Concerns Regarding Garry Nolan
Here are my thoughts on Garry Nolan so far.
- “It’s a show. Don’t take this at face value.”
Nolan’s assertion conflicts with confirmed radar and visual observations of unidentified craft. If this were merely a spectacle, we would expect to see far more impressive and extraordinary vehicles, not just shapes like eggs, tic-tacs, and triangles. We might even anticipate something akin to the spectacular drone displays showcased during New Year’s celebrations in China, featuring holographic imagery.
Jacques Vallee echoes similar sentiments, suggesting that during the Trinity Crash, the non-human intelligence was attempting to demonstrate their capabilities in response to our nuclear developments by saying, “Look what we can do!” However, I find this speculation unconvincing. The more plausible explanation is that UFOs were simply operating and crashed due to technical malfunctions – technology is not infallible.
- Brain Size and UFO Sightings
Nolan proposes that individuals who witness UFOs possess a larger-than-average brain organ. If this were accurate, how would one account for mass sightings? Did all those who witnessed the Phoenix Lights share this characteristic? Most likely, the answer is no.
- Misleading Qualifications
Despite holding a PhD, Nolan is not a medical doctor (MD). This means he is not legally authorized to treat patients, prescribe medications, or conduct medical procedures. However, he does not clarify this when interviewers refer to him as a medical doctor. Moreover, some individuals, like Barber, have claimed they were “treated by Dr. Nolan,” which raises ethical and legal concerns.
It pains me to express this about someone affiliated with the prestigious Stanford University, who has made contributions to the discourse surrounding UFOs, but I can’t help but feel he gives off a similar vibe to Dr. Greer.
What are your thoughts?
It sounds like you have some valid concerns regarding Garry Nolan and his perspectives on UFOs and the associated phenomena. Let’s break down your points:
“It’s a show. Don’t take this at face value.” – I can see how you find this perspective frustrating, especially given the substantial evidence gathered by credible sources. If these phenomena are indeed trying to communicate a message or showcase advanced technology, it raises questions about why the manifestations are so mundane compared to what one might expect from advanced extraterrestrial intelligence. Your point about the nature of the objects observed is valid and highlights a longing for more compelling evidence.
Larger than normal organ theory – The theory about brain anomalies tied to UFO sightings certainly raises eyebrows. It seems overly simplistic to reduce such a complex phenomenon to physiological traits, especially when considering mass sightings like the Phoenix Lights. Many factors could contribute to these experiences, including environmental and societal influences. This point does suggest a need for more comprehensive analysis beyond individual psychological traits.
Misleading qualifications – The distinction between a PhD and an MD is significant. In scientific discussions, it’s important to be clear about one’s qualifications to maintain credibility. If people are erroneously referring to him as a doctor in a medical sense, it could indeed create confusion about his expertise and the nature of his contributions. Transparency about qualifications is essential in any field, particularly one as scrutinized as the study of UFOs.
Your concerns about his alignment with figures like Dr. Greer seem to stem from a perceived lack of rigorous scientific grounding and potential for sensationalism. It’s crucial that discussions about such significant topics remain rooted in reliable data and reasonable interpretations. While it’s important to entertain new theories and ideas in the realm of UFO studies, skepticism and thorough examination should guide these discussions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts; it’s critical to critically evaluate the perspectives of anyone in such an influential position in the field.