I was listening to a frustrating interview of Ryan Graves, a retired Navy fighter pilot and UFO witness who has much to say, but was frequently interrupted by tangential questions when things got interesting.

After an hour of this, I wondered if there might not be someone else who had recently interviewed this highly intelligent and credible UFO witness, someone with the rare talent of encouraging a guest to talk candidly at length like Joe Rogan does. I googled Ryan Graves, but no other interviews showed up that were recent.

Later I was thrilled to find that Ryan Graves himself has a new channel on YouTube. I clicked the Like and Follow buttons immediately. Here is his first video where he interviews one of the great scientists of our day, Garry Nolan…

Gary Nolan PhD, as you probably know, is a famous UFO experiencer and Nobel-Prize-nominated Professor who currently works in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine. (Go Pathology!)

Ryan Graves demonstrates how to get to the heart of an issue, then, God bless the man, he lets his guest speak! What an absolute joy.

Dr. Nolan has published over 320 peer-reviewed scientific papers, including the very first major-journal (peer-reviewed) scientific paper on the analysis of materials from a UFO. Here’s the last sentence of the abstract:

“The lessons from this specific investigation are applicable to a wider range of issues in reverse engineering of complex, esoteric materials, and aerospace forensics.”

In the context of science, a UFO sighting is an anecdote. Mainstream reporters often use the term “anecdote” to dismiss an observation, but scientists often use anecdotal evidence as the starting point for major scientific work that gradually becomes reproducible in labs around the world.

A true scientist therefore doesn’t shun outlier anecdotal data that appears to be impossible from within the current box of established theory. A genuine scientist is attracted to weird things, often from her or his early childhood days.

On the other hand, established, tenured professors of my generation have lost much of the mental flexibility and curiosity of youth. They have built careers on broadly engrained theories that have usually become “established facts” in most scientists’ minds. Naturally, they tend to reject outlier observations at a moment’s glance and dig in their heels with snide remarks about the absurdity of any outlier observation.

Dr. Nolan suggests that there comes a time when many harmonious anecdotal observations have piled up high enough to deserve statistical evaluation in an effort to determine if they have gradually reached a tipping point and become genuine scientific data points in and of themselves.

I couldn’t agree more.

Incidentally, the piling up of anecdotal evidence from the past is the basis of courtroom decisions that place people in jail for life or on death row. If it were logical to throw out all anecdotal accounts as UFO debunkers do, then how likely would it be that we would use anecdotal evidence so heavily in our legal system here in the US?

So as a scientist, I’m happy to keep an open mind, listen to anecdotal reports on UFOs and see what makes sense to me.

One of the least popular UFO origin stories is the one that includes tales of Nazis in Antarctica.

Imagine that the Nazis knew they were going to lose WWII long before it happened because they realized they couldn’t match the troops and weapons manufacturing capacity of the combined US, UK and Russian militaries. Might they have tried to escape ahead of time to a part of the world where no one would likely find them?

We know that Germany had rocket technology that surpassed that of the rest of the world, but what if they had other technologies that were even more advanced? Wouldn’t they have gone to the trouble of arranging “plan B” in some remote coroner of the world rather than accepting defeat and a painful, humiliating death in front of a firing squad?

If only we had historians who were also scientists, we might have someone qualified to look into these sorts of things.

But wait, we do have them. We call them anthropologists.

Here’s one now, Robert Sepehr. Nobody’s right all the time, in fact this gentleman is “known” to be a “far-right conspiracy theorist” and “racist” of “Jewish ancestry,” according to the linked source. I’m not familiar enough with Robert Sepehr’s work to make this judgment, maybe those who hate him and want to silence him are right and maybe they’re wrong, I don’t know yet. But rather than listening to hateful name-callers, I prefer to listen to what a person has to say and sift through those details for myself. “Poisoning the well” to silence people through name-calling is generally unhelpful, as far as I know.

Anyway, the second section of this video is a must-see speech by William Mills Tompkins, not by Robert Sepehr. It begins at about 10:09, right after the first section which is a haunting speech by Phil Snider, a man who claimed to be a whistleblower regarding underground bases that allegedly exist all over the US as part of a conspiracy against the non-elite public. The third section is an old, low-tech film that’s tough to understand on my computer. I had to listen to it several times before I caught all the details hidden from me by the man’s accent and the limits of the old recording technology.

The story of Nazi UFO’s in Antarctica is probably the most extreme end of the UFO spectrum in terms of “scientific” materialism versus non-materialism or “idealism.” The only element of idealism in this version of UFO history is that the Vril women allegedly learned how to build flying saucers through ESP-like contact with non-human sources (as best I understand the story at this time). Here’s an alternative reporter from the 1980’s doing a radio broadcast in which she mentions in passing (at 24:12 on the video) that the alleged UFOs in Antarctica have been developed by the US Air Force and NASA in collaboration with Nazi Scientists, some of whom escaped Germany before the end of WWII.

Somewhat closer to the middle of the materialism-idealism spectrum is Dr. Stephen Greer. Here’s a current example of his views on UFOs and the shadowy details of the coverup, as he sees things. In my opinion, it would be as big a mistake to ignore Dr. Greer as it would be to follow him with indiscretion or unquestioning trust.

Then somewhere near the non-materialist UFO worldview extreme we have the (apparently well caffeinated) Grant Cameron who now believes in idealism, (meaning that consciousness is fundamental to reality rather than mindless matter and energy). Here’s a video reflecting Mr. Cameron’s current views on UFOs, lumping them together with other “paranormal” phenomena. In my opinion, it’s likely that our universe is a holo-physical simulation, or maybe a dreamlike self-simulation in the mind of God. But human pain and love are real enough for me to take matter and energy seriously, even though I strongly doubt matter and energy are fundamental to human “reality.” Same deal for nuts-and-bolts UFOs. I suspect that some of them are “real” enough to be taken seriously and measured scientifically, despite the likelihood that some may be capable of altering human perception, mood, and thought.

There are two things that bother me about the state of the UFO community’s discourse at the moment:

1. We tend to be splitters who see things in brittle binary terms. Uncomfortable with gray areas, we refuse to admit that we’re very often wrong about important things, same as every other human being on the planet. “UFO’s are nuts-and-bolts craft from another star system, period,” one side says. Another group insists, “UFOs are no different from any paranormal phenomena–not exactly real, but sort of real because we live in a simulation.” It seems to me we’re too often unwilling to admit that UFOs could be both nuts-and-bolts machines from another planet AND ethereal paranormal things from another dimension, OR neither of these, but simply the least popular view: UFOs are machines created by humans on Earth (with or without non-human help), capable of altering human perceptions.
2. We tend to be critical name-callers, resembling childish cult members in this way. “If you disagree with me, you’re a lunatic or a CIA operative.” In general, whenever an actual conspiracy goes on in which a small powerful group seeks to control a larger group (i.e. routine human history), one of the most effective tools the small group has is to divide and conquer the masses by stoking hatred among them. Today, bots and their creators do this to us online. First they define an unpardonable sin, then they teach both sides to use it freely against the other. In modern US culture this would be racism. In the UFO community, the unpardonable sin is probably having a “top secret clearance” at some point in your career. Nothing else matters, if you ever had a clearance status with the government, you’re untrustworthy forever by definition. It’s a little like being automatically defined as a racist because of your skin color: lame but effective. Anyone who cares about the UFO/UAP situation should wake up and rise above this common human tendency to “love your friends and hate your enemies.” Otherwise we’re probably looking at another seventy years of coverup: “nothing to see here folks, move along.”

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” – The Nazarene.

…

UFO Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD