David Grusch's DOPSR Cleared Statement and IG Complaint

[Amathia]

(7) Snooping around classified programs within the DoD with a mission to uncover epic secrets is bound not only to raise eyebrows but to be deemed as posing a legitimate national security risk, entirely irrespective of whether these programs involve aliens or not. As a result, such risky DoD personnel are destined to have their security clearances restricted, and thereby to become emboldened in their belief in a cover-up, to 'resign' and to go public. It's a bit of a vicious circle.

Yet the only reprisal and retaliation that's occurring and unfolding before us is actually on Grusch's side against the DoD. Which makes this whole case Elizondo Part 2.

#7 is an important point and what I imagine may have happened after he initially spoke to the DoD inspector general. Revocation of certain security clearances and access to certain programs seems like a natural consequence for anyone who becomes a whistleblower. Not in the sense that it is okay, but in the sense that of course that's what we might expect a government agency to do in response to an employee come forward about information that is supposed to be classified. That person may be coming forward with the best intentions imaginable and out of a justified sense of patriotism or moral obligation, but from the point of view of the government itself, that person has now revealed themselves to be untrustworthy when it comes to being given continued access to classified information. If that counts as a form of retaliation, that's for the courts or whomever has jurisdiction to decide, but it seems to me like it's what you'd expect to happen to anyone who comes forward with such types of accusations, whether they have anything to do with UAP phenomena or something more mundane like classified US-made technology programs.

 

[Amathia]

I've merged that discussion in here.

Hey Mick,

In one of your recent videos you mentioned that one plausible explanation for why certain government individuals might come forward to people like Grusch about working on special access programs that involve reverse engineering alien technologies and the like might be due to the government's highly compartmentalized approach to foreign adversary crash retrieval programs. For instance, people may be working on trying to reverse engineer or identify some piece of technology that the US has retrieved without being told ahead of time what it is or where it likely comes from. Since these individuals might never have access to the entire debris or story, and are not allowed to speak with other people working on other pieces of the same project, they might naturally start to believe that what they're reverse engineering might be some kind of UFO alien tech, and their personal belief night then be spread to other people like Grusch, who assumes what they're telling him is true.

That story sounds plausible enough, but I wanted to ask how likely you think it is that an engineer or scientist of some sort would see some piece of technology belonging to China, or Russia, or some other nation, and that technology seem so advanced and unfamiliar that they would be likely to be fooled into thinking it must come from a non-human source? For any given piece of technology, aren't there always obvious giveaways that humans made it? Cables, wiring, writing, images/pictorial markings, etc? For instance, if someone had managed to take down a SR-71 Blackbird before the plane had ever been revealed to exist, would any engineer or scientist ever sort through the debris and be convinced that it could only come from aliens? Even if the technology is highly advanced for the time, it's still a plane, it's still wired in certain ways that are obvious to engineers. Since technological advancements seldom happen in a vaccum, no matter how hi-tech a foreign adversary piece of equipment may be, is it really plausible that anyone working with such debris would be fooled into thinking that it can only have a non human origin?

 

[FastIndy]

...

(3) Speaking from my own experience, in modern militaries and government agencies an official's security clearance level concerns the maximum security clearance level to classified information s(he) has on a need-to-know basis and to a type of classified information necessary for the discharge of their specific assigned duties. In other words, you may boast the highest security clearance level available whilst remaining legally forbidden to access even lower level classified information which is unrelated to your mission / assigned tasks.

I'll add to this that in addition to obtaining a general security clearance, being approved or read in for a particular Special Access Program requires an additional review process that is generally a complex and lengthy process (months to years). It seems that most people think of a security clearance as the golden ticket, when really it's more of a foot in the door to be considered eligible for access.

 

[GlootieGlootieGloo]

(2) It's a common trope for a firebrand believer of any persuasion to accentuate they were skeptics before. This allows them to cast themselves as sensible scientifically-minded people merely following the evidence wherever it leads, and to highlight the credibility of the body of evidence that allegedly exists.

Would this argument also apply to @Mick West since he's stated that he used to be a believer before?

 

[Duke]

I'll add to this that in addition to obtaining a general security clearance, being approved or read in for a particular Special Access Program requires an additional review process that is generally a complex and lengthy process (months to years). It seems that most people think of a security clearance as the golden ticket, when really it's more of a foot in the door to be considered eligible for access.

Yep. Ever notice the number of former military/government types who dive into the UFO pool are quick to tell the world right up front their clearance level? They do it because the uninitiated are impressed with what they don't understand.

 

[Mendel]

I think I follow what happened now. McCullough was sitting IC IG, he quit that position, became Grusch's lawyer. McCullough and Grusch filed a complaint with the now sitting IC IG, Monheim.

Yes, except saying it like that is misleading.

Article:

List of Inspectors General

Charles McCullough October 7, 2010 – March 2017
Michael Atkinson May 17, 2018 – April 3, 2020
Thomas Monheim April 3, 2020 – present

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_of_the_Intelligence_Community

McCullough had left that job before Grusch became interested in UFOs, and says Grusch only became his client in February 2022.

 

[Mendel]

I'll add to this that in addition to obtaining a general security clearance, being approved or read in for a particular Special Access Program requires an additional review process that is generally a complex and lengthy process (months to years). It seems that most people think of a security clearance as the golden ticket, when really it's more of a foot in the door to be considered eligible for access.

So if the renewal of your clearance has a hiccup, you stand to lose a lot of access for a long time?

 

[Duke]

So if the renewal of your clearance has a hiccup, you stand to lose a lot of access for a long time?

You stand to have your clearance suspended until such time as the "hiccup" is resolved or the clearance is revoked. This scenario happened to co-worker as a result of something an investigator was told by a former neighbor in the course of investigation for a clearance renewal.

 

[Mick West]

That story sounds plausible enough, but I wanted to ask how likely you think it is that an engineer or scientist of some sort would see some piece of technology belonging to China, or Russia, or some other nation, and that technology seem so advanced and unfamiliar that they would be likely to be fooled into thinking it must come from a non-human source? For any given piece of technology, aren't there always obvious giveaways that humans made it? Cables, wiring, writing, images/pictorial markings, etc? For instance, if someone had managed to take down a SR-71 Blackbird before the plane had ever been revealed to exist, would any engineer or scientist ever sort through the debris and be convinced that it could only come from aliens? Even if the technology is highly advanced for the time, it's still a plane, it's still wired in certain ways that are obvious to engineers. Since technological advancements seldom happen in a vaccum, no matter how hi-tech a foreign adversary piece of equipment may be, is it really plausible that anyone working with such debris would be fooled into thinking that it can only have a non human origin?

I largely agree. For someone actually working on recovered material, the more likely way they would be convinced is if they were just working on material, and not an actual full craft, or bits of tech from that craft.

In The Debrief, he describes "recovered and exploited physical material" - which might well be describing more, but sounds like bits of metal or other substances.

Article:

He said he reported to Congress on the existence of a decades-long "publicly unknown Cold War for recovered and exploited physical material – a competition with near-peer adversaries over the years to identify UAP crashes/landings and retrieve the material for exploitation/reverse engineering to garner asymmetric national defense advantages."

Beginning in 2022, Grusch provided Congress with hours of recorded classified information transcribed into hundreds of pages which included specific data about the materials recovery program. Congress has not been provided with any physical materials related to wreckage or other non-human objects.

Source: https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

Remember that the first things the Grush gave as evidence of aliens were just material analysis, not odd looking circuit boards.

Of course, he claims more:

Article:

Grusch said the recoveries of partial fragments through and up to intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present day by the government, its allies, and defense contractors. Analysis has determined that the objects retrieved are "of exotic origin (non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin) based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures," he said.

In filing his complaint, Grusch is represented by a lawyer who served as the original Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).

"We are not talking about prosaic origins or identities," Grusch said, referencing information he provided Congress and the current ICIG. "The material includes intact and partially intact vehicles."

Source: https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

"partial fragments" to me suggests the bits of metal Garry Nolan has been looking at, summarized here:

It seems plausible that some just working on such fragments could imagine them to be of alien origin.

"intact and partially intact vehicles" would be a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[fizzBuzz]

I largely agree. For someone actually working on recovered material, the more likely way they would be convinced is if they were just working on material, and not an actual full craft, or bits of tech from that craft.

In The Debrief, he describes "recovered and exploited physical material" - which might well be describing more, but sounds like bits of metal or other substances.

Wasn't this his response when asked what was the most convincing single piece of evidence. It didn't come off to me as if all they had was material. Even still, I think metallurgists and engineers would know if aircraft material was human-made or not, because of the way the metal is made...

Unless, of course, we learned aircraft aluminum technology from aliens

 

[Amathia]

I largely agree. For someone actually working on recovered material, the more likely way they would be convinced is if they were just working on material, and not an actual full craft, or bits of tech from that craft.

In The Debrief, he describes "recovered and exploited physical material" - which might well be describing more, but sounds like bits of metal or other substances.

Article:

He said he reported to Congress on the existence of a decades-long "publicly unknown Cold War for recovered and exploited physical material – a competition with near-peer adversaries over the years to identify UAP crashes/landings and retrieve the material for exploitation/reverse engineering to garner asymmetric national defense advantages."

Beginning in 2022, Grusch provided Congress with hours of recorded classified information transcribed into hundreds of pages which included specific data about the materials recovery program. Congress has not been provided with any physical materials related to wreckage or other non-human objects.

Source: https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

Remember that the first things the Grush gave as evidence of aliens were just material analysis, not odd looking circuit boards.
View attachment 59826



Of course, he claims more:

Article:

Grusch said the recoveries of partial fragments through and up to intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present day by the government, its allies, and defense contractors. Analysis has determined that the objects retrieved are "of exotic origin (non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin) based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures," he said.

In filing his complaint, Grusch is represented by a lawyer who served as the original Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).

"We are not talking about prosaic origins or identities," Grusch said, referencing information he provided Congress and the current ICIG. "The material includes intact and partially intact vehicles."

Source: https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

"partial fragments" to me suggests the bits of metal Garry Nolan has been looking at, summarized here:
View attachment 59827

It seems plausible that some just working on such fragments could imagine them to be of alien origin.

"intact and partially intact vehicles" would be a whole different kettle of fish.

Thank you. I do think if what we're talking about is fragments of materials, that does raise the likelihood of someone being fooled than if they were working with the entire recovered craft or satellite.

I'm curious though, in the last image you shared, #1 says:

"certain metal materials are seen to contain trace levels of elements (and isotopes of said elements) which no man-made or terrestrial metals would be expected to contain"

A lot of their argument seems to rely on this claim, that certain trace levels of elements and isotopes of said elements are not things you'd expect to find in a human-made object. Would you happen to know if there are any historical examples of someone making the above type of claim, which later turned out to be false? For instance, if I recall correctly, the material that is used to coat a stealth bomber such as the F-117 Nighthawk or B-2 Spirit is still classified to this date.

If an engineer from another nation were to obtain a crashed fragment containing this coating, might the coating itself be of such a nature that an engineer would conclude "this isn't the kind of thing we would expect from a human made object?"

I'm just trying to understand under what conditions the people who do this kind of thing for a living would be likely to find something so outside of the norm that they would leap to such an extraordinary conclusion as "this therefore can't possibly be man-made"? And if we allow ourselves to be charitable and grant for the sake of argument what the reporting alleges, that it's not just one isolated scientist or official coming to this conclusion, but several, or possibly even many, then it becomes even more of a mystery as to what it is they're being exposed to that is so outside of the normal range of materials they're used to handling that it leads so many of them to conclude it's not man-made.

 

[Rick Robson]

I largely agree. For someone actually working on recovered material, the more likely way they would be convinced is if they were just working on material, and not an actual full craft, or bits of tech from that craft.

In The Debrief, he describes "recovered and exploited physical material" - which might well be describing more, but sounds like bits of metal or other substances.

Article:

He said he reported to Congress on the existence of a decades-long "publicly unknown Cold War for recovered and exploited physical material – a competition with near-peer adversaries over the years to identify UAP crashes/landings and retrieve the material for exploitation/reverse engineering to garner asymmetric national defense advantages."

Beginning in 2022, Grusch provided Congress with hours of recorded classified information transcribed into hundreds of pages which included specific data about the materials recovery program. Congress has not been provided with any physical materials related to wreckage or other non-human objects.

Source: https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

Remember that the first things the Grush gave as evidence of aliens were just material analysis, not odd looking circuit boards.
View attachment 59826



Of course, he claims more:

Article:

Grusch said the recoveries of partial fragments through and up to intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present day by the government, its allies, and defense contractors. Analysis has determined that the objects retrieved are "of exotic origin (non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin) based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures," he said.

In filing his complaint, Grusch is represented by a lawyer who served as the original Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).

"We are not talking about prosaic origins or identities," Grusch said, referencing information he provided Congress and the current ICIG. "The material includes intact and partially intact vehicles."

Source: https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/

"partial fragments" to me suggests the bits of metal Garry Nolan has been looking at, summarized here:
View attachment 59827

It seems plausible that some just working on such fragments could imagine them to be of alien origin.

"intact and partially intact vehicles" would be a whole different kettle of fish.

Well, Dr. Gary Nolan on various occasions have stated the more plausible conclusion be has come to so far is that those materials were much probably purposefully engineered. But then, he says, it doesn't make sense either since such a work would have been insanely expensive if done with our current cutting-edge technology.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether there's been already some black budget program insanely expensive to date.

 

[Ravi]

Well, Dr. Gary Nolan on various occasions have stated the more plausible conclusion be has come to so far is that those materials were much probably purposefully engineered. But then, he says, it doesn't make sense either since such a work would have been insanely expensive if done with our current cutting-edge technology.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether there's been already some black budget program insanely expensive to date.

Did mr Nolan ever publish a paper on these materials?

 

[Rick Robson]

Did mr Nolan ever publish a paper on these materials?

He's currently still drafting it for peer review and then publish for public access. Let us only hope it's promptly finished and peer reviewed...

BTW, I suppose those exotic materials he's analysed are only the Ubatuba"s ones he was given from the locals there, I'd appreciate if someone can confirm this to me.

 

[Ravi]

He's currently still drafting it for peer review and then publish for public access. Let us only hope it's promptly finished and peer reviewed...

BTW, I suppose those exotic materials he's analysed are only the Ubatuba"s ones he was given from the locals there, I'd appreciate if someone can confirm this to me.

Still? I think it has been years now. Is it such a long paper? Sometimes papers don't get through the peers because no corroborative data from other scientists were brought forth. I assume this is such a case. 1 person claiming outlandish things is (in science) shouting in the desert..

 

[Rick Robson]

Still? I think it has been years now. Is it such a long paper? Sometimes papers don't get through the peers because no corroborative data from other scientists were brought forth. I assume this is such a case. 1 person claiming outlandish things is (in science) shouting in the desert..

Maybe, let us see though, so far we can only speculate. I'm very hopeful anyway, Dr. Nolan has very good credentials to be taken seriously by the scientific community.

 

[Duke]

Wasn't this his response when asked what was the most convincing single piece of evidence. It didn't come off to me as if all they had was material. Even still, I think metallurgists and engineers would know if aircraft material was human-made or not, because of the way the metal is made...

A point I've pondered over the years relative to Corso's claims. If some of the world's then leading scientists and engineers had been presented technology (laser, fiber optics, transistors, etc) allegedly recovered from alien craft, would they have believed Corso's cover story the technologies had been developed in nations like the USSR?

 

[Ann K]

Concerning Garry Nolan (a pathologist, not a materials scientist, although one who had an instrument they used to analyze metals), the article in Vice quotes him bragging of his friendship with the "invisible college" and Skinwalker Ranch. It then continues:

I mean, let's think about what people use isotopes for today. Most of the time humans use isotopes to blow stuff up—uranium or plutonium—or to poison someone, or used as a tracer in order to kill cancer. But those are very, very specific cases. We are almost always only using radioactive isotopes. We don't ever change the isotope ratios of stable isotopes except perhaps as a tracer. What that means is that if you find a metal where the isotope ratios are changed far beyond what is normally found in nature, then that material has likely been engineered—the material is downstream of a process that caused them to be altered. Someone did it. The questions are who… and why?

So, now, let's look at what these materials are claimed to be. In almost every case, these are the leftovers of some sort of process that these objects spit out. So you go look at the cases where molten metal falls from these objects. Why would 30 pounds of a molten metal fall from a flying object?
What are the circumstances in some of these cases? For instance, in some cases the witnesses state that the observed objects appeared unstable, or in some kind of distress. Then, it spits out 'a bunch of stuff.' Now the object appears it's stable and it moves off. It looks like it fixed itself. One hypothesis would be that the material it offloads is part of the mechanism the object uses for moving around, and when things get out of whack, the object has to offload it. It just drops this stuff to the ground, kind of like the exhaust. That begs the question (again assuming the things are real at all): what are they using it for? If there's altered isotope ratios, are they using the altered isotope ratios? Are the altered ratios the result of the propulsion mechanism? Again, pure speculation: When the ratios get that far out of whack, do they have to offload because it's no longer useful in propulsion? Smarter people than me will come up with better reasons—but this is the fun of the science. The data is there… the explanation is not.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7n...nalyzing-anomalous-materials-from-ufo-crashes

In spite of his two cents worth of disclaimers (bold by me), he only found anomalies in two of the twelve samples, but, though most lab analysts must occasionally do, he seems not to have rechecked the tests yet. In spite of his lack of education in materials analysis, he makes declarative statements as to how expensive it would be to replicate, a question well outside his area of expertise. He is also ready and willing to embrace "the aliens dunnit" as a valid explanation, but one dear to the heart of his previous associations with the UFO believers. I don't know (about him, or about others) whether the belief predated the interest or vice versa, but it may not matter, as it seems to be a self-perpetuating echo chamber.

 

[Rick Robson]

BTW, Poor Gary Nolan...!
I've already seen various instances of suspicions thrown at his qualities as an experienced and serious scientist just for his own conclusions on the exotic materials he's been studying LOL...

 

[FatPhil]

Concerning Garry Nolan (a pathologist, not a materials scientist, although one who had an instrument they used to analyze metals), the article in Vice quotes him bragging of his friendship with the "invisible college" and Skinwalker Ranch. It then continues:

I mean, let's think about what people use isotopes for today. Most of the time humans use isotopes to blow stuff up—uranium or plutonium—or to poison someone

Geepers, those people who use isotopes sound almost as irresponsible as those who use chemicals!

(In case it woooshed you, the core payload of that sentence is that I would give very little weight to any so-called scientist who would make a statement so unscientifically worded; in the same way that everything around you is made of chemicals, every single one of those chemicals is made of isotopes of various elements.)

 

[Rick Robson]

"partial fragments" to me suggests the bits of metal Garry Nolan has been looking at, summarized here:

Just as a reminder, as I previously stated, those "partial fragments" are still open to debate where they originate from, whereas the ones that Gary Nolan has publicly addressed are those from the Ubatuba event which he has been given by the locals of that Brasilian fishing village.

 

[Amathia]

Still? I think it has been years now. Is it such a long paper? Sometimes papers don't get through the peers because no corroborative data from other scientists were brought forth. I assume this is such a case. 1 person claiming outlandish things is (in science) shouting in the desert..

There's this one: Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics. Not sure if it's the one being discussed or a previous one.

 

[Ann K]

Geepers, those people who use isotopes sound almost as irresponsible as those who use chemicals!

(In case it woooshed you, the core payload of that sentence is that I would give very little weight to any so-called scientist who would make a statement so unscientifically worded; in the same way that everything around you is made of chemicals, every single one of those chemicals is made of isotopes of various elements.)

I'm a chemist.

 

[Mick West]

In The Debrief, he describes "recovered and exploited physical material" - which might well be describing more, but sounds like bits of metal or other substances.

Ah, this article from The Drive reminds me that the term used is actually "materiel"

Article:

What Is Foreign Materiel Exploitation?

While David Grusch's crash retrieval program claims remain up for debate, the U.S. Intelligence Community, including elements of the U.S. military like NRO and NGA, is very much engaged in FME efforts that include the retrieval of flying objects, or parts thereof, from crash sites and other sources for further analysis and evaluation.

Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/aliens-or-not-secret-crash-retrieval-programs-are-a-very-real-thing

From the French, materiel refers to "military materials and equipment" - so a tank (or a spaceship) is materiel, not just made from bits of material.

 

[John J.]

A lot of their argument seems to rely on this claim, that certain trace levels of elements and isotopes of said elements are not things you'd expect to find in a human-made object.

Ratios of different isotopes within (e.g.) a metal might provide good evidence of terrestrial or extra-terrestrial origins.

For example, meteoritic iron contains different ratios of iron isotopes than terrestrial iron.

The very similar ratios of oxygen isotopes found in Lunar samples from the Apollo program and those present on Earth have been used as evidence for the "giant impactor" hypothesis of Lunar formation, inasmuch as it suggests much of the Moon's mass may have been part of the proto-Earth
"Oxygen isotopes and the moon-forming giant impact", U. Wiechert, A.N Halliday et al, October 2001 Science (link here)

Perhaps more controversially, findings of iron 60 above expected values in Antarctica has caused one team to conclude that it (the iron 60, not Antarctica!) is of interstellar origin (arriving by natural means),
"Interstellar ^{60}Fe in Antarctica", D. Koll, G. Korschinek et al, August 2019, Physical Review Letters (link here).

I guess an isotope ratio not normally found on Earth could be manufactured if you've got some gas centrifuges - after all, that's how we make usable quantities of U-235. I suspect that (as with U-235) it would be a seriously expensive and involved process, but I'm not a chemist or physicist.

Totally agree with FatPhil/ Ann K.'s comments regarding Garry Nolan's strange comments about isotopes.

There's this one: Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics. Not sure if it's the one being discussed or a previous one.

Interesting that the second-mentioned author in the linked-to paper is one Jacques Vallée.

If Grusch has heard of Vallée's opinions, it might explain Grusch's mention of "other dimensions"

D.G.: My degree is in physics. The mechanical and experimental data shows that it's not human. It could be extraterrestrial, or it could be something else, coming from other dimensions

Jacques Vallée is a leading supporter of the "interdimensional hypothesis" of UFO origins
(useful summary here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdimensional_hypothesis).

 

[Rick Robson]

Totally agree with FatPhil/ Ann K.'s comments regarding Garry Nolan's strange comments about isotopes.

Yours and others comments here about Nolan's "strange comments" are definitely Interesting to hear, even more so to me now that I remind that I've never, ever heard someone from the scientific community make a comment on those lines as yours as of yet. But ,as I see, shouldn't they??

 

[Ann K]

Just as a reminder, as I previously stated, those "partial fragments" are still open to debate where they originate from, whereas the ones that Gary Nolan has publicly addressed are those from the Ubatuba event which he has been given by the locals of that Brasilian fishing village.

And the description of the Ubatuba event agrees pretty much with that of a meteorite ...which is a thing that we know might well have isotope ratios unlike those found on earth.

 

[John J.]

materiel refers to "military materials and equipment"

-Good observation by Mick re. "materiel" vs. "material".

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the US has a "Foreign Materiel Exploitation" program, and probably has had a number of such programs since at least the US entry into WW2- think of the V2s taken to the States. In 1976 a Russian pilot defected with his MiG-25 to Japan,

...Japanese and American technicians disassembled it at Hyakuri and analysed it in detail. Eventually, it was packed up into around 40 boxes and was returned to the Soviet Union.

From here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defection_of_Viktor_Belenko

If an ETI craft crashed at a location where it could be retrieved by the US, I suspect all of it would be retrieved and examined- not just any part that might be considered "materiel".

 

[John J.]

Yours and others omments here about Nolan's "strange comments" are definitely Interesting to hear, even more so to me when I remind that I've never, ever heard someone from the scientific community make a comment on those lines as of yet.

Ann K. quoted Nolan:

I mean, let's think about what people use isotopes for today. Most of the time humans use isotopes to blow stuff up—uranium or plutonium—or to poison someone, or used as a tracer in order to kill cancer. But those are very, very specific cases. We are almost always only using radioactive isotopes.

This is a strange comment. It is a very strange comment for an academic pathologist to make. It's just utterly wrong.
As FatPhil alluded to, it's very similar to someone saying "chemicals are dangerous" when we are made of chemicals, breathe chemicals (nitrogen, oxygen etc.) and drink chemicals (e.g. water).

Nolan has an impressive record in his field. That doesn't give him insight into UFOs.

 

[Rick Robson]

This is a strange comment. It is a very strange comment for an academic pathologist to make. It's just utterly wrong.

Again, as I stated previously, I'm actually flabbergasted to hear the comments made by an internationally renowned scientist about his own conclusions being now deemed as utterly wrong here.

 

[FatPhil]

Yours and others comments here about Nolan's "strange comments" are definitely Interesting to hear, even more so to me now that I remind that I've never, ever heard someone from the scientific community make a comment on those lines as yours as of yet. But ,as I see, shouldn't they??

Oh, come on. The joke about "chemicals" is so old it's practically got a two-digit joke identifier. I believe it's even lower numbered than the dihydrogen monoxide one.

 

[John J.]

Again, as I stated previously, I'm actually flabbergasted to hear the comments made by an internationally renowned scientist about his own conclusions being now deemed as utterly wrong here.

The only thing that I've referred to as "utterly wrong" is the statement,

I mean, let's think about what people use isotopes for today. Most of the time humans use isotopes to blow stuff up—uranium or plutonium—or to poison someone, or used as a tracer in order to kill cancer. But those are very, very specific cases. We are almost always only using radioactive isotopes.

"Most of the time humans use isotopes to blow stuff up" is a ridiculous statement.
It makes no more (useful) sense than saying "most of the time humans use isotopes to make pizza", which is of course true.
(And you don't blow things up with uranium 238, by far the most common isotope of uranium).
"Isotope" does not mean "radioactive".
And he's not "talking about his own conclusions" in the quote used. There's no debate about the meaning of "isotope".

Maybe Nolan was tired when he said the above.
I clearly stated that Nolan has an impressive record in his field. He's done much good for humanity.
Implying that he's therefore above criticism when talking about UFOs- or when he simply says something in error, as he appears to have done in the quoted text- is a type of "appeal to authority", a logical fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I've always had a great respect for the late astronomer Fred Hoyle, who laid the basis for understanding stellar nucleosynthesis.
He should have received a Nobel.
But some of his theories and speculations were bizarre- e.g. that the archaeopteryx fossils were fakes, and IIRC, periodic outbreaks of meningitis in the small English town of Stroud, Gloucestershire were due to a periodic comet.

 

[Ann K]

Again, as I stated previously, I'm actually flabbergasted to hear the comments made by an internationally renowned scientist about his own conclusions being now deemed as utterly wrong here.

That people are experts in one field doesn't make them experts in another. @John J. mentions Fred Hoyle as an example. Linus Pauling and his promotion of vitamin C is another. There's even a colloquial name for those who think their expertise in one thing makes them qualified in others; it's referred to as the Nobel Disease, and anecdotes abound of Nobel laureates who espoused fringe theories. (Whether they're more prevalent among laureates, suggested that it's ego-driven, is just a hypothesis.)

For other common examples see congress, where people who won a popularity contest for a seat suddenly turn into experts on medicine, finance, education, and international affairs. There are such experts, but it takes a lot more than winning an election to make them so!

 

[Amathia]

The only thing that I've referred to as "utterly wrong" is the statement,

"Most of the time humans use isotopes to blow stuff up" is a ridiculous statement.
It makes no more (useful) sense than saying "most of the time humans use isotopes to make pizza", which is of course true.
(And you don't blow things up with uranium 238, by far the most common isotope of uranium).
"Isotope" does not mean "radioactive".
And he's not "talking about his own conclusions" in the quote used. There's no debate about the meaning of "isotope".

Maybe Nolan was tired when he said the above.
I clearly stated that Nolan has an impressive record in his field. He's done much good for humanity.

Based on his interview on the Lex Fridman podcast (specifically minute 54:57 onwards), my guess is that he simply misspoke on the Vice piece or the journalist misquoted or misunderstood him. I don't hear any glaring errors in his explanations here, though admittedly it's not my field either so others can feel free to chime in if they do.


Source: https://youtu.be/uTCc2-1tbBQ

 

[Ann K]

Based on his interview on the Lex Fridman podcast (specifically minute 54:57 onwards), my guess is that he (Nolan) simply misspoke on the Vice piece or the journalist misquoted or misunderstood him. I don't hear any glaring errors in his explanations here, though admittedly it's not my field either so others can feel free to chime in if they do.

I listened to a little bit from 54:57 (I'm sleepy, so that's all I watched) in which Nolan claims that the pieces were from an industrial process, engineered. I went looking for a report on the Ubatuba incident itself, and found that there may be a conflation of two or more incidents, one a plane crash and one a meteorite, and the bits he analyzed were found objects, i.e. not in a secure context, therefore of unknown origin which may be from either of the events cited. A third event is described as being "mainly from one witness". I think it hardly matters how rigorously it was studied if we don't even have an accurate record of the source of the material. Indeed, two sources would explain why he got a different isotope ratio from two of the twelve samples he studied.

Here's an abstract from the 2004 paper by Pierre Kaufmann and Peter Sturrock on the events at Ubatuba:

Inquiries in the Ubatuba area have yielded evidence of three aerial events that may be related to an unusual magnesium specimen, which is usually attributed to an event in or near Ubatuba, an analysis of which has been published in this journal. There is undisputed evidence that an aircraft crashed in that area in April 1957. There is strong evidence that a meteorite, or an object resembling a meteorite, crashed or exploded in the area in the early 1930's, and that a piece of strange light-weight material was caught in a fishing net at about that time. There is weaker evidence (mainly from one witness) that a very large object disintegrated, with a silent explosion, near Ubatuba in or about 1957. There is some evidence that, in or about 1957, one or more metal specimens were brought for analysis to an Air Force research center near S¼o Paulo and found to be magnesium.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events_Possibly_Related_to_the_''Brazil_Magnesium

 

[LilWabbit]

That people are experts in one field doesn't make them experts in another.

Indeed.

Galilei believed in astrology. Jung in the esoteric. Both greatly contributed to advancing scientific practice and non-extraordinary/parsimonious theories in their professional fields. It is not unheard of that one can be a brilliant expert in a narrow professional field while privately espousing beliefs that reflect a less professional methodology of establishing a truth.

This fact becomes more problematic when (1) these experts use their clout as 'experts' or 'scientists' for making statements outside their area of expertise which lay people have little competence, or confidence, to dispute; and when (2) these beliefs begin to interfere and undermine their professional duties.

 

[Mendel]

Ah, this article from The Drive reminds me that the term used is actually "materiel"

Article:

What Is Foreign Materiel Exploitation?

While David Grusch's crash retrieval program claims remain up for debate, the U.S. Intelligence Community, including elements of the U.S. military like NRO and NGA, is very much engaged in FME efforts that include the retrieval of flying objects, or parts thereof, from crash sites and other sources for further analysis and evaluation.

Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/aliens-or-not-secret-crash-retrieval-programs-are-a-very-real-thing

From the French, materiel refers to "military materials and equipment" - so a tank (or a spaceship) is materiel, not just made from bits of material.

Today, when it comes to the retrieval and subsequent intelligence exploitation of foreign aircraft, as well as missiles and spacecraft, or what might be left of them, the U.S. Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, is a key actor. NASIC's website says that it is "the Department of Defense's primary source for foreign air and space threat analysis" and it includes a dedicated Foreign Materiel Exploitation Squadron.

So, if there ever were an alien 'crash retrieval program,' certainly the playbook for such a thing, as well as the capabilities to execute it, exists in a far more robust form than most likely realize. And if a UFO were ever to really crash on Earth, this established apparatus would likely get to it first and be used in an attempt to understand its abilities.

That's a very interesting article.

The conclusion is basically what I've been saying all along: that the US have a crash retrieval program (or more than one) doesn't mean they've ever retrieved non-human spacecraft.

At this point, I'd like to draw attention to a possible reason why the DoD introduced the term UAP. To ufologists, UAP is synonymous with UFO, but while a UFO is an object (that can fly), a UAP is a phenomenon. All dictionary definitions are somewhat similar, stressing observation:

Article:

A phenomenon is something that is observed to happen or exist.

Source: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/phenomenon

An "AP" (aerial phenomenon) is therefore something that is being observed in the air. That means, the UAP Task Force is set up to analyse observations. Their job was not to analyse objects/material/materiel, because they're not a UFO unit.

 

[Mendel]

I mean, let's think about what people use isotopes for today. Most of the time humans use isotopes to blow stuff up—uranium or plutonium—or to poison someone, or used as a tracer in order to kill cancer. But those are very, very specific cases. We are almost always only using radioactive isotopes. We don't ever change the isotope ratios of stable isotopes except perhaps as a tracer. What that means is that if you find a metal where the isotope ratios are changed far beyond what is normally found in nature, then that material has likely been engineered—the material is downstream of a process that caused them to be altered. Someone did it. The questions are who… and why?

When I think of isotope ratios, I think of radiocarbon dating:

Article:

Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon.

The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby. It is based on the fact that radiocarbon (C-14) is constantly being created in the Earth's atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting C-14 combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire C-14 by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and thereafter the amount of C-14 it contains begins to decrease as the C-14 undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of C-14 in a sample from a dead plant or animal, such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone, provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less C-14 there is to be detected [..].

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

So, everything we eat, and we ourselves, contains both "normal" C-12 and C-14 isotopes, and the isotope ratio of C-14/C-12 can tell us how many thousand years something's been dead.

But we also learn that cosmic rays can throw this ratio off, so if we send some metal to space for a few years, shouldn't we expect the isotope ratios to be altered compared to how it was when it was constructed? Nolan's "someone did it" is not a valid conclusion when the process that the material underwent involves strong exposure to cosmic rays.

And obviously meteorites can have non-Earthly isotope ratios without being engineered, either.

 

[Itsme]

Again, as I stated previously, I'm actually flabbergasted to hear the comments made by an internationally renowned scientist about his own conclusions being now deemed as utterly wrong here.

Don't be, because Nolan's statement is misinterpreted here. (I'm flabbergasted by the fact that some on this forum seem to really believe that a scientist in Nolan's field would not know that isotopes are everywhere.)
Nolan is not wrong. He is talking about the deliberate use of the characteristics of isotopes here, and the subsequent need to meddle with the naturally occurring isotope ratios to achieve specific goals (goals like building an atom bomb or being able to trace chemicals in a human body).
He also points out that if we use these characteristics, we almost always meddle with the relative amount of radioactive isotopes (which will decay in time) and almost never with the relative amounts of stable isotopes (which live forever). We only meddle with the stable isotope ratios to create a kind of fingerprint to trace where a certain material came from.

 

[Itsme]

But we also learn that cosmic rays can throw this ratio off, so if we send some metal to space for a few years, shouldn't we expect the isotope ratios to be altered compared to how it was when it was constructed? Nolan's "someone did it" is not a valid conclusion when the process that the material underwent involves strong exposure to cosmic rays.

And obviously meteorites can have non-Earthly isotope ratios without being engineered, either.

Yes, so isotope ratios that significantly deviate from those in nature only become interesting when a piece of material is clearly engineered, not some debris that could have come from a meteorite.

I think the point Nolan is trying to make here is if we find a piece of material that is (1) clearly engineered and (2) has significant deviations in stable isotope ratios it is probably not engineered by humans, since humans currently have (or had, when the piece was found) no application for this deviating stable isotope ratios (so why put in the effort).
In that case, it's either engineered by someone else, or it came from a different star system (assuming that naturally occurring stable isotope ratios are formed inside a star and deviate from one star system to another). You just added another interesting possibility: It has been in space for quite a while.