Unveiling the Truth: Garry Nolan’s Journey in UFO Research

Welcome to Bay Area Innovators. We are back with Dr. Gary Nolan. Today we'll change to a different topic. Unidentified flying objects, also known as UAPs. They said this is an alien and I said okay why don't you give me a little piece of it and I can do a DNA analysis, tell you what it is. The UFO is kind of sitting there and suddenly something appears to drop from the UFO. Certainly it's not a U.S. phenomenon. I mean there have been craft claimed to come down in Brazil, in Mexico, China, Russia, UK, Australia. They're all there. The government has already said UFOs are real. Putting the data out allows other people to think about it. Get it out there rather than just hoarding it. I'm not saying I'm right about it being aliens or extraterrestrials. I'm saying it's right to ask the question and how dare you tell me I shouldn't. This is Bay Area Innovators and I'm your host Steve Ispas. Thank you for watching. We're here with Dr. Nolan from Stanford University in the second episode. Last week we talked about biotechnology. We talked about these companies. This week we'll have a slightly different topic. Dr. Nolan, I'd like to switch topics from last week and talk about some of your interests that you had lately about unidentified flying objects or UAP as they're described right now. It's a very different topic, at least on the surface, from biology and technology. Tell us how did you get into it? You were approached, I believe, by some officials that will look for your expertise, right? My first entree into the area was actually to do the DNA sequence of a mummy that somebody had discovered in the Atacama Desert. Some people say stolen, so I don't want to prejudge it. So it looked very unusual and given the zeitgeist of what people think aliens are supposed to look like, they said this is an alien. I said, okay, well why don't you give me a little piece of it and I can do a DNA analysis, if it has DNA, and tell you what it is. So I basically did it in my spare time myself and started getting results and then realized in looking at the results that I was not the right person to verify the results and certainly some of the things that needed to be done, so I brought in a larger team. One of the teams I brought in was actually Roche. I'd actually created another company called BINA, which was an analytics company for genomic DNA. Roche had this big bioinformatics program that, I mean not program, 400 people now that we had sold to them, so they were willing to help me because they knew who I was. So they and then some other students in the Department of Genetics and other students in another program in the Department of Medicine and we looked at it and we basically said, okay, this is human and here are the mutations that we think might relate to what it looks like and that was really all we did. We published it and I actually didn't expect it to be that big of a deal. It went worldwide. I mean every newspaper, I mean you think about it in retrospect, what's a better clickbait than Stanford professor sequences alien baby, right? And we showed it wasn't, but it caused a bit of a storm of controversy because then anthropologists got involved and said we shouldn't have been involved with it, etc. We basically said we didn't know what we were, you know, somebody gave it to us. Go talk to them. But the conclusion was it was a normal, it was normal human. Actually the UFO community didn't like me for that. There were people in the community who said that I'd been paid off by the CIA to lie, you know, because I actually did get a grant from the DOD to do ovarian cancer research and so right around that time, so it was perfect for the conspiracy theorists to basically say, oh well, he was paid off with a grant. It was only three million dollars. If I was going to be paid off to hide aliens and a potential Nobel Prize, it would cost me a little bit more than three million. So I basically was suddenly out there willing to talk about weird things like this and apply science. Just apply the science. It was then that I apparently became known to people in the government who had been investigating military and diplomatic personnel who were being harmed unknown ways. And some of them, they were hearing buzzing in their ears, they were horrible damage to their bodies, and some of those individuals had claimed to see UFOs in a very small proportion. So representatives of the government who had access to the medical data and somebody from an aerospace corporation came and visited my lab unannounced, knocked on the door and said, we want to talk to you because we want to use CyTOF because we're doing medical workups of these individuals. We asked around and said, who has the best blood analysis system? Well, there's this guy Nolan at Stanford who has this thing called CyTOF and can you help us? And I said, okay, well, show me the data. You're telling me that these people were harmed. Show me I need to see the broad data. And so they started bringing out x-rays and MRIs of the internal scarring that had gone on with some of these individuals. And so I said, okay, well, that's clear. That's not imagined. That's not a hallucination. That's not, you know, that's clear. So I want to talk to those people because I don't know. I mean, the images that were shown could just as easily have been multiple sclerosis or something else. And so I went and I flew out and talked to some of the people. And as far as I could tell, looking at their body language, they weren't lying. They could be lying, but they had no reason to. And they certainly were obviously damaged. I mean, it wasn't an imagination. It wasn't a bone spur. I then got involved with, you know, three or four years looking at these individuals. And it turned out without going into the full history of it that the majority of those patients that we had were actually the first of the recognized or what I would think of as recognized Havana syndrome. So Havana syndrome has been in the news recently. You know, the CIA tried to downplay it, but now the NIH has come out and said, yeah, it's real. And we were wrong. The study we did previously was contaminated and a bad study. And the government has gotten deeply involved with it. And there's probably some state actor or non-state actor who's using energy weapons to hurt people. I mean, it's not a fabrication. I mean, I think the Cuban government was supposedly... I think they were at least, they were probably, if not doing it, aware of it. And it was imagined. And I've been told that it was the Russians. And we have our own energy weapons, just a microwave device that shoots in a direction. There's nothing science fiction about it. It's just, you know, so not all of the patients were explained by this, right? After you removed the ones that were clearly what is now known as Havana syndrome, you were left with, frankly, all the people who said that, or who said, okay, we saw a UFO. So I thought, oh, that's interesting. What do I do about that? You know, how do I analyze that? So I started talking to some of my colleagues and they said, oh, don't touch it. I said, why? It's interesting. I mean, they're clearly damaged. The data is there. I'm not coming to the conclusion that it's aliens. I'm just saying, let's get into it. Let's ask. And they said, you're going to ruin your reputation, Gary. Just for looking at it. Just for looking at it. And that goes back to what we talked about last week, where I don't like people telling me not to do something when I know I'm right. I'm not saying I'm right about it being aliens or extraterrestrials. I'm saying it's right to ask the question. And how dare you tell me I shouldn't ask the question? Because again, lost opportunity. No matter what it is, the data is apparently real. If I can get another scientist to agree that the data is real, it's not only up to me to answer the question that might arise from what the data means. So now I can have a professional conversation with somebody else, another scientist or a layperson to say, okay, well, you helped me come up with ideas. Don't just criticize me for asking the question. Help solve the puzzle. Can you share more of what the data actually showed or what the damage was or what the actual? Yeah, well, I mean, the worst was the brain lesions. I mean, dead areas of the brain that, you know, you can't survive without certain parts of your brain. And that was clear. It was 100% there. You know, there was trauma associated with the events, trauma associated with being disbelieved by both medical doctors and your colleagues who had been hurt, the people who'd been hurt. That kind of brought out the protector in me. You know, I don't like people being bullied. I don't need to agree that they saw a UFO. I need to just understand that they saw something, that they interpreted as a UFO. That doesn't matter to me. It's what happened to them and medically is what's important. And if you have it happening in different people around the country, then you're entering a realm where it's reproducible, or at least you're getting people coming in with reproducible experiences. So it's kind of starting to become science. Once, though, you take a step up and once you start getting into this, you go, okay, well, what is going on with this whole UFO thing? You know, where's the data for the UFOs? And then I got introduced to people like Lou Elizondo, who was the one who brought the videos out that ended up in the New York Times. And I said, okay, well, show me some data. Well, actually, I saw those videos two weeks before it came out in the New York Times at a bar overlooking the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. And so, you know, the hair stood on end. My hair stood on end. I've seen lots of other data now. And it's like, okay, the data's real. So what do you do about it? How do you answer it? And again, for some scientists, I mean, like me, I want to solve problems. And I see this as a huge problem or opportunity. Because if we can understand what these things are, we can either put to rest the story of aliens and say, well, look, it's a natural phenomenon and it's some sort of plasma balls, ball lightning or whatever, and that explains it all. Well, it doesn't explain it all. You have a hard time explaining these ships and things that seem to drop from ships that I've been involved in analyzing and published papers on. And so why not do it? I mean, I'm at this point in my career, I mean, I'm 63 years old. I got started on it when I was like 55. Why not? I've climbed the mountains. Now it's time to have fun. To enable this, I started a foundation, a charitable foundation called the Soul Foundation with other people who are interested in the area. And we've garnered a lot of funding. And the idea there is we're creating a perimeter, a room within which scientists can come and talk about this credibly. We had our first one at Stanford. Without being harassed. Without being harassed. And so we had our first one at Stanford, 250-ish people. Is it open to everyone? Well, it's open to everyone, but it's invite-only, because otherwise you'd have thousands of people there and you can't. So we made sure that the people who we're inviting were professionals, were scientists, engineers. We invited a lot of people who were just kind of off the street, but we had them apply. And then we tried to get the right balance of people. And the people who ended up coming were so thankful that they could be in a place where their ideas were respected, but they were not the crazy tinfoil hat. People weren't running around in alien costumes. It was a bunch of scientists and professionals and government people. We had 10 people from these other important foundations. I won't name them that would show up. I mean, we're running one coming up in November. A bunch of people from the FBI want to come because they have a program looking at these things. Not because they believe in them. They have agents who have people come to them and say, this is what we saw. There was the National Sheriff's Organization also have published now rules about how to engage with the public on this. It's not agreeing that they're real. It's agreeing that the phenomenon is being reported by multiple people in the public. And so we need a deterministic plan of how it is that we deal with this. People aren't just laughed at. And this is what the government did actually. So the Navy put out rules two or three years ago now where they said, we want you to report this stuff. It will not hurt your promotion. All we want you to do is to provide the data, not provide a conclusion. Because conclusions can be disproven. There's only so many times you can come to an absolute conclusion and you're proven wrong that people stop listening to you. But if you come to them with data that's provable, then you're put in a good position. Now, I have a counterpart at Harvard. His name is Avi Loeb. And Avi was the chairman of astronomy at Harvard. That's a pretty significant position. Super smart guy. He had seen data for a interstellar meteor, meaning a meteor that, based on its trajectory, clearly came from outside of our solar system. And it moved in ways, he felt, as it was exiting our solar system that said it was non-natural. And he proposed, didn't conclude, he just proposed that the way that it moved might be indicative of a mechanism, that it was made by somebody or something. It wasn't natural. Oh my god, he was absolutely, it was just the reaction from his colleagues was considerably bad. But luckily, he reacted to that kind of skepticism with the same kind of way that I did, which is this kind of righteous indignation. How dare you tell me that the question is off the table? Or how dare you tell me that this speculation should not be allowed? The government has funded and the public has funded something called SETI, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, which is fine and good. But the problem with SETI is they're looking for stuff that's like a hundred million light years away. And so you can never prove it. So it's a very safe thing to do. But once you bring it a little closer to home, suddenly that's where people start going, oh, you know, we're fine with it being over there because once it's over there, we don't believe it. It can never be here. Now, I know, you know, as a host, we always want to hear something amazing or something that you haven't shared before. What can you show us? What can you tell us about some actual things that you experienced or that you have seen? I heard that there are pieces of these alien spaceships that have been found. And I think there's someone that's collecting them. Is it Jacques Vallée or someone that? Yeah, well, people, I mean, Jacques Vallée is a very well-known figure. Hal Puthoff. He's the one that's collecting them, right? Yeah, well, Hal and a lot of people are. Jacques, who I consider to be my mentor, lives in San Francisco. He's an astronomer. He's a venture capitalist. He's, you know, worked on some of the early AI. But he's been interested in the UFO field for a while, but again, approaching it as a scientist. Because of his stature in the field had been brought, many objects that people claimed had been associated with sightings of UFOs. Most of them were sort of things that were left behind or had been dropped off of UFOs. So there's a recurring theme that you see associated with a lot of UFOs. Several, not a lot. And that is the UFO is kind of sitting there and suddenly, as seen at night, something appears to drop from the UFO or UAP, unidentified anomalous phenomenon. And one of these, one of the best documented events is what's called the Council Bluffs event. Council Bluffs, Iowa. It's nighttime, mid evening. People see what looks like a UFO. I actually have a drawing of what one of the witnesses said that they saw. It's light, it's bright and flashing. And then something seems to drop off of it. And, you know, several groups converged because they thought maybe it was a plane that had crashed because it was an airport not too far away. And they found a big pool of molten metal, like 30, 40 pounds of it in the middle of the winter on the ground near a pond, small lake. So the police show up, they take statements, they take pictures. I actually have the original Polaroids of the event. And people collected samples. And those samples were, quite a bit of early work was done on it by other scientists. And they had concluded that, well, first of all, there's no way to get that much metal there in a liquid form without some considerable effort. And then just dump it in the middle of the field. But if you dumped it in the field, that's different than something dropping it from the sky. So it was just basically concluded that it couldn't be a helicopter that dropped molten metal because there was no sound associated with it. And the people who were close enough said that there was no sound. It didn't have any prosaic, natural, easy explanations. So it just sort of sat there. And Jacques had this and many other interesting pieces. And I said, OK, well, this one has the science behind it. Let's replicate the science and see if there's anything new that we can do. And so the new thing that we did was we did a spatial analysis of the distribution of elements in the metal. And using one of the instruments that had been developed in my lab, the multiplex ion beam imager, which is a mass spectrometer that can look at metals. And so what we found was that it was a mixture, an uneven mixture of metals. So I explain it this way, that if you had three kinds of ice cream, strawberry, vanilla, and chocolate, and you let them melt in a cup or a bowl, and then you swirl it just a little bit, if you look here, maybe it's pure vanilla. But here it's a mixture of vanilla and chocolate or chocolate and strawberry. That's how they were mixed? They were partially mixed, as opposed to if I put it in a blender. Anywhere I look, it'll be the same because I mixed it. But other than that, it was normal? It was normal metals, normal isotopes. Now, I actually got another piece of it just recently as part of a documentary, conveyed the same observation. But now I have three other metals from Australia, from nearby, as it turns out, and other places around the world, where the same pattern of events occurs. Something is seen, it drops off this metal. The metals are different in each time. One of them is like aluminum. Another one is almost pure silicon. Pure to the level that you would need a Silicon Valley foundry to make. But it was dropped in the middle of a beach in Ubatuba. Pounds and pounds and pounds of it. Why? That was more the question. Is it from a UFO? Why would an object drop these metals and what does it mean about what the object is? Is it part of their propulsion? Again, just speculating. Is it part of their kitchen apparatus? Do they eat metals? I don't know. But analyzing it and then putting that information out, putting the data out, allows other people to think about it, get it out there, rather than just hoarding it. Exactly, yeah. Well, I want to ask you two things. Do you think we're going through a soft disclosure at this point in time? And after that, why are there so many people resistant to this idea? If you take a survey, I would assume that a lot of the general population believes that aliens do exist, they're around. I would guess it's more than 50%. But once you actually have a fact, you actually have documented fact, they jump like, oh, no, no, that's... Yeah, I think, well, there's many things going on there. Maybe the soft disclosure first. Okay. So, soft disclosure. So, the word disclosure for your audience is used as a catch-all for telling people that disclosure is UFOs are real, aliens or whatever it is are real, and we know about them. Now, the government has already said UFOs are real. In some ways. In some ways. I mean, at least the data is real. What the government has said is the data is real. It's unidentified. It doesn't mean it's an alien. It just says that they're real. So, the data is real. So, that's a form of disclosure. So, as far as the disclosure, possibly, you know, one excuse could be that if too much information is revealed to the public at one time, people won't be able to take it. They'll go crazy. They'll be paranoid. They can't sleep at night. So, let's release it gradually, you know. Do you think that's what's happening? So, I mean, here's the problem with any kind of disclosure is each answer leads to more questions. So, if the government comes out and says, it's 100% real. I mean, we've already said it's 100% real, you know, but we don't understand what it is. If they say that they do know what it is, or that they've known what it is, then the next question is, why have you been lying to us all of this time? And what else have you been lying to us about? And so, you know, there's all kinds of, I mean, this discussion has been going on behind the scenes. There's all kinds of liability possibilities. If you had such a craft and you gave it to one company, is that a disservice to another company? If you did it in a no-bid, you know, provision of something that is incalculably valuable. Did that company make a profit on something and that you didn't disclose to your investors how you were making the profit and you hid the money and the value some other way? So, is that fraud? You know, was anybody hurt? There are claims of people being threatened. David Grush, the guy who sat in front of Congress and swore on the Bible that he would tell the truth, talked about the multiple witnesses that he talked to in the government, because he was actually tasked by Congress to do so, that, yeah, we have a reverse engineering program of these craft. Now, the question, this is sort of an interesting side discussion, the question that anybody naturally would ask is, well, if these things are so advanced, why do they crash? I mean, a simple answer is that it doesn't matter maybe how advanced you are, the means by which they propel themselves is inherently unstable. It's like you're driving a Tesla at 300 miles an hour on a road, you know, curvy, etc. All it takes is one slight imbalance and everything goes kablooey. Well, I mean, maybe there's different factions or different groups and they fight each other, right? That's a possibility. That's another possibility. I mean, I'm just going to, I'm going to stick with, I'm going to stick with accident. Maybe it's an accident, but maybe it's like these things are just inherently unstable. So, but again, the observation, like the metals, tells you something about what the possibilities might be if they are willing to take the risk of an inadvertent, occasional crash to travel that fast, then it's just a risk they're willing to take. I mean, how many airline, you know, or small Cessnas do we lose every year? People are willing to take the risk. Well, maybe they're willing to take the risk as well. Their risk is our potential benefit though. So, if we can collect those materials, then maybe we benefit. People often say, well, how many craft does the U.S. have? Various claims as to how many there might be. I'm not even going to mention a number. But certainly it's not a U.S. phenomenon. I mean, there have been craft claimed to come down in Mexico, China, Russia, U.K., Australia. They're all there, right? There's one claimed in Korea. Plenty of people can have access to it. So, now going back to my second question is, given the fact that probably most people would agree, I would say more than 50% would agree that aliens are real, they exist, when it comes to actually having a documented event or even a scientific proven event, they'll say, you're crazy, no, this doesn't exist. Do you think they're in some way threatened? Well, I think, yeah, I mean, I think your place in the hierarchy of being is threatened. You know, humans like to think of themselves as the top of the intellectual pyramid. If we're not, then somebody maybe more than us, well, what is it that they are or capable of doing? And if they are so smart, why aren't they helping us? Sort of a question. So, you start to call into question what you would say might be the agenda. I mean, I don't know that there's an agenda. I'm not even sure that we're, you know, if they exist, and I'm not saying that they do, I'm just, I'm only just telling you the data, then we might not be their sole point in being here. They might have a wholly different set of things going on, and we're just the squirrels in the corner of the yard, up in the tree, doing something. And occasionally they come in and monitor that we're not doing anything we shouldn't be doing. But otherwise, they're busy with something else. So, it's this natural egocentrism of humanity to think that if something is looking at us, it's because they're really interested in us. And then all these conspiracy theories about that they created humanity and stuff, and I just see no reason for that. It's great speculation, but I don't see that there's any data that supports it. But I mean, I want to go back to a point that you say about whether or not aliens are real or here or 50%. I think 50, if you sit down with people and you talk with them realistically about it, the first question that you ask is not, are they here? But the first question really should be, can they be here? Because if you can't get beyond the question of can they be here, you're never going to be able to say they are here. All right, so SETI is quite happy with them being up there, and then saying they can't get here. And yet simple physics tells you that if you even only traveled at 10,000 miles an hour, you could get from one side of our galaxy across 100 million light years to the other side of the galaxy at 10,000 miles an hour in five billion years. Okay, that's a long time, but who cares? It's already happened. Those five billion years have already happened. The universe is 14 billion years old. So if there was a civilization that arose five billion years ago, it could be everywhere, just with conventional rockets, never mind warps. Okay, so it can be here by conventional means. It doesn't mean that the person or the thing that got on the craft in the first day is the same thing that exited over here. It could be an artificial intelligence that got here and just built more copies of what was there. It carried the DNA information in a computer code and then recreated it here. Okay, maybe that. I don't know. So it can be here. So once you said it can be here, and most people, in fact, most public, let's say, interviews of people on the street, it's remarkable the conclusion that they come to is that it would be an amazing waste of space, of opportunity, that there has to be something else out there, given how big the universe is. The only question is, can it get here? Now, people like Neil deGrasse Tyson would like to say they couldn't be here. Well, I think Neil's just wrong. He's entitled to his opinion. I'm entitled to mine. So it can be here. And if it is here, then the likelihood that it got here just when we became aware that it could be here, like in the 1940s, is ridiculous. It could easily have been here a million years ago or two million years ago. It could have been here all along. Because once you're talking about spans of time of five billion years, anything's possible. I mean, our solar system only arose in the last four to eight billion years ago. Somebody else could have been flying by and said, oh, there's a star system that might form and become something a few billion years from now. So once you start thinking in those terms, you realize what's possible. Let's watch a clip for a minute and a half. Okay. Area 51 and UFOs. If I was the president, I'd go through everything to find out what happened. The aliens won't let it happen. They exercise strict control over us. So what I want to talk about this clip specific, this is Jimmy Kimmel interviewing President Obama after his presidency ended. So he's asking him about aliens. And Obama is kind of sarcastic. He's joking. He's saying that, well, no, you can't check out Area 51 because the aliens won't let you. And then he's saying that, because they control us, they completely control us, right? Now, just the way he says all of that, it almost sounds like he's telling the truth. It's kind of like disclosing something through a joke. So I just wonder, do you have any thoughts on that, on the language there? Can you read what's behind it? Well, actually, I mean, people who read body language who are experts in it have actually said that it was pretty clear he was trying to dance around something. But he and Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was quite open about it. Oh, yeah. He said that he'd seen things and that he went in front of the United Nations and said, you know, maybe aliens will bring us all together. We often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside universal threat to make us recognize this common bound. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. Exactly. I remember that quote. He said, yeah. And you've had heads of the former heads of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, which is the DOD's version of the CIA, head of the NSA, National Security Administration, or whatever. These are all very important government departments. And the heads of them have all come out and said, and some of them have been quite explicit, yeah, it's real. And they're real. So you have to ask the question, what is, for the skeptic, the standard of proof? Is the standard an alien comes out and shakes your hand? If that's the standard of proof, I don't have any time for it. If the standard of proof is I need to fly a UFO over a football field full of spectators, that's a different standard. But that was met in Phoenix, Arizona, where giant was seen coming across by tens of thousands of people. Again, there's different standards for different audiences. You can even claim the earth is round, and there's people out there who will deny that it's round and say that the earth is flat. And you can't convince them. And you can't convince them. And so I say, stop trying to convince anybody. You either know what you know because you're sure of it. Don't wait for daddy government to do something. Disclosure can come from the public. Waiting for the government to make up its mind is like waiting for them to refund your tax check. Don't sit around waiting for it. Go out and do it yourself. And so that's what I'm doing. I'm doing it myself. Now, I have a security clearance. Why would they give a Stanford professor a security clearance? And it's related to this. Now, I haven't, even with that, ever come close to touching it, touching something. But it's step one. What Obama said, though, was that they are controlling us. What do you think that means? I don't. I just have no idea what he means. I really don't. I wish I did. But let's just hypothesize. You're an advanced intelligence. You're maybe an artificial intelligence. You can predict what we're going to do years before we do it. So why do you need to control us in some blunt, hammered way? You could probably press here, press there, press here, press there, and get the goal without being crude about it and threatening. Could it be that just the wild speculation that all this AI that's growing so fast is actually driven by the aliens to enable us to be the same as them? I don't know. I think artificial intelligence is just a straightforward outgrowth of the kinds of math that people do. Now, maybe they've planted an idea in somebody's head and said, here's an equation that you dreamt about last night. Maybe. I don't know. And maybe the last question is about how aliens can travel. And if you don't mind, I'm going to show my little experiment here. So let's say we have a distance. We're traveling from New York to San Francisco. And it's a two-dimensional plane that these beings can travel. So they can only go this way, right? And this is not two-dimensional, but as close as we can get to it. So it would take whatever it takes, 2,500 miles to get from here to here. Now, if we had a way to curve space, and this is the easiest way to understand it, if we had a way to curve space and we did this, then the distance between San Francisco and New York would become, if I overlap the two X's, could be a foot, or a meter, or whatever you want it to be, if we had the ability to do that. Now, if we were able to curve three-dimensional space, and so basically you can get out of the space and then come back into this space, you would achieve this fast travel that I think you have seen with the TikTok experiment. Right. Do you think that's a possibility? Well, there's a physicist, a Mexican physicist, by the name of Alcubierre, and he came up with a set of equations that showed, with sufficient energy and sufficient negative energy, which we don't have, you could curve space. And the idea was you create, first of all, a bubble around yourself where you step out of the universe. We now have our own little sub-universe within which the craft operates. This is all theoretical. And then what you do is you create an incline in space where you basically say the forward part of the space is lower than the backwards part, and so what you end up doing is you end up moving through space without actually moving, because you're in your own universe, but your bubble is moving. And it was published in a mainstream journal. People checked the equations and said, well, the equations make sense, but where are you going to get all the energy? I mean, what he calculated at the time was that you would have to blow up the sun, convert all of the energy of the matter in the sun into energy for every second of movement. So you'd basically have to eat the whole universe just to move. So anyway, I mean, it's what theorists do. They play with the math, and they say, okay, well, yeah. But then other scientists came along and said, huh, well, I can bring down the energy requirement to orders of magnitude to a level where it's still not achievable, but now it's possible. And there are some scientists who have thoughts about how you might do it without even any of this kind of energy. So it points out the value of open discussion of your ideas, because he published it in a mainstream journal, showed his methods. He basically opened the eyes of other people who just want to play with ideas. And so that's the value of not stigmatizing an area of science or an area of inquiry. As long as it's not obviously aimed at something negative and you're not hurting anybody, the questions should be asked and the speculation should be on the table until you can take the speculation off the table like we did with the Atacama mummy. So I remember talking to a physicist who is deeply involved with the program, meaning he actually knows a lot about it, and he has top security clearances. And I said, so they're moving really fast, and they're doing it in a way that they don't have an onboard fusion reactor. He said, well, we can't find their energy source. I said, so they're cheating somehow. I said, yeah, you can call it that. Somehow they're accessing levels of energy that are sufficient for them to make this move without exploding the sun every second. So I think one of the things that humanity is good at is, and anybody in the intelligence field or frankly any field of commercialization knows, is that once you know something can be done, then it's a race to doing it yourself. If it can never be done, then you give up. You give up. But if you know it can be done, maybe that's all the incentive you need. Dr. Nolan, thank you so much for your time. I wish you had more time, but I know you have to go. We really appreciate your time. Any final thoughts? Just don't take it off the table. Look up. Support open science, open questions, and tell the skeptics they'd be better off doing something else. Thank you again for your time. Thank you for watching another episode of the Bay Area Innovators. If you like our show and if there's someone you have in mind who should be on our show, please send us an email at sfbay at epochtimes.com. We would love to hear back from you. Thank you so much and we'll see you next week.