The Field of Ufology

[Randall]

"We Are Not Alone" Part 1:
The Files of a US Army UFO Whistleblower ( yet another one )
As usual — it proves NOTHING

 

[Randall]

NAZI Insider Reveals What He Saw In 1942

 

[Burnt State]

Dr. Garry Nolan Interviewed by Jordan Peterson
Two eggheads who know nothing about ufology pretending to be experts.

I'd say two eggheads where one doesn't know anything about ufology, and is the purveyor of questionable ideologies IMHO, and the other is an actual member of the invisible college in the truest sense. I can't remember if he was James or Tyler in American Cosmic, but what we learned in Pasulka's book is that there is real science being applied to UFO's and that they are identified as products of a non-human intelligence.

In their discussion there's a lot to unpack...

He's outlining some background history on what the military industrial complex has been up to together in their blender of private corporations and three letter alphabet agencies. At the same time there should be some questioning around why he hasn't signed any NDA's and is able to talk so freely about his work exploring byproducts and evidence of non human intelligence, as well as their biological effects on human beings who come into contact with said technologies. Sure some of this is privately funded but he's also talking government research here too.

Doesn't this sound like disclosure at work in an official unofficial manner? It certainly points to genuine R&D at work in the field of ufology. It also points to a kind of convergence at work in this field between disparate groups of people who often appeared at odds with each other in the past or were keeping it all on the down low as seen in Vallee's publicized diaries.

What's also fascinating is an emphasis on a paranormal, pre-human and Fortean conclusion that this planet is someone else's property.

So what the heckin' is going on up here, doc?!
It's enough to drive you up the wall, no?

Gary Nolan isn't some schmuck or CIA stooge, though I suspect some critics might say he sure sounds like one. He's definitely not some Bob Lazar claiming that he back engineers flying saucers in the big dark govt labs while running prostitutes on the side. Nope, he's the real deal in high level science - a career driven, highly accomplished, multi patent holding, Stanford prof. with major contributions to various fields.

You have to ask yourself why on earth is he going all in on the field of Ufology and UAP analysis? He's using private and public funding and working all levels of investigation with all parties that sounds very much like an expanded invisible college becoming more and more visible.

Maybe this is actually what disclosure looks like; because, it's not going to come from the government who knows very little about all the evidence they've compiled over decades, and can't be trusted now after decades of denial. Maybe what disclosure adherents really need is for disclosure to come from a bonafide egghead who knows his stuff.

Inhale deeply and feel the UFO presence all around you. They're probably inside your mind right now.

 

[Randall]

I'd say two eggheads where one doesn't know anything about ufology, and is the purveyor of questionable ideologies IMHO.

Assuming Peterson is the "purveyor of questionable ideologies" you're referring to, it would only be fair to also call him a non-participant in some "questionable ideology" — including transgender ideology. As for Nolan, according to Google AI, he thinks unvaccinated people shouldn't be allowed in public spaces. So he's not short on "questionable ideology" himself — and that's being kind.

The other is an actual member of the invisible college in the truest sense. I can't remember if he was James or Tyler in American Cosmic, but what we learned in Pasulka's book is that there is real science being applied to UFO's and that they are identified as products of a non-human intelligence.

What Nolan knows about ufology is another story. He's supposedly taking an academic approach to the subject, but I doubt he could tell you when and who created the term UFO and what the official USAF definition was during Project Blue Book Investigations. He's also adopted the "UAP" label, which further muddies the waters. So IMO he's not doing the field any favors. Nevertheless — who knows? Maybe something useful will come out of his SOL Foundation.

The Sol Foundation

thesolfoundation.org

"We're focused on the phenomenon — not the correlation."

 

[Randall]

The Sol Forum — Avi Loeb on UAP, Science, and National Security

 

[Randall]

A real Ufologist — Jan Aldrich, joins Martin Willis in this 2020 interview to discuss the origins of the modern ufology.

424. Jan Aldrich, Project 1947

Dedicated longtime UFO researcher, Jan Aldrich joins the show to discuss http://www.project1947.com which is a world-wide effort to document the origins of the

www.spreaker.com

 

[Paranormal bug a boo]

LOL

 

[Burnt State]

@Randall I'm not sure about the requirements you've outlined for being labeled a "real ufologist". I don't think Ufological history is the defining feature, nor a necessary prerequisite.

What those who have studied the phenomena should be excited about is the fact that real scientists, post James McDonald, are actually investing real time and money into studying Ufological artifacts in real labs, and not just more talking and musing about its history on podcasts.

I really don't care about which acronym they use; that's quite secondary. But I am interested in the isotopic ratios, materials construction and effects on humans, as that's actually establishing physical proof of a nonhuman actor here on earth. What we call it is entirely irrelevant.

Btw transgenderism, like homosexuality and heterosexuality is a biological fact and not an ideology. It's ideology that has always gotten in the way of human sexuality. We would be a much happier species with a lot less violence if it wasn't for ideology and who deserves to control the reproductive rights of women or control who can love whom.

Similarly, I would say what has always muddied the field of ufology has also been ideology and making it the subject of debate i.e.who knows its history, is it nuts and bolts or paranormal, as opposed to studying the facts and material evidence.

 

[Randall]

@Randall I'm not sure about the requirements you've outlined for being labeled a "real ufologist". I don't think Ufological history is the defining feature, nor a necessary prerequisite.

That's like saying knowing Egyptian history is irrelevant to Egyptology. Maybe think a little harder about that.

What those who have studied the phenomena should be excited about is the fact that real scientists, post James McDonald, are actually investing real time and money into studying Ufological artifacts in real labs, and not just more talking and musing about its history on podcasts.

How can anyone call them "ufological artifacts" when they don't even know how to define the word "ufology"?

I really don't care about which acronym they use; that's quite secondary.

That's like a RADAR operator saying, "Calling it RADAR is secondary." or saying, "We better fly under the SCUBA — and we can call it SCUBA instead of RADAR, because what acronyms we use don't matter." The fact is that when two acronyms don't mean the same thing, or people think it's irrelevant because they think anyone can call anything whatever they want, so long as it fits their self-serving needs — it's NOT "secondary" — it's a problem.

But I am interested in the isotopic ratios, materials construction and effects on humans, as that's actually establishing physical proof of a nonhuman actor here on earth. What we call it is entirely irrelevant.

Proof is just evidence sufficient to justify belief in a claim, which makes it a subjective concept. Personally, I'm already satisfied that the experiences of firsthand witnesses is sufficient "proof". If isotropic ratios are your thing, check out the Bob White artifact — which was touted as "proof" by some — until it was debunked.

Btw transgenderism, like homosexuality and heterosexuality is a biological fact and not an ideology.

Not exactly. Sexuality in the context of normal human physiology is biological ( male and female ), while gender in the context of identity is cultural ( feminine and masculine ). Because ideologies are inherent components of cultures and subcultures, concepts such as yin and yang as applied to gender identity are well within the realm of ideology.

Grammatical Gender Systems are another example — like why ships are gendered feminine — or the difference between "le" and "la" in French. So a biological male or female wanting to be referred to as something other than their biological designation — is an ideological preference ( not a biological one ) — but feel free to keep conflating the two if that's how you want to do it. Just expect push-back when you try to create legislation and public policy around it.

It's ideology that has always gotten in the way of human sexuality. We would be a much happier species with a lot less violence if it wasn't for ideology and who deserves to control the reproductive rights of women or control who can love whom.

On that we can agree.

Similarly, I would say what has always muddied the field of ufology has also been ideology and making it the subject of debate i.e.who knows its history, is it nuts and bolts or paranormal, as opposed to studying the facts and material evidence.

Also in agreement there — however we're misaligned on the application. Where I think we might find common ground is in the methodology. For example, when looking for something, it's perfectly logical and scientific to have some preconceived theoretical model to work from when trying to find it in the real world — like when astrophysicists went looking for black holes, they had a very well defined idea about what it was they were looking for.

So the fact is that definitions do matter — a lot. Those in the UAP cliquedom would certainly agree, because they went out of their way to help delegitimize inquiry into alien visitation by sympathizing with the view that UFO aliens are for tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists — while touting themselves and their clique buds as the only ones worthy of taking seriously.

That's why I have a certain level of disdain for promoters of UAP subculture — but still have an affinity for Friedman's view that what we're really interested in are Flying Saucers. Leave the bizarre bird or weather "phenomena" for the ornithologists and meteorologists to argue over — they're not the fields I'm interested in — except peripherally ( giant mystery birds, ball lightning, etc. ).

 

[Randall]

Bluebookarchive.org appears to be no-more. According to Jan Aldrich, the closet ufologist hiding behind the pseudonym Issac Koi is just sitting on the files. Fortunately, the Internet Archive has freely available copies, which I will make available when I get around to updating the old USI website.

 

[Randall]

Interview On Redacted with NASA scientist Weiping Yu, Ph.D.
Check out the alleged NASA video after the intro — real or fake?