Supposed UFO crash debris from South America is being studied in a Stanford laboratory.

Even the most casual readers of UFO news will likely think of Area 51 in Nevada and Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, when you mention “Places to find wreckage from crashed UFOs.” If someone mentions Sanford University in California, where a renowned microbiologist is analyzing samples from purported UFO crashes in Colombia and Argentina using a technique called “Multiplexed Ion Beam Imaging,” you may be sure they’re a real insider. What the heck? Stanford?

“We have devised a way to visualize antibodies that are labeled with isotopically pure elemental metal reporters using secondary ion mass spectrometry.”

Dr. Gary Nolan directs research on “hematopoiesis, cancer and leukemia, autoimmunity and inflammation” at Stanford University’s Nolan Lab, where he uses a variety of high-tech tools to study single cells. When a lab is named after a “well known microbiologist,” you know you’re dealing with a “well known microbiologist.” He utilizes the same tools to examine purported UFO artifacts in his free time. He explains it wasn’t his idea — he received one of those strange calls from the administration – in a recent interview with KQED.

“I was contacted by some individuals who claimed to be from the government and an aerospace company to assist them in understanding the medical harm that had allegedly been caused to some people as a result of alleged experiences with an anomalous craft. They came mostly because they were curious about the types of blood analyses my lab can perform, something I had no anticipation of.

Nolan then started looking into the real unusual craft’s parts. He has examined bits from the supposed 1945 UFO crash in New Mexico, which occurred near the Project Trinity nuclear experiments, in addition to the most recent ones from Colombia and Argentina. What did he discover as a result?

“This is not the dramatic smoking gun that folks were hoping for. To show people that you don’t need to have a brilliant solution, the goal is to take even some of the most banal scenarios and simply design a pipeline of how this should be done. We don’t prove anything with this case, after all. Simply put, this is not an obvious piece of technology.

Beyond establishing if the objects were constructed by aliens, Nolan claims he wants to know why some think the metals exhibit signs of having been produced through the expensive process of altering the isotope ratios of specific elements. He wants to know if there is a practical advantage because it would advance our understanding of materials. His work can be seen as both discovering something novel and getting rid of explanations. Nolan was astonished to discover that the isotope ratio didn’t make sense when he put fragments from the Argentine and Colombian UFOs in the imaging gear. Naturally, all of this just means that they cannot be ruled out as familiar objects, but they also cannot be ruled out as foreign metal. He doesn’t make any assumptions, but he does explain what other scientists think of his research on UFOs and his defense.

Some people have commented, “Garry, you’re going to damage your reputation,” and there have been a few of the typical giggles. And I said, “I’m not drawing any conclusions.” Just pointing out that there are some unusual data points here that require an explanation. I’m ready to spend the time explaining it. What scientist would remove something from the equation? You can’t really claim to be a scientist if the solution is right in front of you and you reject it before you’ve even reached a decision. Instead, you’re a cultist.

Leave a Reply