5 ms·

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-garry-nolan-analyzing-anomalous-materials-from-ufo-crashes https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stan

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-garry-nolan-analyzing-anomalous-materials-from-ufo-crashes https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-ga... There, is a Stanford Professor good enough for you? This is also referenced in the article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events_Possibly_Related_to_the_%27%27Brazil_Magnesium https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events...

kevinwang 3y ago
Thanks for the links, the interview was a good read! I guess if the findings are just like little chunks of metal with some weird isotopes I'm not very convinced that they're like alien technology or anything. The original article seems to be implying that there's like some extraordinary clear evidence of a vehicle or something, which would be much more shocking.
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  The whistleblower claims, crash retrieval programs exist which are reported by very believable people in the government to have craft of non-human origin. Your depiction of the story is clearly misleading. This here is a mere step in the direction of uncovering such "material evidence" as you would like to be presented right now, as if reality ever worked that way.
  - kevinwang 3y ago
    My comment was merely a reaction to the thread above, not the original article. lisasays: this is rubbish because there's no first-hand evidence e.g. of the vehicle fragments of the Debrief article phyallow: here's first-hand evidence [link to the vice article] me: this is just weird bits of rock, which isn't obviously a vehicle fragment, and so this article isn't really as much of a proper response to lisasays' comment as it seems.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lisasays 3y ago
(1) Different guy, different story (2) By my reading, the stuff he's talking about doesn't constitute (or even suggest) dispositive evidence of alien craft. Nor this guy even claiming that they are. All he's saying basically, is "Here's some fragments / MRI scans we don't understand, let's explore further". (3) Even so, this stuff is many orders of magnitude weaker than the claims in the original article (literally "intact craft of alien origin"). So there's not even an analogy to be made here.
- kevinwang 3y ago
  re (1), that guy (Dr. Garry Nolan) is quoted in the OP article, although upon reading the OP article again, it doesn't seem that the guy has first-hand knowledge of the supposed evidence, so it doesn't mean much. Although I guess for (2), his quote in the OP article does imply that he believes that these could be alien craft.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    (2) - Mmm, no, he doesn't say that. He just mutters a bit of innuendo about "Human civilization being utterly transformed by ...", without any explanation of what he's driving at specifically. Weird. Definitely less reason to take this guy seriously. And really irresponsible and stupid of Vox to put an out of context quote like that out there, as if it says anything useful about anything.
nradov 3y ago
Nope, not good enough. Stanford Professor Garry Nolan only has some secondhand stories and odd bits of metal that could have come from anywhere. No real evidence, no chain of custody, no provenance.

kevinwang 3y ago

Thanks for the links, the interview was a good read! I guess if the findings are just like little chunks of metal with some weird isotopes I'm not very convinced that they're like alien technology or anything. The original article seems to be implying that there's like some extraordinary clear evidence of a vehicle or something, which would be much more shocking.

Loquebantur 3y ago
The whistleblower claims, crash retrieval programs exist which are reported by very believable people in the government to have craft of non-human origin. Your depiction of the story is clearly misleading. This here is a mere step in the direction of uncovering such "material evidence" as you would like to be presented right now, as if reality ever worked that way.
- kevinwang 3y ago
  My comment was merely a reaction to the thread above, not the original article. lisasays: this is rubbish because there's no first-hand evidence e.g. of the vehicle fragments of the Debrief article phyallow: here's first-hand evidence [link to the vice article] me: this is just weird bits of rock, which isn't obviously a vehicle fragment, and so this article isn't really as much of a proper response to lisasays' comment as it seems.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lisasays 3y ago

(1) Different guy, different story (2) By my reading, the stuff he's talking about doesn't constitute (or even suggest) dispositive evidence of alien craft. Nor this guy even claiming that they are. All he's saying basically, is "Here's some fragments / MRI scans we don't understand, let's explore further". (3) Even so, this stuff is many orders of magnitude weaker than the claims in the original article (literally "intact craft of alien origin"). So there's not even an analogy to be made here.

kevinwang 3y ago
re (1), that guy (Dr. Garry Nolan) is quoted in the OP article, although upon reading the OP article again, it doesn't seem that the guy has first-hand knowledge of the supposed evidence, so it doesn't mean much. Although I guess for (2), his quote in the OP article does imply that he believes that these could be alien craft.
- lisasays 3y ago
  (2) - Mmm, no, he doesn't say that. He just mutters a bit of innuendo about "Human civilization being utterly transformed by ...", without any explanation of what he's driving at specifically. Weird. Definitely less reason to take this guy seriously. And really irresponsible and stupid of Vox to put an out of context quote like that out there, as if it says anything useful about anything.

nradov 3y ago

Nope, not good enough. Stanford Professor Garry Nolan only has some secondhand stories and odd bits of metal that could have come from anywhere. No real evidence, no chain of custody, no provenance.