Hello, and welcome to a late edition of Open Mind UFO Radio. That's
right, your host me Aleandro Rojas, has been sick the last couple of
days, and I'll get him more into that in a minute, but I
first want to tell you about this cool dude who's joining me to do the
news, and that is Martin. Cool dude Willis. Hello, Martin.
I don't know if I resemble that remark. You don't think you're a cool
dude. Well, I think I used to be, but you know,
as you get older, you get well, I don't know, I'm more
distinguished than cool. Well. When I think of cool dude and I think
of you, it kind of reminds me of mister Cool or Joe Cool.
Do you remember when I was a kid, it was my favorite T shirt
was this, uh you know, these Snoopy T shirts where Snoopy had on
these glasses and he would call himself Joe Cool. Well, I actually had
mirrored sunglasses for years when I was back in the seventies. I don't know
if that that that might count. Yeah, that's pretty cool. Yeah,
so at least I think you're cool. That's enough. Oh, well,
so you were sick, Yeah, I don't know what it was. I
had thay food, you know, me and my girlfriend both got it.
I thought I was fine. She started feeling sick soon after we ate,
but that I thought I was fine. Then that night, like the middle
of the night, I woke up with the worst chills I've maybe ever had
my life. And it was all downhill from there. It was just awful.
Even to this moment, I'm not back up to one hundred percent.
I have not been able to really completely well. You know. This morning
was the first meal I've been able to eat a whole bowl of cereal.
And hopefully this will stay down, so we'll see at least during the show.
At least during the show. I don't want to make a mess out
of my nice little microphone here and stuff. That'd be awful. It might
make for good radio, I know, great sound effects. You actually went
there, all right? Yeah, so so. But luckily I am on
them. And what's amazing about these stomach viruses is that they hit you so
hard and they could be gone in twenty four to forty eight hours. You
know, it doesn't take long for them to run their course, even though
they can be so severe. I mean, at one point I was sweating
and just awful. So I'm glad that I am getting better, though I
have a lot to do. It was the worse time to get sick,
because a lot to do, including this incredible interview that I've got for the
show today. So this is great because of course we talked about the Puerto
Rico siding, and I just want to, in a nutshell put it in
there for people. So there's a video that came out actually somewhat over a
year ago, kind of leaked, but it was a poor quality video of
what looked like some military footage from thermal imaging footage. It came out,
lots of people speculated about what it might be. People didn't know much.
Then a couple of months ago, an anonymous letter came out to John Greenwald,
or good buddy from the Black Vault, who we talked to. Of
course often he didn't know what to make of it. It was a higher
quality of this video and it had some interesting things to say in the letter.
Little did anyone know except I did know. I couldn't let people know
I knew, but I did know that there was a group who this whole
time has been very carefully examining this video, and it's a group of some
of the researchers I respect the most in this field, some very careful researchers
with scientific background, and they could not figure out what this thing is.
And they put out a well done report examination where they in detail tell you
everything they looked into and why they couldn't figure out what it was. And
they had, you know, considered whether it was a balloon, a bird,
and all of these other things. So it's really great. So the
two guys, I think one of them has not been on the show before,
not that I can remember, maybe he had in the past, but
because these guys have known for years, but I'm having on the show two
of the people from that group, and one is Robert Powell, who's the
research director for MOFON, and also Morgan Biel, who is the director of
Florida State MOFON. This project was not part of MOFON, and we'll talk
about that in the interview and why. But I also wanted to let people
know that they did this. Essentially, when they decided to post this state
there was a decision should we just post this on a website or should we
that's just for this report or maybe posted on a website where we can post
other reports that are done very carefully and meet a high level of scrutiny and
science in it. And so they created this Scientific Coalition for Eufology website where
hopefully other great reports like this will go into. Since then, there's been
a lot of positive feedback. There have been some people who have been skeptical
and who are looking at it and have alternate theories such as a balloon or
something like that. However, the most credentialed and expertise opinions that have been
received thus far, such as from Fleer experts, have said that they think
this report is right on and they agree that even though these people we've heard
from have watched thousands of hours of footage from these exact systems, they cannot
figure out what it is and they think it is some of the strangest video
they've ever seen. So so far, case is really holding up. So
it's made for really interesting and exciting stuff here. And you know one thing
that people don't realize. I think some people are like, big deal,
there's better pictures and videos out there. Well, the pictures and videos,
unfortunately, don't often hold up to scrutiny. But what's exciting about this,
I think that people should realize is that this is you know, military grade
equipment. This is you know, military instruments that have captured this this anomaly,
and that's what makes it so significant, I think. So, I
don't know, while i've been ganess there's been some kind of buzz or anything
out there you've heard of, Martin. Not not really, you know,
I just you know, people email me about different things, not that in
particular, but you know, after watching that video, I understand. We
talked about this last week on my show a little bit, and you know,
I understand why people would think that it's a balloon. It looks like
a balloon at first when you're looking at it, but when it does the
thing over the water, that's when everything changes. You can tell it's moving
fast. A balloon wouldn't move fast and skip along the water or skip through
the water as it as it appears to. So it really is quite exciting.
I can't wait to hear the interview. Yeah, after the show.
Here, good stuff, good stuff. So let's get into UFO News of
the Week. What do you got for me there, buddy? Well,
I like this story because you never hear anything described like this, or I
haven't heard this description. It's probably out there Long Island. Ufo was the
size of an eighteen wheeler. Yeah. Out in New York out on Long
Island. A little town, well it's not a little town. There's like
nineteen thousand people or so there and it's called ron kan Kuma and that little
town. There was a guy that was outside of his apartment complex. By
the way, there is a video on Open Minds TV of this, But
what happened was he took the video after basically after everything happened. And I
totally get that because you're, you know, you're all worked up when you're
seeing something like this. You're not even thinking straight, and you know,
the video is like an afterthought. Now. He lives right by an airport,
and this is something you hear a lot when people talk about this,
and that is the lights caught his attention because they were unusual, and you
always hear that the lights look unusual. And he stepped out of he was
in his vehicle the outside of his apartment complex. He stepped out and he
noticed that it was heading toward the airport, and as soon as he got
near the airport, it shot its lights off and then it's it stopped and
just hovered and then it backed up and then moved uh some distance away and
started descending behind some trees, and that's when he caught a I think it
was a security guard at a at his apartment complex. And the security guard
actually saw him, I mean saw the craft descend, and so there's more
than one witness, and I think it's a. It's a even though there's
not video evidence. He you know, his video evidence is just him talking
about it, but you can't really see anything. But he's he's quite worked
up. And so Joseph Flamer is a New York move On field investigator,
and so is Nick Vulgar Airis and they're both have considered this an unknown object
really interesting. And again it made no sound pretty cool. One yeah,
really interesting case. And you know some people will complain, well, why
are you posting cases without video or pictures? And it's so funny because some
people are like, you know, these people have no excuse for getting any
video or pictures. But you know what, I don't know, and I
would love to hear your opinion on this. This is a great example of
you know, he didn't think of getting video till afterwards. But even if
you get it during the case, I mean, it turns out video and
pictures are not you know, giving us much information or helping us very much.
And so even if they do look a little bit strange or often,
you know, the video is not enough and you need the witness testimony.
So you know this, this whole fields started off of and you know,
dependent upon witness testimony so much that I think the witness testimony, especially in
cases like this where you have multiple witnesses, is very interesting and compelling,
right, And you know, speaking with Bruce mcabe a while back, he
said that images and videos were secondary to the witnesses. I thought that was
a pretty good statement. Now I wondered if the investigators checked to see if
there was any you know, radar pain on this craft or of whatever it
was. Yeah, I don't know, you know, and that's often difficult
to get. And in fact, we talk about that in our interview that
we'll have coming up here in a little bit, And how difficult, if
not impossible, it is to get radar data from the FAA. Now,
is it? It wouldn't be freedom of information, would it? I mean,
how how would you obtain that? You wouldn't You could request it,
but they won't give it. Yeah. And in fact, there's there's something
really interesting. I think it's in this story. But and we'll talk about
more about this in this interview. But the Air Force has access to FAA
radar data and that's what they used in the Puerto Rico investigation. But they
had to get it from the Air Force, so they did. Therefore,
you to the Air Force. The Air Force gave them what they had and
it was from an FAA radar, but they said they won't ever do that
again because they're no longer going to forward fa radar data. They're only going
to provide their own radar data if they deem it necessary. Yeah, so
less access adversarial, it seems, you know. Yeah, it's really unfortunate.
Mm hmm, just looking for you know, information, shouldn't be that
difficult, shouldn't be that closed off to the public. Yeah, but it
is. It's so hard. So this is a funny one that I wanted
to a really interesting one. The British Interplanetary Society, it's the oldest space
advocacy organization and they're a leading space development think tank. You know, they're
like a big deal there. There are only a couple of blocks from the
love and headquarters of the Secret Service MI six and all of this, and
they've had these interesting think tank meetings that they've been having on a yearly basis
regarding space and liberty. They're actually called Extraterrestrial Liberty, and they in this
last one, one of the things they were discussing is how do you overthrow
a Martian despot? So kind of funny. So essentially it's it's a developing
think tank that they've been doing where they have been writing papers regarding colonization of
other planets, so if we had a Martian colony. You know, their
first year was more along the lines of what would freedom look like, how
would you organize a government out there? How would law work for that sort
of thing? The second one, if I can, I've got it down
here anyways, it was it was a little bit similar about dealing with government
and space and legal policy. That. Then the third one is more about
dissent, revolution and liberty in space. So what if there's a revolution,
how do you allow for dissent and you know, recourse, but also keep
control on things? So kind of a funny thing. So these are the
these real meetings that are going on. A lot of scientists, philosophers,
writers and such get involved with this, and they're writing these things in hopes
that when we do begin to colonize that you know, these will be able
to be used by you know, future human governments that are trying to establish
these sort of things. So it's early, of course, but that's kind
of funny. It's kind of cool. Yeah, I think they're watching too
many movies. Yeah, no, you know, I I think it's a
great idea. It's just, you know, whoever gets there first, whoever
colonizes first. I would imagine it could be a polygon of countries, but
if it's a single country that colonizes there first, it would probably I would
imagine they would institute the legal you know, the constitution and stuff like that,
you know there. But really that I understand why they're doing it,
because you know, how do you It's kind of like when you go out
in the ocean in a boat. You know, like a lot of laws
don't pertain to the open seas, and this is kind of like the same
thing. And of course they have to be careful. They could be tyranny.
Either could be there could be slavery, you name it. Anything could
happen when it's an open government settling, you know, kind of like when
they came over here, you know, to a Mamerica from from England,
the early sub settlements, the Roanoak and then you know the Pilgrims and stuff
like that. You know, they it was under the rule of uh,
you know, King George and and uh you know Queen Anne and you know,
on and on. But still it's uh, you know, it's it's
something that you know, there's going to they're going to want their independence,
of course, uh if it's colonized for generations, and uh, they really
you know, having something said in place or at least a guideline is not
a bad idea. And yeah they're a little silly. Well they're going to
have to Yeah, they'll have to enforce their own laws and especially well,
I guess it depends on the technology how quickly we would be able to get
there from Earth if we had to go lay the smack down, you know,
and restore order, and so who knows what the technology may be.
But interestingly enough, this isn't a story I had written about but something I
had seen and I included a picture of Robert Bigelow in my story about this
British Interplanetary Society meeting because he may be the first person to have a lunar
base, and there is news this week about how close he is. So
Bigelow, of course, is a UFO enthusiast. He's created a lot of
controversy in this field, a lot of silly conspiracy theories. And I don't
mind saying that because a lot of speculation from people who don't know what they're
talking about, quite frankly, but seeing as how I was there, that's
why it makes me so frustrated. I was involved with Muffan and this whole
partnering up with Bigelow. But Biggelow, and there's plenty of interviews. He's
very close to George Nappy's a guy who's really interested in UFOs, which is
pretty cool. And then he's spent some money to do some investigation and the
Great Skinwalker Ranch, you know, mystery we wouldn't know about if it wasn't
for him. But anyway, he bought this this inflatable unit system from NASA,
so NASA was looking into doing these inflatable units. You take them into
space and you then inflate them, and then you have a habitable living space.
There's a story talking about how the problem back then when NASA was trying
this is they didn't have the technology, so these things weren't very strong,
so any little particle could break through them. So that's why they ditched it,
and Bigelow ended up buying the whole idea and further developing it. And
now the fabrics are so much stronger, like kevlar that they this story says,
are even stronger than like a hard metal type of case that they use.
So they're going to be doing this. They're going to be having one
of these, you know, you can just scrunch it up just like an
inflatable tent, you know, or something. You can put it into a
rocket, fly it up there and inflate it. And they're gonna be doing
that in the next space X launch. It's been delayed because of you know,
the SpaceX rocket exploding recently, but in the next one, one of
these inflatable units it's gonna go up and it's gonna be a unit for the
ISS. So this will be the first you know, real test for a
big low aerospace inflatable unit to be attached and put into use. He's flown
some up there kind of proof of theory previously. So there are couple floating
out there. They're not doing anything. They had cameras inside of them,
and they put a lot of stuff in there. I think they even had
a contest where you could put stuff in there to have float around in space.
But that's about it. So this is really cool. Now. The
next step, and he's already in talks with NASA about this, is to
have a lunar base. But he's dealing with legal issues too because his problem
is, hey guys, we have to figure out ownership when it comes to
the Moon, because I'm getting really close to being able to do this,
but I got to figure out where I can put my lunar base because I
don't know, you know, I have to figure out who owns the land,
and I need to, you know, just like any developer needs to
secure the land. That really is I can't imagine that if there's interplanetary lawyers
or someone studying that right now. But the one thing that there are there
are Wow, I didn't know that. I was just saying that Now the
one thing you have to think about though, there's no real shielding from radiation,
you know. That's that's an issue on both especially Mars, but well
both the Mars and the Moon, you know, against the right. Yeah,
well that's why they have to wear the suits, and that's why the
materials of the buildings that they have have to be hold their own shielding.
So you're right, that's a concern, and I guess that is one of
the concerns. Now it's possible with these inflatable units, where something like that
wasn't possible before. Wow. Interesting, Yeah, the future is coming right
up on us, smacking us in the face. Yeah, exciting, huh,
yeah it is. Yeah. Well, before we move on, way,
we have to those all those people that volunteered to go on a one
way trip to Mars. Oh yeah, Mars one. Yeah. Because I've
been taking a look at that, I've thought it was foolish to begin with.
Personally, it just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, the
plan is you take a dozen people, you fly them into space and to
Mars on a one way trip, and they have to live the rest of
their lives out there in these small little units, you know, like the
size of this conference room. These people have to live and work together.
Just psychologically, that's not even possible. I mean, let's say you and
your girlfriend. That's maybe a little different. But can you imagine being locked
up even with the person you care about and love the most, Like me
and my girlfriend probably would have a problem after a couple hours. No,
just kidding, hopefully we could last a few days, about a couple of
weeks getting too upset with each other, you know, any one, by
the way, in one tiny little room, could you imagine that? I
mean, let alone someone you that annoys the heck out of you? And
I love people. I am a positive person. I think all people have
goodness in them. I smile and say hi to everybody I meet. I
like people, but I don't like being around that many people for a very
long period of time, like you know, especially people that annoy me.
I can't take it for you know, half an hour, it starts to
get annoying. So yeah, I just do not see how this could ever
work anyway. A lot of people that first thought it was a scam,
then they started talking to aerospace companies and about developing some different things, and
some of the aerospace companies said, well, they have some decent ideas,
but now it's kind of fallen all apart because they ran out of money.
And even worse, their candidates have been coming forward and saying they're wanting us
to give them our royalties when we do interviews, and they want us to
give them money. So the people that are that are supposed to be getting
trained to be there out there in space, they're making them give them money
because they're out of money. All they had money for was this kind of
initial marketing push, and they actually have no money to develop anything, so
it seems like that's pretty much dead in the water. Their whole plan was
to fund the whole thing by making it all a reality TV show, right,
Yeah, I do remember that so as really bizarre, really bizarre.
And they were matching up the monies that the super Bowl makes to show,
look how much the super Bowl makes, which is like the number one watch
show in the world, you know, and oh, we're going to get
as much funding and viewership as they do, which certainly is not guaranteed.
This would be Big Brother in space, and I don't know that. I
think a lot of people are over a Big Brother, but it's been really
interesting. I'm interested about how the people who applied to go up into space.
Some of these were really scientists and stuff, some very serious people,
and it just boggles my mind that you would want to leave behind everything,
all your family and everything. I can understand the want to explore, but
shoot, that's probably going to get old after at least maybe let's say best
case scenario, and it's fun for a year, then what, well,
you know someone is going to do it. There is it is going to
happen eventually. But yeah, they will, definitely. You just think of
all the explorers and uh, you know their dedication they had, you know,
sometimes they'd be at c for four years or something like that, you
know, or think of Lewis and yeah, but they were exploring. I
mean you and you can walk amongst the flora and fauna, you know,
you don't have to be in this tiny little capsule. I think the ocean
firing is is a closer example though. That's a really good point. Yeah,
I mean someone will do it. It's just a matter of yeah,
you're right, and and it might be bigelow crazy enough and wild as that
is, it might be a fellow UFO or that does this first. It
might be I mean, it's looking really good. If Bigelow his test of
this iss unit is successful, he might be the first guy to have a
base on the moon. Guarantee there'll be a casino in there. Yeah.
Well, he wants a hotel. He want that's part of it. He
wants to do a hotel. That's his thing. That's how he got his
money, is doing hotels. Crazy, how pretty neat. I think that
ought to be interesting, and it is so mind boggling that it's someone in
the UFO field that might be doing it. That's that's pretty cool, really
wild stuff. Well, we've talked a lot about some news and some goings
ons in the last couple of weeks. Thank you for your patience, smartin
with me being sick and being available to do this this morning. Oh sure,
let's go ahead and talk to Robert and Morgan. I am so super
excited to talk to these guys because some of you may know why. I
kind of mentioned it in the last show that we would have some cool story
coming up, and that cool story had to do with these two gentlemen.
So earlier I had mentioned this Puerto Rico case and the group of researchers who
put that report together. And I have two of those researchers with me,
Robert Powell and Morgan bil Hey, guys, hey, alijndro all right,
so we have a lot to get to, no doubt, and I think
just to get it out of the way at first, and maybe Morgan,
I think you could address this because you were probably the one who made this
call. Morgan you are a state director for MOUFON in Florida, and Robert
you are the director of research for MOFON. You have another you have most
of the members of the SCU I think all but one may be even our
work with MOUFON or have positions at MOFON. However, this was not a
move On investigation. Why is that? Well, I didn't think about it.
A lot of us actually a part of multiple organizations. Some of us
had worked with NARCAP, some work with NCAP the current version, and so
you know, we're we're involved in so many different projects and different organizations,
including MOFON. Mofon's a big part obviously in the volunteerism and the work that
I do in Florida. But on occasion, like in this case, the
case wasn't really acquired through Moufon's database. Rather it was a friend of a
friend, and so Anacola and so, you know, that's kind of the
direction we took in It was actually kind of a last minute, not really
a last minute, but we really didn't think about how we were going to
formulate a think tank to sort of present this case, and so we came
up with the idea of the SCU as sort of a think tank or a
coalition or you know, a hub, so to speak, for people to
come together and analyze cases. So I think you said also at one point
the witnesses had were they hesitant to have this case as part of a larger
organization. Yeah, there was a lot of hesitation in databasing the case.
They didn't want their information out there, their name or location. So they
were very very hesitant. Also because they are you know, they're afraid to
lose their career either that or through ridicule. So they were very hesitant,
very very protective of their identity, and so there were a lot of things
I couldn't guarantee them and any respect as far as you know, getting involved
in a larger scale investigation. So he wanted to keep it to a small
group of people in the beginning anyway, so that you know, his identity
was protected. And so at the time, this was back in twenty thirteen,
we really didn't have anything set up, you know, organizationally to handle
this sort of identity protection. So what we did is we just compartmentalized it
to upset a few people who actually knew his identity, and that's how we
went about the case from that point on. So it was basically a case
of a friend of a friend. That individual had some pretty heavy demands on
keeping his identity from the public. Right. So, and we'll get into
the radar in a minute, but I guess I have a couple more questions
for Morgan because you were there kind of when this whole thing started, because
it started in Florida, right, you said, a friend of a friend
and essentially the source we'll call him, I think that's what you call him.
And the report had approached one of your investigators who happens to be and
this is really exciting. I mean, I think a famous Cuban born,
you know, fantasy writer. Yeah, I mean she's a I guess a
non or a fiction writer mainly, and you know, Hispanic countries. She
is now starting to publish in the US. But yeah, Diana Chaviano,
she's an excellent investigator too, and I've worked with her for a couple of
years here at Florida, and she gave me a call one day and said,
hey, I got a friend and you know, I don't know what
to do with this. And I asked, you, hey, just have
him, you know, fill out a case on I'll move on to database
and go ahead and report it. And she's like, well, I don't
think he's very comfortable with that. I think you need to come here in
person and see this for yourself and then maybe we can talk to him directly.
And that's sort of how the ball started rolling. So she had the
video and you were able to go there and check it out. Yeah,
yeah, And you know, of course I'm thinking, oh, yeah,
okay, a small light in the sky or yeah, something like, well,
you know, I get over there and I watch it. You know,
I don't actually in the beginning of it, I really don't think much
of it. Pretty much go along the lines of most skeptical believers or what
have you. And I think balloon, I think something floating in the wind,
and I continue to watch it and there's some just peculiar characteristics with the
video that you know, transpire, and that's when I said, well,
I think this needs to have a serious look rather than just me, you
know, like a YouTube video, looking at a YouTube video and just judging
it. I just went ahead and said, well, let's put it to
the task. Let's find out what this is. Mm hm. So,
Robert, I think this is an important part where some people have asked,
you know, you guys did a foya to get some radar information, And
of course there's well what I consider a famous and one of the other best
pieces of work in euphology is when you did, you know, a foya
and got some radar information with a Stevenville case. But you did a foya,
you got some radar information. And some people have asked, well,
you had the video, why did you need the radar? Well, as
soon as I saw the video, the reason I wanted the radar data was
one to see if we could pick up the object using FAA radar. It
was available in that area, and we got that FAA radar actually by requesting
it through the US Air Force because they have access to all FAA radar through
the joint surveillance system. And then the second reason I wanted it was because
I wanted to verify that this was not a hoax. In other words,
I wanted to know that that plane was located where it was at is those
latitude longitude coordinate show on the video. I wanted to verify that, Yeah,
which seems really important because I mean, if movie makers can hoax you
know this telemetry like in the video that you see. So that's why I
was kind of surprised when some people were like, what did you even waste
your time with the foil. Well, obviously it's important for these two reasons
that you've talked about, and with that that radar information you could verify this
wasn't a hoax. That plane was where the telemetry on the video says it
was exactly. Not only was that correct, but when the uh, you
know, the indication the pilot sees an object to his left, the radar
data and everything lines up with everything that we got regarding the pilot from the
secondary witness. So that really nailed down that it was a real video.
And from that point in time, we really worked on, Okay, exactly
what can we glean from the video, you know, in terms of what
does the video tell us? Now I want to ask you about this.
This is something that you had mentioned to me before. You said you your
foil was to the Air Force, and the Air Force then provided you with
FAA radar data because the Air Force has access to that. I guess my
questions twofold. First, if you would have requested to the FAA, would
they have given you that information or not? Do you believe? And second
you said something about how this sort of thing that happened with you, oh,
won't happen again. Yeah, to your first question, the FIA,
especially on the eastern region of the FAA, it's very difficult to get information
from them. There's lots of delays. Plus the FAA says, after forty
five days goes by, we can't give you the information anymore. And more
than forty five days had gone by, so our only option really was to
go to the US Air Force to get the FAA data, and I've always
tried to use that resource sparingly. But we came to find out that this
request was actually the last request as far as I know that the US Air
Force is honored because now if you send them a request, what they will
say is they don't do that anymore. That if you want that information,
go talk to the FAA. Wow. So that's pretty I mean, it's
great that you guys got in there and were able to get that fa radar
data because without that data you would have had no radar data right exactly,
because the FAA won't give it to you for forty five days. Frustrating.
So that's surprising. So that was a stroke of luck. And you know,
I wanted to touch on here, I guess just before I forget something
Morgan had said, and I know you guys probably feel the same. And
it's just kind of funny because it's something I wanted to bring up, and
I guess Morgan kind of encapsulated kind of that feeling. What has a bit
surprised me is just how combative a lot of people are, at least a
lot of the more careful, some of the allegedly more careful researchers are out
there to the report. And I guess it's kind of that sentiment because I
have the same thing I'm sure you do, Robert. Whenever you hear about
a UFO video, the first thing you do when someone says, hey,
I have this great video, the first thing you do is roll your eyes.
At least that's the first thing I do, because it's like, yeah,
sure you do. Because ninety nine point nine percent of the time it's
a bug or a bird, or it's something we've seen before exactly, And
I guess that must be how some of the people are feeling out there who
have not embraced this report as much as I thought they might. Yeah,
uh huh, I was gonna say, yeah, I see that almost every
day after or release, and it's kind of back and forth, you know.
I try to explain to people that, look, we're not saying it
is something. We're just saying this is something we're our time to look at.
We're not claiming to be right about everything. We're not claiming that it's
an extraterrestrial aircraft from some other planetary system. We're not saying it's you know,
we're not we're not actually identifying it as anything that we believe that is.
It's just that we look at the data. This is our opinion based
off of our analysis. We could be wrong, we could be right.
We could be wrong and right at the same time. With all the various
things that we have analyzed. I think people are jumping, you know,
they're so used to to jumping at these types of things. I mean,
we just got out of the you know, the slide gate as they call
it, and I'm sorry to mention it on your show. You yeah,
no it is, And we just came out of that, and so now
everybody's on the defensive, right, and you know, we hate it.
Our whole intention of releasing this to the public wasn't to make a big,
you know, extravaganza about it. Our main goal is to get it to
other researchers, other scientists, to really dig into it and see if there's
anything to this. We're not saying that this is the best thing since slice
spread, and there's a lot of people saying that to us, and we're
like, well, yeah, we know that. We know that it's not
the best thing that's ever been out there. And you know, I have
people say, well, why are you wasting your time if it's not the
greatest thing ever. I was like, well why not don't Well, I'll
stop you here for two points. First, I disagree with you. I
think it is a really good one second of all the report does say it's
you know, one of the conclusions Indusry report is it's one of the best
cases any I mean, I get it. It is one of the better,
you know, videos that we really have had, especially if it is
determined to be an unknown, which we did in our paper. It's just
that I think people are overreacting on both sides of the fence, which is
okay, Yeah, I get It's it's part of this field, and people
think that this is just exclusive to the UFO field or whatever. It's not.
You could be an feel in science, you're gonna have these heat a
battles, you know, over cures of cancer treatments and or biology studies.
I mean, you're going to have a bunch of difference of those opinions.
Yeah, And I do want to just for people real quick. I'm sure
practice my listeners. I'm sure bored to death with Roswell sleds because we've talked
about it. But just to catch people up if they aren't aware of it,
is that you know, there were researchers recently who said they had these
pictures of an alien and that this is probably the alien from Roswell. Once
those pictures were publicly released, which took a long time, and they alluded
to them, and when they released them, they were not very exciting.
In fact, people immediately said that looks like ammified body, which it turned
out to be, and better research was done after those pictures were released.
But that group of people, like you said, release them with with big
fanfare, and they were very defensive and they were not open to the research
that others had done, which is certainly different than the sent that meant that
you all have shared. You guys have been very open. Yeah, absolutely,
And that's the whole point of our release. Why we created the website.
You know, we want people to review. We want people to sit
there and tell us what they think, especially if they're experts in their field.
We want to hear your opinions. That's what science is about. It's
about exchanging that idea, trying to repeat the same analyzes, finding out if
there's things that are correct and things that could be fixed. That's the whole
that's the whole part of the process. And I think people aren't used to
that in uthology. They're used to defending and fighting each other and debating each
other about something either's black or white. We're saying, look, we accept
other alternative hypotheses, and it's just that it's a hypothesis people. We're not
saying this is it, this is the thing, this is something else from
somewhere else. It just is unknown to us analysis. Right, So we'll
get more into some of the feedback that you will all have gotten, especially
the more pertinent feedback from experts, and what's going on there is really interesting.
But getting back into the siding, I guess we should start off next
with what the source, who the source was, and at least of what
we can share about the source and what the source reported as far as the
sighting. Yeah, I mean, obviously the source. This is one of
the limitations of our report. And we totally recognize that that the source wants
to be completely anonymous, and we will, uh, you know, we'll
get that to him, we understand. But you know, the source essentially
witness or knows the witnesses and works with the witnesses and and so it's it's
kind of a direct contact between those poxies, I guess you could call it.
Where we were able to determine information by Q and A over a long
period of time, and I actually got to meet our source and person face
to face, so I know the person's a real person. Uh, you
know, I know a lot about that individual and you know, including career
line and everything else and so, and that individual did not want to be
identified, nor did they want their employer to be identified. However, you
all, like you said, were able to meet the source, and you
were able to verify this person's identity and their employment, and that they would
have been in a position to know what they knew. And what they knew
is that this person spoke with the pilot of this aircraft that recorded the video.
Correct, That's absolutely correct, And so you know that's that's where the
video came from, and that's also where our test some of the information came
from when we began our investigation. Now, this part does get a little
bit difficult in that it's an anonymous witness, which often is something that you
would, you know, kind of blow off. But given like what Robert
had said, the radar data from a third party verifies everything that your source
had told you. Lends credibility. Plus, people are are somewhat needing to
trust you all, which I do personally, but you know understandable other people
may be skeptical that you all did do your due diligence to verify this person
is who they said they were. Robert, did you have concerns about the
source, and if so, what eased those concerns? Myself? I really
did not have concerns with the source, Alejandro, because once I verified the
video was not a hoax, the main value to me in the entire investigation
was was the video itself once I knew it was a real video. Now
that you know, the witness being able to tell us what he saw is
always helpful because that helps confirm you know what's in the video and helps in
the analysis. But the video to me pretty much stands on its own two
feet. Now, did the Sourus ask the witness the pilot to speak to
you all directly? Yes, Earlier on it was conversations going back and forth,
and I think at that point they were still uneasy about directly communicating with
us. I'm sure in the future we could probably arrange it, but at
that point no. So regarding the sighting, what did the the what did
what were you told? Took place? Well, essentially the tideline was that
they took up and I think Robert you've been looking over this portion of the
data more than I have. But if you want to go ahead and explain
that on the timeline of what was the witness and what the data actually says,
well, yeah, basically, the plane took off at nine sixteen pm
local time, and is the pilot is looking out his left window and he's,
you know, he's already left the runway. He sees an object.
It's a pinkish red light to his left, which is to the north northwest
of where the plane is at that time, and that's also the same direction
that we picked up the radar blimps. And so he circles around and then
comes back over the airport again. And when he does his second circling point
is when he actually turns on his thermal video because that's when the object turns
off the pinkish light. You know, whether that whether the object intentionally turns
off the pickage light or it just goes off, there's no way to know.
But that's when he turns on his thermal video m and that's when he
started getting video. And we should note those radar contacts you're referring to were
captured before they took off, correct so those and then maybe you could explain
what those unknown radar hits were. Well, yeah, let me start off
by saying, these unknown radar hits they're to the northwest of the airport about
two miles so they're not very far away. They're picked up by a radar
site that's at an elevation of three and a half thousand feet on the far
east end of the island, So that radar site's ninety miles away, but
it's long range radar and it picks up at nine pm. Every time it's
sweeping, it's picking up an object in that area. Now, it's not
unusual for radar to pick up an unknown object and then it just disappears and
you never see it again. It's just kind of, you know, an
occasional blimp whatever causes it to happen. But what was unusual was that every
time the radar was sweeping, it was picking up an unknown object in that
area in northwest of the airport. So I felt that that was, you
know something, there's something to it, and we don't know the answer.
For how long was that that target being picked up. That went on from
nine pm to nine to twelve pm, and then the target pretty much disappears,
and then four minutes later the aircraft takes off and that's about the time
that they saw the light. Correct, So what did they see so once
the the light turned off, I mean everything that they all the data from
there is on the video of this object seemingly flying over the area. I
mean, now that you know, or at least once you know where it
was. If you look at the background, you could see what apparently is
the airfield airport. This thing flies over twice and then apparently flies behind some
trees and then into the ocean. And that I mean, so what you
guys had to do next was to determine I guess what was your feelings for
your next step to approach to analyze a video? Well, I mean the
next thing we did on the to analyze the video is the first thing was
we looked at all the longitude, latitude values, the distance values, all
the numerical values that are right there on the video screen, and so we
basically plotted all the movements of the aircraft. We split the video into over
seven thousand individual frames. There's thirty frames for every second of video, and
so we did brain by frame analysis. We enlarged the frames so that down
to the pixel level, I mean, we did pixel level analysis of the
object. We analyzed other objects in the video such as cows, the asphalt,
the trees, because those all gave us clues because we could determine their
temperature and to try to also determine the temperature of the object. The one
thing that's distinct on this object is it has a definite thermal signature. It
is not the same temperature as the ambient. It is significantly warmer than the
ambient. So we know that we're not dealing with something like a balloon,
which is right dealing with ambient temperature. It's something that has its own power
source. And it was a thermal system, not like night vision. This
is something that is picking up heat differences, that is correct. This was
not It was not a night vision system. It was not in the near
infrared. This was in what's called medium range infrared, which is between three
and five microns, and in that range, what it's basically picking up is
thermal emissions from an object. So you also found out the type of plane
DHC eight turboprop. Actually, there have been other sightings I've written about where
they're in a dash eight, which is what this plane was pretty common,
I guess for a prop plane. But during this time, while you guys
are analyzing, what's interesting is that the video somehow got leaked and there was
what a version out there from a Puerto Rican UFO researcher who put a really
low resolution. It was a video of a screen showing the video, and
that caused kind of some confusion, And of course you guys kept silent the
whole time, even though we were writing about it, because at the time
I didn't know that was what you guys were working on. But in that
you know, confusion, then it's people kind of were uh, by looking
at these low resolution videos, decided that this object could have been a balloon.
And at the time, you know, not knowing any better, I
thought, perhaps that seemed like a logical explanation in that you have even though
the object looks like it's going very fast, it does look like perhaps the
plane is going around the object, which would make the background look like it's
going very fast when actually it was not. So that seemed like something plausible.
Was that did that cross your minds at first? And how did you
prove that was not the case. Well, i'll explain, you know,
I'll explain my thought in the beginning, and that was exactly my thought when
I first saw it. You know, again, I was pre judging before
I looked at the old video, and I'm sure that kind of happened with
this low red imagery that was being leaked out after we had already started our
investigation. So yeah, I don't blame people for thinking that. I mean,
it's you know, but it's what makes it significant is the fact that
it's thermal imaging and it's not just some light in the sky or something along
those lines. But go ahead and explain, Robert, the you know what
you were going to explain. Well, first, the first thing we did
is we looked at the object or the video has a laser rangefinder on it,
and we looked at Because we were looking at these frame by frame very
carefully, it became evident to us early on that the rangefinder was giving the
location of the land, not the location of the object. And so we
knew that the object could be anywhere along a line of sight between the aircraft
and the ground, and there was no way to know its exact location.
And so what we do is we started looking for specific times in this video
when, for example, the object went behind a telephone pole at one point
in time and went behind trees at another point in time, and then we
enlarged those frames and we looked at them at the pixel level to make a
determination of whether or not we believed it went in front of or behind an
object. So once we did that, that allowed us to know the exact
three dimensional location of the object on the ground. And this when we can
do that is mostly during the latter half of the video, and that's the
point in time where we were able to calculate Okay, based on that,
we know this is the range error, it's somewhere between this distance and this
distance, and if that's the distance, then this is you know, we
can then calculate the speed of the object and the size of the object.
So we looked at the possibility of a moving object. But if you look
at if the object is it goes frame by frame and across short distances of
time, you can't really explain it with something that moves the speed of a
balloon. Because the winds that day at ground level ground level never exceeded thirteen
miles an hour and up to thirty two hundred feet. The maximum speed was
eighteen miles an hour, So for this to have been a balloon, it
would have had to been very close to the aircraft to show the amount of
movement it did. And when you do the lines of sight in the distance
it covers, at that point in time, your balloon has to be going
upwards of around thirty miles an hour, which doesn't you know, there's no
way and it changes direction, I mean it goes against the wind and perpendicular
to the wind, so you know, you can't go thirty miles an hour
when the wind speed's nowhere near that m And then for the portion where it
goes underwater, I mean, even with the low resolution, people were saying,
it looks like it's going underwater and coming out of water, because that's
what the video. It does look like that in the video. If it
were to be going under the water, uh, that would mean that it
is at the surface, so the rangefinder would be accurate in its distance,
so you guys could calculate that. But it also looks like to me that
really even when I watched the high resolution video that you guys have posted,
that you can see some splashes too. Yeah, in the report Carl Paul's
didn't work on this. There does appear to be a very minute splash it
it does into the water. It's very minor. But I mean that,
you know what we could There are drones, torpedoes, et cetera. The
can do that. But the thing about the water that was so interesting is
that not only is it moving underwater at eighty miles an hour, which there
are torpedoes, etc. That can do that, the object comes out of
the water at a high rate of speed. It slows down a little bit,
so I think it's around this is for memory, about fifty miles an
hour when it's coming out of water. But that takes a lot of energy
to have an object that it can actually come out of the water on its
own, And I'm not aware of anything that could do that. But even
if there was. The part that you just I have no explanation for is
when the object splits apart. Now if yeah, at the end of the
video it looks like it splits apart or some people have speculated and even felt
that another object comes and joins it, But you guys, are sure that
it's or you feel that your analysis has demonstrated that it broke apart. Right.
What we did is we did a frame by frame analysis of the video,
and so we're we're looking at individual pixels that make up the object each
frame by frame, and the first thing we look for is, okay,
did another object come out of the water and join it? There was no
indication of that. What we saw is actually the number of pixels, and
this all occurred within one second. Within one second, the number of pixels
increased and continued to increase. We have a graph on it. So it's
not like right, random machine machine noise from the video, because then you
would have a lot of pixels, fewer pixels, a lot of you know,
blah blah blah. Instead we get a constant increase in number of pixels.
This heat zone inside the object began to grow also, and then it
was like the heat zones began to split apart until you had a point where
it was like there were now two heat zones. And then the next thing
you see is the object completely split apart. And then you can see in
the video at regular magnification that the two objects are traveling next to each other.
And that goes on for about ten seconds. If you have something like
a missile that breaks apart or any object that splits off, right, it's
got to fall behind because it doesn't have its power source anymore. So to
do this, your object has to be able to maintain two different power sources
as it's splitting apart, and so that you don't have any fallback of one
half to the other half of the object. That makes sense, I mean,
and I have like zero explanation when I when I looked at it frame
by frame, what it looked like. If you're familiar with mitosis and biology,
that's exactly that's what it looked like. It looked like a cell it
was beginning to split apart, and then you had two cells. Yeah,
not really weird. So, uh, that's the radar stuff. That's how
you came to your determination of its speed and its location. Now, really,
there's a lot of people out there at like we talked about before,
skeptics like ourselves, I mean, who are looking at this and at first
they're kind of thinking, oh, you know, they're sticking with this kind
of balloon idea that that despite you know, your demonstration of the location and
the speed, which to me looks to be very well done. They're saying
it's probably a balloon because you can't tell how far this object was, that
most likely it was closer to the plane and moving slowly, And a lot
of guys don't even try to explain why they think that. But Mark D'Antonio,
who of course we've had on the show quite a bit you guys work
with because he's a mofon a photo analyst. He feels that it's due to
anomalies in the thermal imaging system where objects can kind of disappear on the system
due to kind of problems with the system, and so when it appears to
be going behind objects or into the water, it's not really doing that.
He still hasn't responded to my question completely when I asked, well, why
does it seem to only be doing this when it's going behind trees or by
the water. Otherwise the entire time during the flight of this object, like
you said, Robert, it's very distinct. It's a very distinct target that's
very dark, that is moving across and only when it appears to and it's
buy trees that does it fade out like it would if it goes behind trees.
Luckily, now you all have gotten hold of this flear expert who works
he's a defense contractor. He works on these exact sort of systems, and
he says he agrees with you all that. In fact, I talked to
him directly and was asking him questions, and he was confused because he was
like, there isn't that sort of problem with these systems. The object is
very distinct at one point, and then when it disappears, it's because it's
going behind other objects. That's why. So he seems very much like you
do that it did go behind other objects and into the water, which is
really cool because you know this is an expert who comes to the table afterwards,
who is confirming what you all said. How do you all feel about
I mean about some of the skepticism the balloon theory. I mean, has
it made you have double thoughts at all? Has it made you think that
maybe there is something missing in your report? Or how have you felt about
that? Let me comment quickly and then I'll let Morgan comment. Sure,
you know, I don't have a problem with someone if they have a balloon
theory or if they think there is an anomaly that occurs in the video,
But I'd like to see the proof and the evidence not well, maybe it's
an anomaly or maybe a cosmic ray went through that day and popped out a
sell. I mean, they need to have there's no point in doing all
this conjecturing. They need to do the science behind it. And that's the
part that really bothers me. Take for example, when the object right breaks
into two pieces, right, and you have two parts of it, and
so you want to say, oh, it's a reflection or oh it must
be an anomaly for a mirage, But then one half of the reflection or
mirage starts moving away from the other half the reflection. And then if it's
an anomaly, when that other half goes into the water for some reason,
the other half of the anomaly decides to stay there. I mean, I
my big gripe is just I have no problem with these kind of things if
if you have some reasoning and some evidence behind it, But just to throw
out conjectures on what might happen is not science. Yeah, I agree,
you know, I think what we're trying to promote here is people to produce
their work if they believe, just like Mark Bantuio, if you believe that
there's something that it is. And in fact, I hate to use that
word, but you know, even Mark used as well. If you if
they believe that it's this, it's not about belief, it's that our data
is telling us that it's this. Is that. Let's see your data and
your calculations, your you know, your methods that you used to determine your
your hypothesis, and again reiterating it's just a hypothesis. And somebody was trying
to you know that a lot of people try to you know, you know,
instruct you on what science is, and I tell them, no,
you practice scientific method in many different forms. Just show your work, show
your analysis. You know, sure, alternative hypotheses, that's part of this
process, and we're okay about that. But I think we were even told
that we were being stubborn about our conclusion, I think in one of the
major magazines in the UK, and you know, to me, that's just
ridiculous. We're completely open to alternative hypotheses. We may not agree, but
we're totally open to that. But we just tell people, just like Robert's
frustration, in any scientists frustration, to show your work. Don't just snipe
out your idea and tell us we're wrong, show us, prove to us
that we're wrong. We'd like to see it, and if we're wrong,
we would I know, you know, and that's just part of the process.
What's great though, in the aftermath, is that you do have this
expert and he says, you know, and I was able to look up
his linked up and see his background, very impressive background. This guy has
the highest level of that you can have as far as maintenance of these sorts
of systems. He says he's got thousands of hours looking at this sort of
video and his resume reflects that. And he's very certain that you know,
or he feels very strongly that you guys are right in your analysis. And
also he says the thermal signature doesn't fit for a balloon either because it's just
too hot, it's too different than to be a balloon. So what's great
is this expert opinion is agreeing with your analysis. And other scientific organizations have
given positive feedback as well, n our CAP and three AF. The French
organization has been very positive. I don't think they've they've felt or expressed any
concern that I know of the unfortunate part is these guys haven't come forward to
publicly say that you've done a great job. I think that it's in the
works. And like this guy I'm talking about this, this flear expert.
Unfortunately, he fears that, you know, if his name is associated with
the UFO case, it may hurt him in the future when he's maybe being
reviewed for a security clearance or something like that. So people are read as
to come forward, and that becomes a bit frustrating. I mean, I
can completely understand their concerns, but it is frustrating. But incidentally, Rich
Hoffman, who is part of your group, also works in defense, and
he had security clearances and thus far, and he's been a state director in
Alabama for many, many years. He's been involved with Muffon I think for
decades, and thus far, he hasn't suffered any negative problems as far as
I know. Well, yeah, it hasn't taste even our witnesses, you
know, I mean, as far as it went, they took it to
their superiors and and really with their superiors, then took it to Air Force
intelligence, according to the witnesses, and they shot it back a couple of
weeks for a week or so later they were he wasn't certain of the day,
period of time, but it did come back and they just said they
didn't know and gave them a civilian phone number to a UFO organizer. Wow,
And so they were confused. You know, they're still confused with this
as like, well, it's an okay now they talk about it. I
mean, do they you know since giving us this number, does that make
it okay for us to report it now? And it's kind of they're not
sure, and so I think you know, as you you know, you
know all Huder, you were familiar with a lot of the history of this
phenomenon and the reporting it went from complete ridicule and losing your job to today
where it's confusion over whether it's okay to talk about it or not. People
are still people are still scared to talk about it because they don't want to
lose their career and you can't blame it, and so that makes our process
much harder. Just like another we have a thermal image engineer who works for
a major aerospace company and other than the other expert you mentioned, and same
thing with him. He's like, yeah, I'd love to you guys,
but I can't have my name out there. I you know, I don't
think right for my career career, So it's that maybe willing to help us
in any questions we have, but again it's it's very difficult when we're dealing
with a very public case to to get that research on paper. What did
the second person tell you? Well, I mean the second person had told
me, and you know he's very knowledgeable in these systems. He says that,
you know, it's it's definitely in his opinion. On a balloon,
he says he's not sure what it is. He's perplexed. The argument about
the mirage is also not true. With that specific system, it does create
what's called a well some people caught mirage, but it does create some sort
of vertical line anomaly. And if you look into the video and you look
directly at the high temperatures of the jet aircraft sitting on the tarmac, you'll
see that that that anominally that that's the only you know, problematic anomally with
that system, and it wouldn't create dual images like that, and especially in
the circumstances you know. That's what the other guy said too, is that
that reflection hypothesis is wrong because that it's possible that he can be reflected off
a very shiny metal, he said, but not off of water, so
it's not a reflection. And so that's exciting. Now we have two people
that are very familiar with these systems who are agreeing with your analysis, just
unfortunately neither of them can come forward by name. Yeah. I mean the
other thing is there were waves that day, right, and so it's just
another case of oh, maybe it was a reflection. I mean, I'd
like to hear the explanation of how I R reflects off ocean waves, you
know, and holds an image. I mean, it's just I don't understand
why they did that. I think I think some alternative hypotheses are reaching.
I think people immediately apply their biases to these cases. I mean, I
told you my bias when I first looked at it. Everybody has a bias.
But people need to learn how to check that and be able to test
all the hypotheses rather than just accept the one and try to prove it.
That's that's not science. You need to accept and work with all the hypotheses
and then work through it. And that's what we have to LEA did well,
Thank you, Thank goodness that you guys got the video on, you
got to speak to people close to the video, because I was at the
same place. I was like, you know, okay, maybe it is
a balloon and there's just some kind of weirdness with the system causing though what
looks like to break up. Even though that looks really weird, and I
was willing to move on, not that I could do anything else anyway,
But that's why it's exciting you guys got to do this analysis and what you
found, because I'm sure when you all went into this you weren't necessarily knowing
you too. I know that you two are not the types to go into
this and with your mind made up and to ignore data that's counter to what
your belief is not at all. So I want to touch on one other
thing that you said though, because this is really interesting is that these guys
said, and I want this is an aspect I wanted to talk about,
is that it seems from some of the information that's come out, and I
know you guys struggled with dealing with this. Like I talked about the low
resolution video coming out. You have an auxiliary Witnesses section in your report that
talk about some of these others, But it seems like people on the base
were excited about this video and they thought it was mysterious and so, like
you said that this is really interesting. They took it to their carriers,
who took it to Air Force Intelligence, who gave it back and said,
here's the number to a civilian organization. I think then, because that's one
of the weird things. A lot of people have questioned, it doesn't look
like this video went through the proper protocols to be released, But at the
same time, these guys were kind of given the okay when they're given the
video back and told here's the number to a civilian organization. So weird.
Yeah, that's the first thought on my mind, and that's like what and
that's the same and today they were just like what do we do with this
now? You know, it's like, you know, the people that are
supposed to be telling us what's going on, you know, you know,
these guys, the pilots are border patrol, they're supposed to be protecting the
borders, and they're like, what if this is a spy dron, what
if this is something that's not ours? You know, what if it's another
country's military hardware. But it's like no one seemed to care. It's like,
you know, everybody at the base thought it was really interesting. They
were scared, they were excited. They they didn't know what was going And
that's not the only thing happened. Al see a lot of things that people
just see this narrow incident. There's a lot of other things, eye witnesses
of different things going on at that time. And we had witnesses in the
tower who saw the whole thing happen, but they're not willing to talk to
us, and they affirm, they confirmed that they knew about the incident,
that they weren't willing to cooperate with the investigation. And you know, there
was other witnesses off base that saw things. There was even another pilot who
was driving back to the base who saw lights that shouldn't have been over the
base at that time at that altitude, that passed over at low altitude.
So there's a lot of things that have happened, you know, in that
area during that time period, and it's just you know, we're here in
the United States, so we are limited. So we're hoping in the future
this case develops and more people come forward and we're able to take their data
and analyze it and add it to it, even the so called rumored videos
that maybe out. And so it's you know, part of our job as
scientists and you know, investigators to look at all the claims and not just
ignore it or throw it out because we're sitting here on YouTube or you know,
as I call Facebook scientists and make a decision by you know, putting
up a few posts. We would to encourage people to either support or you
know, challenge our report, but produce your own white paper that will,
you know, so we can compare notes, so we can repeat your annalysis
or a vice versa. That's the whole point about this and that's what we're
trying to promote here as well. Yeah, getting back to the excitement on
the base. You know, one of the letters that had been sent by
someone in the know was to John Greenwall just like a month or two ago,
not too long ago, along with a high resolution copy of the video.
And it turns out new you announced this in your report that Morgan you
had also received a very well it looks like it's the same letter. It's
very very slightly different and the letter seemed to be someone who was really excited,
and this was someone in the know, because before your report, everybody
thought it was a helicopter that took this video, because there was assumptions made
online that that was the case. But in this letter, this guy came
out and said it was a DHC eight. He named the exact sort of
thermal imaging system, and he went so far as to say, this is
proof that there are aliens in Puerto Rico and an alien base under the water
near Puerto Rico. And this person, in order to know that that much
detail, you would think possibly is on the base or a friend to someone
on the base. I'm pretty certain that that individual is likely the same individual
that was posting on YouTube, created a specific account to comment on the leak
videos and continue to send mail out even I think this anonymous individual which is
not our witness, And we asked our witness, is this you? And
let him know? And I showed him the letters and I said, are
you sure this isn't you? Please tell us the truth and he's like,
absolutely not, I did not do this. And he says, I think
I know who. I have an idea, and so I started following that
trail down and this guy was and I believe was another pilot all on that
base that from the same aircraft is yeah, and he retired not too long
ago, so he's kind of hard to find out, but yeah, he
was working out. He was there as a border patrol. And I believe
that that guy who you know again, people say, oh, he said
aliens and this and that, and he said, look, that's a witness
and he's that's his opinion. It has nothing to do with his testimony that
he was able to identify this thermal system that we had already done to find
independently by ourselves and it hadn't been out in the public yet. No one
else has ever released that we knew about it beforehand. And this guy starts
saying things that we found out on our own, and that's when, you
know, the light bulbs went off and there was like this guy might be
somebody that's in the inside at the time, and you know, again it's
yeah, it's circumstantial. It's an anonymous tipster. And in fact, I
got a personal email, just like John did, from this individual named me
in the email, and I don't know how he got my information or who
gave it to him, but he he wrote an email directly to me,
the same thing with John, so he was Obviously there's enough excitement that was
going on out at this location at that time that people wanted answers. They
wanted to know what was going on, because it wasn't just the one pilot
or the set of four pilots, the two pilots and the two technicians in
the aircraft that saw this event. There were other events that this guy means
that happened around that or after that. So there was a string of events
which probably created this excitement of these leaks, and they were trying to figure
out what find answers. Since they didn't get an answers from the official sources,
they started, you know, searching elsewhere. And I think the leaks
that you saw in Puerto Rico were part of that effort. And I don't
think that it was coordinated because I don't think they were all aware. They
were all too afraid to really communicate an effort to tell somebody about it because
they were afraid to lose their jobs, and so they were all doing it
on their own, I think, and you know, it could have been
two, three, maybe even four individuals reaching out for the pub and that
is something that you know, your report is data standing on its own,
which is important in this field because of course there's a lot of anecdotal information
out there. But what a lot of people don't know is what you've just
shared, and I think don't realize which is there are there is anecdotal information
that comes along with this that probably for for better, was not in the
report, but that you know, the consensus there was more than just your
source. Uh, there were other people on the base or around this,
uh that feel that this object is an anomalous and strange and your analysis just
supports, uh that idea. I think something came up earlier where they were
a few of us were talking back and forth with Norcap because they had an
anonymous source too, and you know, the thought was maybe our source is
their source, and I don't think so, because the way that I came
across our source was totally indirect and and you know, my source was had
no intention of linking it to the public. It was just him showing a
friend a really cool video. Oh really, that's exactly how it happened.
And and and so we weren't approached. It was us approaching a person to
get involved in some sort of effort, and that's when the ball started.
Brow That's why I said this was a friend of her friend. This was
totally casual when we came across the video, and our source was not seeking
help or identification. He just shared it with somebody who just happened to be
an investigator in this field, and that's that's when it started. So I
think our guys completely separate. So I guess we've got to wrap this up
already. I knew the time would fly, But Robert, I want to
ask you out of everything, all of the input you had thus far,
and you can tell me whether I'm wrong or right. It looks like the
most credentialed people with expertise in the systems and and with expertise and engineering and
all of these the fields that you would want to get feedback from, are
very supportive of your research and and what you've found. That's far. Have
you seen any gotten any feedback that does give you pause, that makes you
want to check into something more carefully? Well, you know, anytime you
want to bring something up, we try to double check it. But you're
right, the best positive feedback we've been getting has been from individuals who are
experienced with this type of equipment, and they all say, we've never seen
anything like this, can't be this can't be that we have no idea what
it is. So that's you know, that's the positive. The The other
thing I just want to mention Alijandro is on this whole topic. You know,
as all of us know, the US government no longer investigates UFOs,
So there's no government organization that we know of that works on the UFO phenomenon.
But there's also no help for us when we try to investigate. Right,
there's clearly military radar that's available, we're not you know, we can't
get access to that. There's tower logs that are available, and we can't
get access to that. And none of this is like national security type of
information. So it's almost like there's these blinders on and no one wants to
investigate this phenomenon enough on my soapbox. Well you know what that supports though,
what John Alexander says. John Alexander says, it's like a hot potato
more than anything. Even though he believes this to be the wrong policy or
the wrong decision to make that a lot of these guys will be like,
I don't want to deal with it. If it's an unknown, what can
I do with it? That's just gonna bring me too much heartache. Get
it away, you know, get away from it as quick and as far
as you can. That's what John Alexander says is the state of the military
when it comes to this stuff. And in this case, you know,
and what you're describing seems to support that. I agree. All right,
guys, great work. You know. We'll certainly be in touch with both
of you all going forward, but really great work. I'm so excited about
what you all have done. I think your report is better than I thought,
than I knew it would be good, but it's really good. I
think it's tight. You know, there's been a lot of people beating it
up and looking at it, but your analysis is held up and no one
has, you know, like you have said, provided dat to dispute your
findings. A lot of people have said, oh, obviously I can dispute
this in no time, but they haven't done it yet, although there's people
in process of trying to do that. So I think the next few days
and maybe in the next few weeks there'll be a lot more analysis coming out.
What are the next steps to kind of wait for that. We're continuing
to work on the case. The publicity that we've obtained from the case has
actually brought us the technician you talked about who's so familiar with flurs that came
about because of us releasing this case. So we'll continue to work on the
case and get more information. We're going to be working with a three AF
Sigma two group out of France. They've already provided us some feedback which has
been very valuable, and we're going back and forth with them in a scientific
type of joint ventures. So I wish everyone could do it that way.
And I should mention the three AF is an organization of engineers and aerospace engineers
and the like in France, and they actually have a group that works on
UFO cases and so they're the ones. This is professional, mainstream organization that
you've been in contact with, and so far I have been very positive about
your report. Yes, they had. Do you wanted to add anything about
what's coming up regarding this case? Morgan? Yeah, No, I really
look forward to the back and forth with scientific individuals and credential scientists. I
think this will be a great development in scientific medical venuepology, if you want
to call it that. You know, it's it's just a matter of getting
people together and start, you know, the process. And I'm just hoping
that you know, people get the right idea of the reason why we're releasing
this and we're not trying to make books. We're not trying to make fame.
That wasn't our intent. And I think a lot of people react that
we know personally that way because they're so used to that, you know,
and we're trying to show a new light or longer. I liked it was
there a long time ago that there is possibilities of conducting true analysis and even
very technical. I think one of the criticisms I got early on in my
work with euthology is that I am over technical or I'm too detailed. There's
too much. I say, there's never enough. The more detail the moral
analysis. If your report ends up being four hundred pages, so be it.
The more you put in there, the better. And you know,
that's what we need more in this field. I think we need to learn
more about this phenomenon, and you know, we need to start actually,
you know, learning the scientific details and the facts about this this phenomenon,
and that's that was the whole purpose of why we created this SCU page,
and also so that we could have that as a foundation to work with multiple
organizations without any conflict of interest. All Right, well, great job,
guys, Thank you so much for coming on the show and talking about this,
and I'm sure we will be in touch. Thank you. Thank you
so much to Robert and Morgan for coming on the show. I think the
effort they've made on this case is extraordinary in itself. I mean, you
know, no matter what happens with this, I think what they've done and
this careful research that they've done is really exemplary when it comes to investigations in
this field. I mean, it's the way things are supposed to be done.
And what they've done is they've put together a paper with all of their
references, all of their resources, all of their findings, and put it
out there so everybody can go at it, take a look, and dispute
it if you like. But I think one thing they ask, which is
fair, is that if you're going to dispute something in their report, that
you first read the report and second of all you know, directly cite their
report as to where they went wrong and where you may disagree with what they
have to say, And especially if you have expertise in any of these areas,
that would be very, very helpful, because I think these guys,
of course, they would be disappointed because they've been so excited about this potentially
being an unknown. And not only they are excited, as we've talked about
many people with the CBP, we're excited. Now we have other people excited
about this, including these these experts with these systems that can't figure out what
this might be themselves. So now we have an abundance of expert opinion coming
in and support that this thing is an unknown. So if you figured it
out or think you've got it figured out, you know, it would be
really helpful and incumbent upon you to have your tea's crossed and your eyes dotted.
And I think that would help everybody out because then we'll be able to
really figure out this mystery but some great work. I'm so excited about these
guys and what they've done, and I'm sure we'll be talking about this case
with them and with others in the group as time goes on. So thank
you guys so much for coming on the show and talking about it. Remember,
you can see the report and also a suite of FAQs that is being
updated as questions come in and at explore SCU dot org. Explore SCU dot
org and you'll be able to get all the information you're looking for. And
that's probably something that we don't mention enough is that they do have, you
know, quite a few FAQs up there that will answer I think many of
the questions that you may be curious about. And of course these links are
embedded in the radio show description for this podcast and in the story that we
wrote about this case at Openminds dot tv, where we kind of of did
a summary a rather lengthy well for our stories, not that our stories we
try to keep them from being too long, since that's the way media works
this these days. The shorter the better, it seems. But you know
where I summarized and broke all this stuff down to talk about their conclusions.
But the report has all of fine details that you may find interesting. I
certainly did one hundred and sixty one pages, so it's not something that you
can probably get through in an afternoon. You might need the weekend, but
it is well worth it, especially if you have something to add to it,
which they are excited to hear from others who do. So that's it
for the show. Thank you to Caleb Hanks, who does the opening and
close music for us. You can find a link at the Open Minds Radio
for his music that he puts out for free, really cool stuff. I
really like it. Thank you so much to Caleb. Also, thank you
all for listening. And don't forget the UFO Congress is coming up. Really
cool stuff we just posted this week. I should I haven't even told you
guys this exciting news yet. We did some of the speakers this week,
so we posted about half of them, maybe a little half of less than
half the speakers for the twenty sixteen UFO Congress and I think it's a really
exciting list. So check that out. I'll be talking more about that as
time goes on. And one way you would have known that we posted those
speakers is if you're on our email list, because we are sending out emails
regularly. Now. If you're not on our email list, you can easily
get on the email list by just going to Openminds dot TV and you'll see
in the upper right hand corner there's a little blue box where you can just
put your email in there, push submit, and bada boom bata being your
in If for some reason you can't get to our homepage, or maybe it's
just easy because you got your mobile and you just want to shoot us an
email and tell us, hey, add this email to your email list.
We could that too. You can email us at contact at openminds dot tv.
But yeah, go to ufocongress dot com and check out this cool list
of speakers that we got going. We'll be talking more about that, like
I said, in the next few weeks and months before the exciting conference.
Yay. Anyway, that is it for the show today. Again, I
apologize for not getting this up earlier. I was not feeling good, and
now that I've been yamoring on at length, I'm starting to feel a little
funny. So I better go rest. You guys have yourselves a wonderful day,
and we will talk to you next week. Audios, mood chuchos,
your motionless sound, the glass of Hurry