them. What would you what would you ideally like to see? Or what do you think academia would like to see the next step be in legitimizing it any further? Well, I think the, you know, the anatomists have had their say. And they say that they can’t see it. Any evidence of construction in in the limited number of samples, the large ones, not the little puppet things that got pulled out at the Mexican Congress. I mean, that did all the damage necessary to destroy the credibility of anything that came after the DNA damage, the DNA analysis that I just told you about. Sure. Right. That would be the one that I think should be done. First, sort of set the gold
[24:41] standard for the next things to come after. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I appreciate that. And I’m sure and I hope a lot of people that are watching and have been asking for your view on that are satisfied with that. And I appreciate it. So let’s move on. Because this is the first time I’ve had you on the show since this kind of whole Skywatcher thing back at the start of the year. And, you know, I’ve spoken to a few people that were at the initial event last year. I even heard you cook them up a mean spaghetti bolognese one night. So but like, you know, it was only spaghetti. Okay. Okay. And, you know, it’s only been a few hours since I think you tweeted out somewhat of an update on what’s going on. And it does seem that there’s been a bit of a quiet period, which, you know, I’m all about patience. I know that rigorous work takes time. So what can you tell us about the kind of current
[25:29] understanding of what’s happening with Skywatcher? Well, we’ve got a lot of data from multiple alleged sightings. And I both radar and other kinds of data. And so first, it was about getting the the raw data files all put in one place because some of them, some of the data was collected by James before there was officially kind of a Skywatcher. And so getting that data, getting the instrument names that he used for those, then getting the technical manuals of what the settings might be, and how much of that information is collected in the metadata, when you’re collecting the thing, all of this is, is just the organization that you need to do before you do anything else. And then getting from the companies, how it is that they parse their raw data, because some of these data files are put into, I wouldn’t call them encrypted, but
[26:44] they’re, they’re stacked into a certain kind of file structure. And I’ve seen the file structure, which is you can think of it as a giant spreadsheet with headings and numbers for each of the columns and time on the row axis. And so, you know, we started looking at some of the data and put it into, let’s say 3D tracking. And it’s clear that there are some things about the data that we needed to go back to the vendor who makes the instrument and say, why, why is this and this and this happening, you know, every few dozen milliseconds. And so, you know, just getting an answer from these companies often, when you don’t even own the instrument. And so they’re like, well, why should we give you the information about how our data is constructed? How do we know that you’re not a competitor? Right? I mean, and so these are the kinds of things that we then, you know, we then contact somebody who has a behind the scenes access to this so that we can, again, it’s all of these little steps. And I’m sure there’s somebody who’s going to tweet,
[28:08] why don’t you just put all the raw data out on the internet, for exactly the same reason, you don’t put the raw data from ancient DNA sequencing, because people will make mistakes about it. And so, if I’m going to be involved, I’m not going to make any mistakes like that. Right. So I’m sorry, if people want stuff early. You know, I, I think, you know, perhaps if, well, if, if I had been running the whole show, nobody would even know what Skywatcher is right now. That’s fair enough. We’d just be collecting the data in a fully stealthed mode. And, but, you know, it’s, there’s reasons, good reasons why they wanted some publicity. And, you know, but I don’t always get my way.
[29:10] No. I mean, I think they’ve done a great job of balancing that, that scientific data, data gathering, and then the kind of more entertainment, glossy videos on YouTube that they’ve released. I think, I think that’s fine. I think that’s good. And like I said, I appreciate that we have to be patient. And would you say that the data is exciting? Oh, there’s some, there’s some interesting stuff in there. Um, you know, the, I mean, frankly, perhaps some of the better data that we have is just a couple of pictures from the ground of the helicopter with something about, you know, 200 feet in front of it. Or the, you know, I mean, it’s, I mean, it’s a clear blue sky, and there’s an object right in front of the helicopter.
[30:00] Um, and the people in the helicopter said at the time that they couldn’t see anything, even though we could, we could see it from the ground. Um, and then, I mean, but meanwhile, all of their instruments are going haywire. Yeah. So there was an effect. So why couldn’t they see it? Maybe it was just out of view, who knows? Um, so it wasn’t a lens flare. And it certainly wasn’t a seagull, Nick. Not in the desert, anyway. I mean, I’m all for it. I’m sure Mick would too, hopefully. Um, you know, uh, James Fowler, you know, we know he’s left and moved on working with a new company, uh, you know, all the best to him. But am I right in saying some of the technology being utilized by Skywatcher was proprietary to him specifically, maybe the dog whistle even? Is that still going to be able to be used by Skywatcher? How’s that going to look going forward?
[31:03] Um, I’m not sure that we need the dog whistle at this point. And maybe there are ways to recreate it. Um, you know, I, I’m not a party to the discussions around that. Um, and so we’ll see where that goes. I mean, James is not like gone and forgotten. I mean, I could, I could signal chat him right now. And so he’s there to help us. But you know, my take on things is, uh, you know, James has a life to live and a family to feed. And maybe his focus isn’t entirely on UAP. He certainly has an interest in it. And maybe he has, uh, you know, a company to build and an opportunity that actually we all see now in terms of detecting drones. And, um, you know, if he wants to run a company like that, then, uh, we’re running around with a bunch of, uh, UAPologists might not be, um, to that benefit.
[32:17] Yeah. I think we get lost in it sometimes that we forget that there is a life outside of this subject. So I appreciate it. And a life you have to live. I mean, you know, Alex and I both have the means to do what we want when we want. Not everybody does. Sure. Of course. And are the psionic assets still being utilized like they were, you know, last year? And, uh, and I’d like to get your overall view on that because that’s, you know, is that a consciousness based? Is this a whole new, adding a whole new angle to this very technical data driven collection system? Well, I mean, that’s one of the reasons why sort of a sister operation, uh, of Skywatcher, uh, is investigating aspects of. how psionic, so-called, alleged, might be part of this. I mean, do humans have an extrasensory
[33:22] perception? I mean, I’ve certainly seen plenty of evidence of it, that some sort of capacity exists. Now, is it scientifically validated in a way that some of my colleagues would agree with? No. Because it either hasn’t been done correctly, in terms of the kinds of studies, or whatever the talent is, is not something you can turn on and off with a switch. Right. So, again, the technologies have only just become available, that allow you to look at the brain in a way that allows you to see, in real time, changes that might be occurring when some of these kinds of claimed events occur. And so, you know, we’ve all heard of CE5, and so certainly Skywatcher didn’t invent that concept. And I don’t think anybody in the last hundred years invented the concept of CE5. People have meditated and claimed to talk to
[34:49] the gods or other entities for thousands of years, often with plant medicine-based help. So, you know, I don’t know what it means, but it’s certainly worth exploring. But I think there’s perhaps a more scientific way to take the question. If you are an advanced civilization, perhaps you have access to a level of the universe where you can read things that are happening at a distance, purely through technology, not through any magic potions or, you know, anything that would be considered paranormal. So, you know, if you’re a million years ahead, you might have sensor systems that can read what’s going on in a person’s brain at a distance without it being consciousness-based, whatever consciousness is. Could be just simple science. And, you know, I mean, there have been papers that have just come out even recently about this kind of notion where things can be detected. We now know that, for instance, you can put sensors on a person’s head and read their dreams using large language models. You know, that’s just remarkable. A hundred years, 10 years ago, people would laugh
[36:36] at you if you said you were going to do that. So, you know, we’re constantly living in this updated science fiction movie where capabilities that we can imagine or we think are in the distant future are actually today. Right. Absolutely. And available. So, I don’t, I never underappreciate human capability and smarts to accomplish something like this. And if you’re a civilization that’s a million years ahead of us, I don’t doubt that you could do a lot. I mean, at that point, you’re probably a Kardashev level 5 civilization. Yes, indeed. Indeed. Well, okay. Last thing with Skywatcher then, you know, for everyone out there that thinks that it’s all falling apart, you can just, you know, it is all going ahead. It’s all being done the proper way. So, there’s nothing to worry about. Yeah. And there might be a day when Skywatcher doesn’t need to
[37:38] exist. You know, the whole idea of Skywatcher is to show that something like this can be done. And it can be done in a serious way. I mean, I would, I frankly hope that if the UAP Defense Act, UAPDA Disclosure Act is passed, because then the information that can be allowed to be out can be let out. And the stuff that needs to be kept secret, stay secret. Again, I’m not, I would never advocate for a data dump. And so, you know, call it controlled disclosure, what have you. It needs to be done the proper way. And, you know, if any of the claims are true, there are reasons why you want to be methodical about it. I’d like to stick with science. And Beatrice Villareal recently put out a paper and there’s
[38:50] evidence potentially of these mirror-like, possibly artificial objects in Earth’s orbit. I’m wondering if you had any thoughts on her work. Yeah, I, you know, I’ve read the papers and they look fantastic. Again, I’m not an expert in the kind of cartography that she was doing. But, you know, she did it right. In other words, she kept most of her conclusions quiet until the paper was published, or at least put on the archive, you know, still under review. You know, she double-checked herself. She put all the methods there. So anybody can take a look at it. And, you know, she, frankly, again, did it the right way by making the science almost boring. And simply didactic listing of the facts
[39:48] without sensational claims. You know, science papers should be boring. You can perceive them as being an exciting result. But they’re not meant to be full of hyperbole. And I think she’s done just a yeoman’s job at this and she’s done a great job, frankly. Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more. Wonderful, wonderful person. I mean, it’s exciting. I mean, think about it. You know, these photographic plates were collected before we had satellites. Things are appearing and disappearing. Now, you know, the usual chorus of pseudoskeptics are notably quiet because Beatrice crossed her T’s and dotted her I’s. And, again, she’s making no explosive claims about things. So let’s just see where it goes. Yep. Couldn’t agree more. Yeah, absolutely. Now, Gary, we’re about two
[41:07] months away from the annual Sol Convention conference and this time it’s going to be held in Italy over here in Europe. So any real goals or even reasons why Italy? Well, I mean, because the Europeans were complaining they didn’t want to come all the way to California again. Fair enough. And so, you know, so we had it in Italy and we’re having it in Italy. And so now the Americans are complaining they don’t want to fly all the way to Italy. So, you know, it’ll be a chance for a different venue, a different kind of setting and perhaps more relaxed because, you know, it’s in the Lake District. So I really recommend any Europeans get your tickets fast because it’s going to fill up. And, you know, it’ll be I think the way to look at it is both the prior Sol
[42:07] meetings, there was such a positive air amongst the participants that people who are, let’s say, relatively new to the framework felt that they found their common kin and that there could be discussions about this matter in a mature setting. So I’m excited about that. Does Sol have any long term goals at the moment as it’s evolving? You know, I don’t think that we’ve changed much from what it is that we’re wanting to do. It’s pretty much, I mean, look, I’d love to be everything, but I think the goal of being seen as a leading organization to push forward the discussion in a broadly academic sense is different, say, than SCU, which is interested in pushing it forward in a purely scientific sense, is different than the John Mack Institute, is different than Unhidden, you know, which is doing Experiencer and Trump. John Mack Institute being around Experiencers is different than MUFON, et cetera. But so I don’t feel that having more organizations
[43:44] is a problem to the extent that we can. We’re trying to organize and coordinate amongst the various groups who want to participate in discussion to say, hey, we have volunteers who want to do this, but we’re not doing that. So can we hand them to you? Do you have any volunteers? I mean, John Priestland and I have been talking, for instance, because I get a lot of emails asking for, let’s say, medical help or clearly psychiatric help. So, you know, John’s a medical psychiatrist, I think. So he can advise me on things that I don’t know anything about. And so I want to make sure that I construct an answer to the dozens of emails in this regard in a way that respects the request, but doesn’t offer medical advice because I’m not an MD.
[44:53] And even if I were an MD, you know, you’re not supposed to offer advice through email. And so, you know, I think we are kind of in a time where the groups are consolidating their positions and making sure that they can move forward. And so it’s kind of like, you know, moving up the scale carefully. And what’s exciting, I think, most to me are the number of officials around the world and officials within the US government who are notably talking about the matter. You know, and saying, saying, some of them coming right out and saying it, there’s something here. You know, I mean, if, if that isn’t disclosure, I don’t know what is. Look, there’s people who still think the earth is flat.
[46:04] And so I don’t have a problem with where things are today. Because I feel like, you know, even the people previously who didn’t want the UAPDA to pass because there was eminent domain in it are now more comfortable because the eminent domain language has been buffered a little bit, which is the right thing to do. And so, you know, we’ll see who tries to get in the way. But the world’s not in the most stable position right now. And so it is fair to ask, is this matter important enough, given everything else that’s going on? Frankly, I never think that that kind of language or excuse is ever a reason not to do something important. But we have to recognize that the people that who we’ve elected to be in power or to make decisions for us have a lot on their plate. I mean, I can barely answer my own emails, never mind do all the other stuff that people ascribe to me. By the way, I have like, as far as most people are concerned, they think that I have like some layer in an Antarctic cavern
[47:43] somewhere, you know, all my research funded by, you know, the deep state. Right. Well, yeah, that’s laughable. Well, Gary, listen, at this point, I’d like to jump into some questions from social media. Before I ask the first one, I just want to urge everybody, if you look in the description of this video, I will be placing the Sol Foundation website where you can go and get your tickets if you’re interested in attending the European conference in October in Italy. And also, I will post the link to the Tridactyls DICOM data as well, if anyone’s interested in going to take a look. So let’s jump into some questions here. The first one comes from The Unclassified on X. If you were to design an experiment that treats consciousness as a measurable force in physics rather than a byproduct of biology, what would be your first hypothesis to test? Oh, my. As a measurable force.
[48:48] Well, I think there’s two ways. I mean, if a measurable force is, can you see something at a distance? The remote viewing experiments have already been designed, well designed by people. So, you know, just go look up how Putoff and others have done that. If you’re interested in psychokinesis as a measurable force, then, you know, there’s other people who’ve done those kinds of experimental designs. If you’re interested in telepathy, then there’s lots of ways that you can measure that. Try to, at least, whether you can convince anybody that the results are real. I mean, I’ve seen experiments done recently with so-called telepathy, and I can’t explain how they got, how it happened. You know, assuming that everything I’m seeing is real. You know, I think perhaps the most important way to consider it is, you know, consciousness as intent. You know, look, I can use my consciousness to make this pair of scissors move around, right? So, the question is whether perception
[50:20] of reality creates that reality. You know, there’s lots of discussion about that, the whole question of intent, that, you know, these so-called synchronicities that seem to occur, that the stuff that you need seems to show up just at the time when you need it. And I’ve had that happen to me many times in my life, and perhaps it’s just coincidence and observer bias that I’m paying attention when I want something, and so I think it’s magic when it happened, whereas it has nothing to do with anything other than coincidence. So, it’s a great question. You know, I think there’s other people, you know, that’s a, that’s a hundred million dollar set of experiments. Right, yeah. You know, I mean, people have tried the random number generator effect where if you have a random number generator, can you make it more or less? I was watching a short video by Tyler Henry the other day, the medium, and, you know, he was recounting how prior mental bias that you’re, you believe in psychic power versus you don’t believe in it, that those who don’t believe in it when they try to guess some random thing, they’re more wrong than statistics should allow, as opposed to those who believe in it, they’re slightly more
[52:08] able to do something than statistics should allow. So, almost like your intent creates an outcome subconsciously. So, almost like you have this aura around you that creates your local reality. Wow, okay. Wow. I’ve got to go, I haven’t seen it. I have to go and look up that data, but. Yeah, no, wonderful, wonderful. I’m going to butcher this, I’ve tried it every time. UAP Tech asks, knowing what he knows about the Kodai Putamen, does he intend to pursue public data collection from experiences and go for peer-reviewed publication? Yes, and it’s being done, but we’re starting very slowly. I’m being careful because I’m trying not to put anybody in a difficult position. So, yes, it’s being done. Again, it’s always a matter of funding, like even just the materials that I am analyzing or that I’ve agreed to analyze. People are like, oh, when is Gary ever going to do this? Well, if you want to deposit $50,000 in my bank account
[53:34] that I can, you know, for my lab so that I can do the experiments, that would be great. So, short answer is, you know, when the money’s available. Sure, sure. Just a follow-up from me on that is, will it be using a completely new data set to previous studies that you’ve done? What, sorry? Would it be using a new data set of experience or records? Yeah, I think you need, for instance, for so-called experiencers, you need some kind of validation protocol as to, you know, was there another person who saw the event at the time of the event? You know, frankly, I would want to use a lie detector test on people to make sure that they’re telling the truth, you know, because that would be at least a filtering device.
[54:39] So, that would be the two things. And then you want to do a psychological exam on the people. But once you’re starting to get into this realm, now you’re talking about requiring institutional review boards, meaning to make sure that you’re doing things ethically. You know, and if you’re, because if you’re doing a psychological exam on people, you know, they have to be blinded. You have to do HIPAA because nobody wants their psychological exams out there on the internet, et cetera, et cetera. So, all of these things start adding up the costs. I mean, you know why drugs cost so much? Not the stuff you buy in the street corner, but drugs cost a lot because the clinical trials have so many built-in safeguards for the patient that you, it just ups the, you know, the requirements. And then drugs get pulled
[55:40] in clinical trials very easily because side effects within people. The Lucid Lens says, I remember a year or two ago hearing Gary speak about work, a colleague was working related to a shadow biome. I recall his excitement around the discovery and was wondering if there was any update and a potential connection to non-human intelligence. Yeah, he wasn’t a colleague. He was a wildlife, and is, a wildlife tourist, basically someone who takes ranger, let’s call him, in South Africa or Zimbabwe, I forget which. And so he had images of things that looked odd with a drone. And so I was and so I actually paid for a new drone and camera for him and sent it to him, you know, out in his locale. So he’s put all this stuff out on the internet. I don’t know where it is. And again, it was, I was excited about it and still am. But again, it requires more people to get involved and, you know,
[57:10] help pay for it. There’s only so many drones I can buy. It was like $7,500. But you say he’s already put some information out online. Are you able to give a name or anywhere we can maybe go? I can’t remember his name offhand and it’s not secret. You know, it’s pictures of these objects kind of moving and they’re often associated with fires. And so people have said, oh, well, this is just ash. Well, you know, ash doesn’t move at 50 miles an hour. And, you know, they’re pretty clearly, they’re very odd. Very odd. And so, again, they’re in this betwixt and between where you’re looking at them and you’re going, I don’t understand that. It’s really interesting. And I’m not willing to just dismiss them as flying ash, you know, because so it’s interesting. Sounds, it does sound it definitely. And if you do remember, please message me on Signal because I’d be interested.
[58:13] I’m terrible with names. I can’t remember methods and ideas since I was five years old. Names, I’m terrible at. No problem. No problem. Frog Machine asks, what do you think is occurring during a full release dose of 5-MeO DMT? MeO DMT. Now, that’s a different one than regular DMT, if I remember correctly. That’s the methoxy DMT is a wholly different experience, I understand, from regular DMT in Ayahuasca. And so let’s just say DMT. Because what do I think? At, you know, if I put on a fully mainstream scientist’s hat, I think you’re accessing the imagination core in your brain that helps you generate dreams. And, you know, all the psychedelic fractal geometries that are seen are just simply a derivative of how the brain functions somehow. And that’s, so that’s putting on my mainstream hat. If I put on my, you know, Wu hat,
[59:48] I should get that Wu hat. And, you know, I might imagine that that allows Roger Penrose’s and Stuart Hameroff’s microtubules to access some other level of reality that our upper level brains don’t access. You know, I mean, you have to remember that every single one of your atoms sits in space-time. And the components that make up those atoms aren’t even solid. They’re just vibrating objects as best as we can think of them. And so they’re sitting in a substrate and down in a realm where we don’t even understand how it’s operating. And so to think that we understand how all these particles might or might not interact when we can’t even explain quantum entanglement fully is just, it’s just typical human arrogance. So, I mean, entanglement is real,
[61:05] meaning that there’s somehow access from this point to another point on the other side of the universe if two particles were entangled. So there’s some kind of communication, maybe. Maybe a quantum physicist would tell me it’s not really communication, Gary. It’s something else. But so, I don’t know, it kind of excites me to think that there might be some other way that our brains operate in space-time than the simple mechanics that we learned in physics 101 as kids. I mean, I perceive you and my meat brain sees a guy in front of a microscope, but in reality, you’re just a bunch of, you know, vibrating objects in space-time that my brain reduces to something sufficient enough for us to interact. But we’re interacting via quantum waves. Yeah. Interesting. Do you know, I had a lot of people who were asking things completely
[62:24] outside of your work and of UAP and just generally curious, and so this one kind of sums it up and we’ll end on this one. G asks, what does he do for fun? What do I do for fun? Well, I go to the equivalent of raves. Oh, wow. I have a lot of fun there, you know. No DMT though? No, no, no, no, no drugs. Alcohol. You know, so I go, I mean, I was in a giant party in Mykonos last, end of last summer. I brought three of my best friends. I rented a villa and flew them all out and we had a blast. It was, what’s it called? Excelsior party. It’s a gay rave. It’s gay. So I have fun there. It’s a beautiful setting. And so I do that. You know, I have my plant collections. Yes, I was going to say, I see that on Instagram. Yeah, my plant collections and I, you know, I play video games occasionally.
[63:44] Amazing. Favourite game at the moment? Anything? League of Legends is my favourite. Okay. It’s, you know, it’s something to just kind of turn your brain off. I’m terrible at it, by the way. Absolutely. Doesn’t matter. If the escapism, I get it. I absolutely get it. I’ve never, I’ve never gotten out of bronze level more than a few games. Right. There’s about 10 levels above bronze that, you know, are way out of my league. Well, listen, Gary, I just want to thank you. As always, it’s always an honour to speak with you. So thank you so much. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.