Hello, and welcome to Open minds UFO Radio. I am your host, Alessandro Rojas, and I've got with me my news UFO News sidekick buddy. For the first segment. Here, Martin artiste willis, Wow, does that I have like one of those apostrophe apostrophes? I think so, yeah, wow, I'm not completely sure how you spell it. That's good enough. Yeah, just I didn't even know that you're a painter. Well, I just have fun with it. I you know, I wouldn't call myself an
artist. I just like throw a bunch of paint on, you know, canvas, and and just have some fun. So it's fun. I like to do it when I have time, but time is slim. I almost got back into it a few months ago, but now I'm moving. That's not fun. Yeah, so moving's never fun. And I found out from my guests today. So to let people know who the guest is today, it's David Marlar. Some of you may be saying, hey, you just had David Marler recently. True, but David Marler is an excellent researcher.
And you know, just so the listeners know, and you might have known, you know, things are I've changed a little bit for open minds. But I'm just we're more and focused on the credible information out there. Why is it just because we think everything else is silly? No, not at all. It's more along the lines of I just think it's an underrepresented area where a lot of people are looking for information, credible information, and so
I want to focus on that. Because you know, this Pentagon thing happened. I'm sure there's a lot of people I would be too, thinking, you know, what is this? You know what credible information is? They're out there. Most people in the general public haven't heard that there's credible information. So, you know, instead of having to go google UFOs and finding all the crazy stuff, hopefully you know, they can come here and find
some credible information. And I know it's a stepping stone because then people once they begin to explore in kind of the more safer, more well established information, then they develop what their interests are and looking too other things. But I think it's important to kind of stake this ground and to you know, defend this this bastion of at least some credible information. So that's what we're
doing. And David Marler is great at this because so in other words, I think the way I feel is focusing on more on quality than quantity as far as guests go. And David Marler, as you know if you heard him recently, is excellent and he does great research. And one of the great pieces of research that he's done recently is to investigate this Battle of La incident, which we'll talk more about. Nineteen forty two Los Angeles. Unknown
objects flies over Los Angeles. They opened up, you know, this is just after Pearl Harbor, so they were ready anti aircraft guns just go crazy shooting at whatever this thing is, and they don't get it because it goes down the coasts and back. And we'll talk more in detail. But it's also what's surprising is marlar investigation has demonstrated that this is actually a much more
significant case than even I, you know, had a realized before. He put it all together like this, and I think he's the only one who's done as in depth of research, putting it all together like he has. And of course he's great at referencing some of the other researchers who have you know, also looked into this and gotten some of the information that he's been able to use in this investigation. So this is a great This is a lot of fun. This interview here about the Battle of La great well.
A couple of things I want to say. First of all, I commend you for your efforts. Oh thank you. And secondly, you can't have David Marler on enough, in my opinion. I know, I agree, I would have him on every week if he would be on the show.
I mean, he's just amazing. He's top notch, top shelf. So yeah, I agree, he's a lot of fun and he's got so much to talk about, and you know what's really fun too, especially I don't know why I never realized this before, but I think it's because I've been focusing on these interviews and I got these Devil's Tower UFO event interviews and David Marler was there, and I interviewed him, and I edited that together, and that local news actually interviewed him, and I'm gonna be putting another piece
together with him and some of us this week, so keep an eye out on the YouTube. But he's very articulate, and he is so well spoken that it's just it's fun listening to him and having him convey this information. I think articulate and well spoken. Is this same same thing? Yeah? I think so, But anyway you articulated it well, yeah, But the reason I thought, and that also made me think of the art because he's into triangle UFOs. He's written a book about that, and that's what most
people know him for. Great investigations into that. And one of your paintings is a triangle UFO that you're going to give to mister Marlin. I think that's great. That's right. I still have it here and I'm packing up to move. I have been looking for the right size box while he patiently waits for it to arrive in the mail. They were excited about it. Oh that's awesome, that's good. You would think you were like some famous person jokes on him. Then, yeah, all right, So that will
be the show today. It's gonna be a lot of fun. But of course, before we get into all of that, we talked UFO news. You want me to tell you my funny story too. I would absolutely love to hear that. I need a laugh about right now. Okay, So, and this relates to to UFO news because there was a spectacular show in the Guy last night. Amazing light show However, especially even if you are following my Twitter, you would have been aware of what it was, which
is well, i'll tell you in a minute. But there's I have a friend, a really good mutual friend of ours, who apparently was not reading my tweets this week, but I don't blame him because he's busy putting together what will be probably one of the best documentaries to come out in quite some
time on UFOs. This is our good friend Le Spiegel, journalist who formerly wrote for the Huffington Post, but now he's working with James Fox, who has created what I think are some of the best UFO documentaries out there. Out of the Blue, and I know what I saw, and he's working
on new one and Lee's working with him. So they're actually both out in California, in the San Francisco area editing this new documentary, and somebody came in I talked to because Lee called me very excited last night and had ran downstairs and said, hey, guys, I don't know what this is, but there's something really weird in the sky. I think there might be a UFO out here. So they go all go outside and they see this large
cone shape glow in the sky huge. Wow. Lee showed me some pictures and the edge of this cone was really bright, and he said it seemed like it like slowly went over them and then you know, disappeared over the horizon and it somehow kind of like changed in luminosity while it was doing. This is what he described. So I was like wow, and he's like, yeah, let me send you the pictures. He sent me a couple of pictures, and so I said, this is amazing because I know what
it is and I think it's amazing, and he's like what. He's like yeah, and I was like, you know, this is SpaceX. SpaceX launched a rocket. Now, when I said that, he did not seem excited. I am because I'm so into this space stuff and I'll tell you why this is such a big deal in a minute. But he was kind of bumped. He's like, oh, you think that's what it is. I was like, I know, that's what it is. What you got was the re entry of the rocket. And I was like, this is
still exciting. You're not you know, don't be bombed. This is good because what he witnessed was the first time in history a rocket has launched into space and then come back and landed on the ground. Of course, SpaceX
has done this with their Falcon rockets in the past. However, they've landed them on these remote, unmanned large ships out in the ocean barges exactly the barges for safety because you know, the first one or two times they did this, the or the first time the rocket fell over and exploded and it would have been bad if there were people there. But they've got it down now, so they landed it in California. So his part was the landing when it was coming back, so he seemed kind of bumped, but I
was excited. I'm like, this is historic. You witness the first time this has ever happened. This is like Flash Gordon stuff. You know, this is like Buck Rogers. We're able to have these rockets come back and land on the ground. Amazing. So and these are our first steps. This is an important technology to get us to Mars and everything, which SpaceX plans to do within the next ten years. So he wasn't excite as excited about what it was. He was kind of he thought maybe they really got
something crazy. But definitely if you go look just look at SpaceX the pictures are all over the news this morning. People got these amazing photos and NBCLA got this amazing video. It just looks so surreal. These rocket launchers are really crazy. And of course you know, uh, this one of course got mistaken for something unusual. It's happened before when SpaceX's launched rockets, just the nature of their rockets, the way the gas is released in everything.
But when this all first, when this happens throughout history, when rockets release gas or when they have problems, uh, they often look spectacular in the sky. And in fact, in Norway, Yeah, in Norway, there were these spirals. And to this day, when you tell people those were rockets, there's other examples of these spirals, they don't believe you. In fact, there are some listeners listening to this right now who are like those
Norway's Bibles were portable, you know, dimensions to another portal. They were not rockets. And I'm sorry, and uh, I think they're talking exactly like that, very similar, very similar, Well at least that's how I imagine that. They said. You know, this is the guy in the mom's basement type of thing who just wants everything to be Aliens and dimensional portals, and you know, it's just there. There might be that sort of thing. I would say, go look, you know, watch this hut
for the Skinwalker documentary. There is some but unfortunately, you know, the Norway thing was a rocket and they just do some spectacular things. But it made me think, even last night when I was looking at this, or yesterday when I was reading about the upcoming launch, which was last night, is that you know there are I've got a new article. Actually I linked to it on Den of Geek and you know, let me see if my
other one's out. So it was in the Den of Geek magazine that they made for New York Comic Con, which was just this last weekend, and it's a small thing about space tourism, so the different technologies being used, who you could go buy a ticket from today when you might be able to get your ride, the different technologies, all of that sort of stuff. I wrote an article on that. I wrote a longer one that's going to be up at on the website at any time as soon as they recover from
their New York Comic Con partying which just ended yesterday. And I know these guys party man. It was in New York. I'm sure they had a lot of fun. But all of these varying technologies, the rockets are different. I mean, it used to be kind of, you know, just a handful of people that use a more standard kind of craft when it was just NASA launching stuff or just the satellite launches. Now that private corporations are involved, the technologies vary so much so that we're going to be seeing a
lot of different types of which is exciting. It Like the future is getting here so quickly, all kinds of different sort of rockets being launched, and so there's going to be different kind of lights in the sky that we haven't
seen before, like last night. More and more as time goes on and we we start flying, you know, these these spacecraft more and more, right, Well, you know it is I think I think it's the upper atmosphere where things can look really funky, like what you're talking about when they have a failed failed missile launcher. But yeah, I can definitely, I mean it's absolutely beautiful. But uh, I think it's important to have things
explain that can be explained. Yeah, last week I had you know, I had Fraser Kane on my show from Oh yeah, Universe Today and Astronomy Cast, and he absolutely says, you know, nope, uh nope, no aliens, No, no aliens coming here in no UFOs. And you know, a lot of people wrote really harsh comments. But one point he made that I thought was very is, hey, look there's a box over there, and someone's going to tell me that there's something in that box.
Well, I can't see inside that box, so I have no evidence. So he made a really good point to the fact where you know, every you know, the people that claim that aliens are visiting that's what UFOs are. It's I'm not saying that's not what they are, but he makes a good point to say, we don't have any evidence as to what they are at all. So anyway, I don't know how I got onto that topic,
but no, it makes sense. It's just that the evidence portion of it, because you know, I've been saying that and someone even challenged me on my YouTube. My last UFO is seriously live, and he's like, there is evidence out there. These people that you're talking about wouldn't be researching this stuff if there was an evidence, And it's like, well, they're
still researching, right, They're still trying to gather they're gathering evidence. There may be indications, there may be what Frasier, for example, was talking about is kind of our null hypothesis. So if you're doing a scientific investigation, you have your hypothesis, but your job is not to prove your hypothesis. Your job is not to disprove your hypothesis. You're trying to prove the
null hypothesis. And why is that? And that's what makes the practice of scientific research so powerful is that you're trying to prove what you think is the case is not the case. And if you can't prove what your null hypothesis,
that bolsters your hypothesis. That means you're probably right. And so once you've done all your due diligence to and you can't prove the null hypothesis, that's when you come out and say, look, guys, we've got all of this evidence to show that we're being visited by aliens, you know, and here's how I've shown that they're not anything else. And that's how you
move forward. And then everybody comes and but we just like you're we just don't have you know, that smoking gun evidence at this point, so we keep looking that kind of brings me to the story that I would like to talk about this week. Go for it a nice little segue. So anyway, this was published in Newsweek the end of last month, on the twenty eight and basically the title It's in Tech and Science, part of Newsweek and
NASA sixtieth anniversary why haven't we found Aliens Yet? And it basically goes from the first human moon landing to helping the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, which has given us unpercented views of the unprecedented views of the wonders which loom above the Earth's clouds. NASA has achieved a lot in sixty years since it was founded, but finding aliens, unfortunately, is not on that list.
There was one part of this, you know, it goes on to talk about the Drake equation, which I think is personally, I think is outdated. You know, with all the new discoveries of you know, Earth like planets and planets and the possibility of so many planets, it kind of kind of blows the Drake equation away, but only in numbers. Possibly the gist of the theory still makes sense. I'm not really sure, but I thought
this part was interesting. In a paper published in the journal Nature, physicists Giuseppe Cocotte and Philip Morrison posited that if aliens exist, they would most likely get in touch with other civilizations like our own by pinging off electromagnetic singles signals into space and the hope that they'd be picked up. Now, this is what I want to argue that. The reason I want to argue that is I don't necessarily think that if aliens are out there, that they would be
thinking in the way that we would think. So I don't think there's any there's really any credibility to that statement. So that's why I want to read this. I mean, I do understand what they're thinking, but they're taking that in human form and human thoughts and human nature, and we have absolutely no idea what's out there and what type of thinking that intelligent life would have.
What do you think about that? I agree with you in that it's I feel that that answer, oh, you know, they would ping off signals. It's very very unsophisticated, and it it I think that the the problem with SETI speculation or scientific speculation along these lines, is that these people, their discipline is typically a science one such as most of the time, and this gentleman's probably an astronomer. An astronomer, this isn't an astronomy issue.
This is a more of a social or more of a social issue. I think that you would need, you know, I think that social scientists, communications people, they would all have just as good, if not better, input than an astronomer on how a culture another culture may contact us.
Not only that, I would imagine I mean, if right now we found another culture, a civilization that was less technical, technically advanced than ours on another planet, you know, we would be very careful and we'd have to put a lot of thought into how and when we would interact with this other culture. So it's much more nuanced, and I think a complicated them just saying, oh, well, just send them signals. We'll send them a signal that'll work. I mean, that would be ridiculous. That would be
so stupid of us to send some random signal. It wouldn't even make any sense. So it doesn't. I think that that a lot of the answers like that, just unfortunately, I don't think they're that well thought out. They're just kind of in their defense, it's probably just a journalist asking him the question, which is fair, and they're just shooting from the hip and not putting much thought to it and just saying, hey, it would probably
be this, you know, so I think it'd be interesting. I know Paul Davies from the University of Arizona has a committee, had at least a committee with SETI where they were kind of post detection and they thought along these lines, what would a detection be, like, what kind of things would they do? He's written books along this line, and a lot of times he's very critical of the current things that they're doing there at the SETI Institute or some of the different SETI groups out there. So, yeah, I
agree with you. I don't think that that makes very much sense at all. And in fact, you know, I think that some could argue that the Star Trek type of situation. And I think in that article or another article that was out recently, let me see there was another. Yeah, it's called I know what you're talking about, Here's why aliens will probably come
in peace. Yeah, it's probably that one, because they talk about how in one of those they talk about the possibility like Santon Friedman does that we're kind of being kept from everyone else. We're too dangerous. You know that we're being watched and observed, but nobody's were not ready to be engaged with yet. And we're in tribal warfare, which would make sense. And if that's the case, you know, I'm sure they would be able to elude
our detection, at least elude mass detection. If that's that would be a good scenario for where we might be. Where we catch glimpses of them sometimes, but they don't let us blatantly, you know, communicate with them or anything. That's a possibility. I mean, why wouldn't it be so? Yeah, I just that ping thing just seems really silly. Now we only have like a minute left, I know, something like that. We wanted to talk about the Florida thing. Do you think you can squeeze it in
a minute? Oh, just that, Yeah, Florida. There were fireballs, at least a fireball videoed over Florida, but that could be part of the SpaceX rocket because pieces of the rocket dislodge and then fall back to space, so it could have been there or some other space junk. From the videos, it definitely looks like space junk of some sort or a meteorite, because it's a fireball that breaks up in the sky. Cool looking. Yeah, you know one other quick thing, we just have a few. I
was just thinking about the re entry of a whole rocket. I mean, they must have such it must all be covered in heat shield. I don't know. Do you know anything about that? Yeah, well, I think it has to do with it the I'm sure it is. I don't know all of the details. I mean, it comes back. It's like a candlestick that goes up and comes back. So maybe because it's kind of like
a needle, it can pierce. I don't know if that helps, to be honest, But yeah, I don't know totally about the re entry, although you know, this is the first stage the rocket that goes up and then comes back, so it doesn't go as high as the rest of the payload. I got it. But yeah, that's a good question. And we're out of time. Rep and we are out of time, so we'll be right back with David Marler after this break. Thank you very much, Martin. Very welcome. We'll be right back. I am very happy to
welcome David Marler back to the show. And the reason, of course, we've got David back, like I had mentioned, is just I want to highlight what I think has been a very significant finding on in a case that many of us were already aware of, which is the Battle of La which I guess you know, of course you wrote the book on triangles, You're known for the triangle UFOs. What inspired you to look further into the Battle of Los Angeles? Well, Alejandro, first, thank you for letting me
be back on the show. It's always a pleasure to have these conversations with you and with your audience. I finished my book on triangular UFOs, and after an onslaught of correspondence from just people from all over the world that were responding to the book or sharing information, I finally kind of caught my breath, so to speak, and had some free time, and I pretty much asked myself that same question, well what am I going to do next?
And of course, as you know, I have a wealth of historical UFO materials here in my private library, and I began to think about some of the cases that I was always fascinated with, but no offense to previous researchers felt like maybe they hadn't really been given their justice as far as in depth investigation and research. And I've always been of the mindset, I don't care how old the case is. I think you can still uncover new information,
new sources of information. And so one of those on my probably top three list was the Battle of LA and I heard about the case way back in nineteen eighty nine and Timothy Goods book above Top Secret, that was really my first introduction. And at the time, I'll be honest, I read about that and I said, well, that almost sounds too good to be true.
What's this about a UFO over LA being fired up? And then, of course you know, in the ensuing years, subsequent years, we learned more information as some researchers and reporters had documented and discussed the topic somewhat. But I really felt like it really hadn't been given it to do as far
as serious in depth investigation. So I started corresponding and working with other UFO researchers, people that are that have a much bigger resume than myself in this field, like Barry Greenwood, And a lot of my inspiration was drawn from Barrie's research, because, of course he was one of the early researchers with the freedom of Information Act to garner all of these declassified military documents, and there's a lot of information, and he was able to share with me his
entire file case file on the Battle of La incident. And just one little point I'd like to bring up because I often see this posted on different blogs and websites. You know, people say, oh, case from nineteen forty two, why are we rehab these old cases. Well, in point of fact, one of the reasons is because a lot of these documents aren't declassified
until decades after the event. And I bring that up because the documents that Barry was able to gather through the Freedom of Information Act, most of these didn't surface until nineteen seventy seven. So that is one of the reasons why
we reinvestigate these old cases. It's not because they're old and oh, isn't it nostalgic just to kind of go back and reminisce about these No, it's because it takes twenty thirty forty fifty years for documents to become available, and with those documents, we hope we might have a thread that we can pull on that will lead to other information or may correlate with information we already have
in the books. Well, yeah, and you know what the truth is too, we don't have the same amount of data for anything except for those military cases. And like you said, the military cases, including the Bue book cases and all of those those documents are older cases, and those are the only cases that you know, had a large organization in this case, the military investigating what had happened. And that's one of the reasons too. You know, do we have a lot more data for older cases and new
ones. Absolutely. And you know, at the end of the investigation that I conducted and I'm still working on, I'm actually in the process right now here in my research room, I have an old nineteen forty two street map of Los Angeles that shows all the little side streets. And something that I need to remind the audience is the fact that this did occur in nineteen forty
two, before the interstate systems were put in place. So many of the intersections and streets that are alluded to in either the government documents or in the vintage newspapers, which I have most of the original newspapers from those that morning and the sub sequent morning. They reference witnesses at various locations. Well, if you pull up a map today, many of those streets don't exist.
Oh wow, state system, So we have to go back to the old maps from nineteen forty two in order to see the streets as they existed at the time of this sighting. Well, we'll get into some of this later on too. But also in defense even though we did this in the last time, I had to in defense of historical cases, is that you know
this phenomena. I think that's one of the misperceptions that a lot of people interested in this phenomena have that I feel in this age, especially with the show and what Open Minds is doing we're trying to correct, is that there
is not a lot of credible information on UFOs. You may go on the Internet and see all this stuff about aliens and crash retrievals and all of this stuff, but most of it is not credible, as you and I know most of the time you follow it, and the origins of this information is highly highly dubious. So really there's only a handful of very credible, substantial
stuff. Oh absolutely, I mean, you know, the signal to noise ratio is we often allude to it as and in fact, I had the Dean of Library Library Sciences with University of New Mexico here, which is where all of my historical material will eventually wind up. And we were having that
very discussion. I was showing them some of the more credible cases, and he was very fascinated with the Battle of La In fact, I lectured at U and M last year on the Battle of La incident, and the audience, many of whom were faculty and staff of the university there, were very intrigued by the case. And I don't see how you can't be intrigued with this case regardless of what your quote unquote take is on it, because something
did happen. We have ample evidence to support that, in the way of military documents, newspapers, I witness accounts the question, and I am one of those that still asked that question, why happened? You know? I think you know, going and investigating it will discuss some of the different aspects of the investigation. We can't say what it was, but we I think
can definitively say what it wasn't. So I can, however, see how people would not get as excited or see it as as credible of a case in the way I would imagine many people present it because you have done a lot of work, and no presentation of this case have I seen more thorough or demonstrating that it's a very important case given you know, because I haven't seen the data that you have shared, I think that you've gathered, you
know, more information together than anyone, and you know what's resulted, as you say, is a very significant case. So maybe what we'll do now is get into what had happened in as kind of a nutshe concise way as possible. Absolutely well, of course, we're going back to nineteen forty two, the early morning of February twenty fifth, nineteen forty two, and the
entire southern half of California was thrown into a blackout. Now we have to keep in mind, you know, for some perspective here, this was just two months after the attack at Pearl Harbor, and as I always reference it, as you heard me say my presentation recently, you know, it was the nineteen forties equivalent of nine to eleven. You know, the attack on Pearl Harbor collectively shocked the entire country and really was the final straw in pushing
us into becoming engaged in World War two. Up to that point, the United States was somewhat divided. Do we really want to engage in another World War? Well, you know, now it became personal. We lost, you know, a lot of American lives during the attack at Pearl Harbor.
And so this was just two months in the wake of that, and there was a heightened state of anxiety, specifically on the West coast of the mainland United States, and many people military authorities as well were anticipating what we felt was an imminent attack on the part of the Japanese military on the West coast, and in fact an attack did happen, albeit thirty six hours before the incident that we're going to talk about, where a Japanese sub actually surfaced off
the coast of Santa Barbara, California and fired thirteen shells at an oil refinery in Elwood and caused minimal damage, only five hundred dollars in damages. And then the submarine that had fired the rounds quickly went out to the Pacific and disappeared. So fast forward thirty six hours in the wake of that incident. Now there was a very heightened state of anxiety, and many people attribute the
events that we're going to discuss as all attributed to jittery war nerves. I will admit there was an element of hysteria that played out, but I don't think we can use hysteria as a blanket explain nation for everything. And we'll talk about some reasons why. But in the early morning of February twenty fifth, an inbound radar target was detected. And I've stated this many times in
my lectures, and I've had skeptics afterwards never referenced this. In the fact that there was radar confirmation of an unknown aerial object moving in from the northwest towards the Greater Los Angeles area. We have the government documents. We know the name of the radar operator, the name of the officer that was observing the radar target moving inbound. And in fact, it wasn't just one radar. Admittedly, in nineteen forty two we had very crude radar. I will
be the first one to acknowledge that. But the one thing we need to keep in mind is there were three separate radars tracking this object for one hundred
and twenty miles. We had two SCR two seventies, which was the first long range radar used by the Army, the United States Army, and then we also had an SCR two six, which was a short range radar, so we had three radars that were pinpointing and tracking this object for one hundred and twenty miles moving inland and that and again the skeptics never want to address
this. That is what precipitated all the ensuing events, namely the blackout and then later the subsequent firing of any aircraft guns on an object or objects that
were seen in the sky. And so it's really hard to imagine in this day and age, the entire southern half of California, including the Greater La Area, being plunged into a blackout, but that is what in fact happened as a result of this target moving inland and any aircraft batteries had been placed along the West coast, again in anticipation of a potential Japanese attack, and
according to the military records, they were given orders to fire. They were on green status alert, which meant that they were ready to fire at any potential targets that they saw, and an entire barrage of any aircraft shells were really least and as you can imagine, what goes up comes down, and there was a lot of property damage as a result of all this shrapnel falling down all over the Greater Los Angeles area, all the way down to Long
Beach. I have an original Long Beach newspaper that describes the reign of shrapnel that came down. And despite all of this material being launched into the air, nothing was ever brought down. And so we have many witnesses. And something that I think that really surprised you as well was in looking at the
timeline. This object came in, tracked on radar, moved inland, was photographed by a member of the press, and that's a whole story into itself, which hopefully we'll be able to talk about, and then moved down towards Long Beach, disappeared. And then twenty minutes after the firing died down, the same or a similar object reversed course and basically backtracked from the direction it had originally come from, and then disappeared off of the Long or off of
the Santa Monica coast. So they have we have two overflights, essentially have an unknown target and uh, how do we know this in its fight path? Was it tracked on radar that the entire time or is this a combination of radar and witness accounts? Oh, no, very good question. The radar actually disappeared off radar right before this object apparently came over the mainland.
And to your point, I've spent hours and countless hours trying to correlate eyewitnessed testimony from the newspapers, the military accounts, but more importantly, quite often we talk about documents. Sometimes in these historic UFO cases, the best quote unquote documents we have are in fact audio recordings, and one of them, one of the best one is Byron Palmer, who was a CBS radio news broadcaster. He actually and we still have the recording. Many of your audience
made members may have actually heard this on the internet. They can look it up. But Byron Palmer actually did a radio broadcast that morning that generally conforms or comports with the military reports in the newspaper accounts of this object that was tracked in the convergence of searchlight beams and were fired on by any aircraft shells, And it talks about the object and its flight path, and the flight path that Byron Palmer describes correlates quite well with all of the locations and cities
and neighborhoods that were mentioned in the newspapers and the government documents. So in correlating these various types of information, it basically lends to the hypothesis which I go on, is that it was a solitary unidentified target. There were many reports, and I'm not going to sit here and make it sound like all
of these reports correlated beautifully with one another. There were a lot of reports of people seeing flights of fighter aircraft bombers a solitary mystery target that moved too slow to be an aircraft, Which is the one in question that I think that with the hypothesis I'm working on, is this unknown target that was also photographed. And in fact, one thing I like to mention is the radar target was a solitary radar target, not multiple objects coming in, but one
solitary target. And in the photograph, the famous photograph which we'll talk about hopefully, it photographed a solitary object. So using that in addition to some other information, I went with the working hypothesis of a solitary unknown aerial object. But again, as I mentioned as I prefaced the discussion, there was an element of hysteria. You know, people said they saw a fight aw
bombers. But I would like to mention, in the course of my research, the Japanese military at the conclusion of World War II stated, as a matter of fact, they had no military operations over the Greater Los Angeles area
on the early morning of February twenty fifth, nineteen forty two. And in fact, Nobukio Nambu, who was an officer on board the submarine that shelled the oil fields thirty six hours before near Galletta, California, he stated in a letter I believe from nineteen seventy four that after they fired upon the oil derricks there, that they immediately went out to see out to the Pacific,
and that basically began and ended any military operations during that cruise. So people have alluded, well, it had something to do with the submarine that shelled the oil fields. Well, we have Nobukio Nambu's testimony, and we also have an official declaration by the Japanese military stating they weren't involved. And then, of course the next question comes up, because let's be honest, Alejandro, we don't look at UFO as The first explanation was it military? Was
it United States military aircraft that were observed? And we have one of the declassified documents through Barry Greenwood's research, where two generals, Lieutenant General John DeWitt, who was actually in charge of Aired Defense, Western Defense Command and Fourth Army Defense, he wrote a letter to General Searles in Washington, DC and he states the question had been raised several times why they didn't send up their airplanes, and he states, matter of factly, the reason why was they
only had forty five planes at the time defending the Greater Los Angeles area, and they thought that this solitary target, again referencing a solitary target, they thought that this solitary target might have been a reconnaissance plane. And he stated that despite the fact that they had fighters ready with pilots in the cockpits, ready to take off, they didn't want to prematurely launch them if they thought
that that was just a reconnaissance plane. In fact, he goes on to state that in his letter they didn't want to have their aircraft up in the air half out of fuel when the actual main attack arrived, which makes a lot of sense. Which that's this type of research I love because it makes sense that it answers a seemingly, you know, unanswerable question, and it
corroborates the idea of a single craft. It does it? Does you know they thought it was some type of reconnaissance plane potentially, And I do like to state that to defend the military, because sometimes the military at that time was portrayed as completely impotent. You didn't launch planes, you didn't do anything. Well, they were taking active steps, but they were being judicious in
what they did. And I agree with you. I think it was the right decision if in fact, it would have been an attack at the time. So you know, so it wasn't Japanese military planes, it wasn't United States military planes. I think anyone in your audience would agree. Any commercial pilot that would have taken off during a blackout, yeah, it would have been suicide. So I don't think we can chalk that up to it being
commercial aircraft private aircraft. And again, when you look at the amount of material that was expended, a fourteen hundred and forty rounds of three inch shells, any aircraft shells. In addition, I might add to thirty seven millimeters rounds and fifty caliber rounds that were fired that morning. Again, this is all documented in the government documents through Barry Greenwood's research, So I think anything like that is somewhat ridiculous to entertain. I've had people say, well,
maybe it was a flock of birds. Well, you know, birds would have been dispersed and flying in all different directions with explosions taking place all around them. Another explanation, which I agree would be the most prosaic explanation. Unfortunately it doesn't fit all the facts. Could it have been a barrage balloon that broke loose of a tether floated overhead. It would have been bright silver,
elliptical in shape. The only problem with that is in all the government documents there was no barrage balloon reported that loose, and that would have been the most easy explanation to go with. And that's another mystery, Alejandro, with regard to this whole case, not just the events that played out, but the government's reaction to it. And people asked me, well, what was the official government explanation? And my response to those people that asked that
question, well, that depends, you know, take your pick. Secretary of the Navy at the time, Frank Knox, he said matter of factly in multiple newspaper accounts at the time that basically it was just jittery warners. They jumped the gun, they fired on something that wasn't there, but basically
that nothing to see here move along. At the same time, though, we had the Secretary of War Henry Stimpson, based on General George C. Marshall's information and intelligence that they gathered, stating that there were aircraft or an aircraft involved and that it was not due to jituy warners. And the funny thing is, despite the fact that the public is pressuring for an answer, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was wanting an answer, and you know, everyone else is
wanting an answer. Congress included, they never were able to resolve those two explanations. We never had a cohesive explanation for what took place. So I think that's rather funny in that regard. Well, that's what's great about this case as well. First of all, like you said, there are accounts from the government as far as their ideas. There's also records there, like you reference, from the military and what they thought might have happened and what
they tracked. And then actually what's interesting too, and I'd love to hear your thoughts. Is the media also kind of recorded this event pretty accurate. I mean, really, when you boil things down, the witnesses, the reporting by the military and their reports and from the media all kind of it's very close. Absolutely again conflicting reports with some of the people in general, but you know, it generally conforms with the fact that there was something there,
and it's interesting. In my presentation, unfortunately, I can only show this visually. We have the famous photo that shows the convergence of search lights, and there appears to be something in the convergence of search lights. And when you look at that image, as I stated in my presentation that you recently heard, you look at that image, they're not just willy nilly looking
and scanning the sky. And in fact, I use it as a point of contrast a photograph, another photograph that was taken that morning, and it shows search lights in all directions, and they were focused on something, at least at one part of this entire series of events, they were focused on something. And when you look at that photo, when you read some of the newspaper accounts, when you listen to Byron Palmer's account that they had an
object that was being tracked visually in the convergence of search lights. When you see those white blobs of light around this convergence of search lights, it's a fairly confined, localized area of anti aircraft fire. They're not shooting in all directions. It's not made as many people have alluded to. And you know, and some people have said, well, it may have been a balloon.
And the thinking of the time it's interesting, and the government documents even you can read the fact that they state that the object was moving too slow to be an aircraft, therefore it must have been a balloon. And of course that's only looking at two explanations. I mean, and again the skeptics will attack me for this. Oh there's David Marler saying it's an alien spacecraft. I'm not saying that. I never say that in my lectures. All
I'm saying is it's an unknown aerial object, unidentified flying object. But of course, in nineteen forty two, and that's another reason I love this case, we weren't thinking flying saucer. We went to fo so at that time that makes sense. If it's not an aircraft, it was moving too slow, so it must have been a balloon, but again, no meteorological balloon was described as being released or lost at that time that could have accounted for
it, and no barrage balloon. And it's funny many people have referenced, well, what about the Japanese FuGO balloon bombs? Could that have been an explanation? Well, it could be if this event occurred two years later, because those weren't even beginning to be launched until late nineteen forty four. So you again trying to look at all the potential explanations, and it's interesting there
was an account written in any aircraft journal several years after the fact. I believe it was nineteen forty nine, and they made a statement stating that not one, but two other balloons were released that morning and that's what accounted for all the mayhem. And it's funny because they don't reference where they came up with that explanation, and the government documents from that time, from the days and weeks following the event, they were never able to determine what took place.
So fast forward seven years later, roughly seven years later, and now they're making this definitive explanation. Well, it was two weather balloons that were released, but it was never an official I would call it a quasi explanation because it was never through any official source. It was just one military individual that wrote about it in this journal. It doesn't explain the inbound radar track, right, And we'll get into more reasons why the balloon idea doesn't fit.
But we've got to go to our first break. We are talking to David Marler about the Battle of la one of the most interesting UFO encounters. If you're not aware of it, and even if you are aware of it, you probably just don't know how legit. But we're going to get even deeper into this case and why it's so important after this break. So for those of you listening, I Kgira, here's some commercials. For the rest of you, you will hear a short musical interlude and we'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Mind UFO Radio. I am your host, Alejandro Rojas, and I am here with my good friend David Marler. And when we went to break, you were talking about the balloon theory and you, like you said, it makes sense to the theory because it was something that was silverish and moved slowly through the sky. And one thing just to clarify, because I don't think a lot of people know this, is that there
were a lot of balloons in the air. And in different World War two movies you see the big balloons, and those were tethered with cables and floated in the air above cities and stuff, so that if the planes, which were preparreller planes were coming into bomb or they would get wrapped up in these cables, right absolutely, And that was again, like you said, an
accurate portrayal of what the Los Angeles area looked like at that time. I mean, we had gun emplacements throughout the entire area of Los Angeles, all the way down towards Long Beach, and they had barrage balloons tethered here and there, and again trying to find a logical down to earth and I mean that term literally in this case down to earth explanation, the barrage balloon would be the most logical in the sense that it was large elliptical light reflecting.
But again, I think we have to look at all of this evidence together and to just arbitrarily say, well, it was sitting stationary, moving too slow to be an aircraft, so it must have been a balloon as the thinking was at the time as we were discussing previously. It still does not factor in that we had an inbound radar target for one hundred and twenty miles
tracked by three radars. It doesn't conform to the fact that this object made a pass inland from Santa Monica towards Los Angeles, then down south towards Long Beach twenty minutes later the object reversus direction, which is pretty impressive flight maneuvering for a balloon that's just idly blowing in the wind. And then we had this object hovering stationary at times, moving very slowly and having this intense barrage of any aircraft fire all around it. And the one thing I like to
point out, these barrage balloons were manufactured by the Shell Corporation. It was
basically just a cotton fabric wrapped in rubber latex and then painted silver. We have to keep in mind that not only do we have these explosions around the balloons, and one skeptic on a blog even stated, well, it's possible that this balloon could have sustained the shrapnel because a semi inflated balloon would have been pliable enough to allow those little shards to bounce off, which I think is a joke, because when we're talking about shrapnel from these anti aircraft bursts,
we're talking about high velocity, multifaceted hot shards of metal. Not only are they going to tear and rip, but in the case of these balloons with a rubber latex, that hot metal is going to melt right through like a knife, a warm knife and a stick of butter, right through one of these balloons. And to think that all of this material was being expended
at this object, I just simply cannot. I have tried repeatedly to wrap my mind around the fact that this could have been a balloon that survived all of that, and to me, it just defies logic. Right, and it was it. I mean that shrapnel is designed to penetrate aircraft, yes, and we're talking yeah, right, And again, if it was a balloon, if it was a barrage balloon, none of the military records referenced that a large seventy five plus foot balloon was found deflated laying on top of
a building. That would be something that would have unified the official explanation as we discussed before the commercial break, there were conflicting official explanations. This would have answered everything. Okay, here is an explanation. We can all come to an agreement. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy can all agree that this is what it was. But even though that would have been the simplest thing to do, they didn't do it, which to me
indicates it wasn't a balloon. And most likely the balloon probably would have shown up pretty well in the images. And let's get into the image, of course, because there is this iconic image that that is out there. Yes, yeah, you know, would that have shown a balloon? It seems like that would have shown up better. Possibly. Unfortunately, we don't know
the type of camera that was used to take the photo. And the one thing I like to mention before we get into the photograph, and I mentioned this in my presentation recently, there had to be other photos taken of this
object, whatever it was that morning. I find it very hard to believe that a photographer for one of the news agencies heard the any aircraft sirens, heard the explosions, He runs to an area where that has a decent vantage point to take a photograph of this object in the convergence of search lights, which would have been very easy to see, especially considering everything else was blacked
out in the Los Angeles area at the time. I find it very strange that this photographer goes up on a hillside, snaps a photograph, one photograph, turns around and goes home. You have to think at that time, February twenty fifth, nineteen forty two, we were waiting for the Japanese to attack. Suddenly there's any aircraft bursts, there's any aircraft sirens, there's searchlights
sweeping the sky. If you're a news photographer for in February nineteen forty two, your thinking is, this is the story of the century, and I've got the pictures to show for it. This is going to be the hallmark of my career. Right. That's kind of like what especially wartime Pearl Harbor just happened. That's what as a news person, that's what you're waiting for. That's why you're there. You're waiting. If something happens, I'm going
to get the photo. We have other photos from that morning, but not depicting this mysterious object. It's just simply showing military or it's showing search lights being set up, things of that nature. A couple showing search lights spanning in different directions. But the iconic imagery that you were describing, the iconic
photograph that's on the internet is compelling. It's a haunting image. You have these search lights piercing the darkness, and you see this mysterious object in the convergence, and then you see these little dots of any aircraft fire around it. I mean when I first saw it, I have to tell you it was compelling when I saw that in Timothy Goods book. But we were talking
Alejandro about documentation. Well, documentation also comes in the form of photographs and in researching not only the Battle of la but other historical UFO cases, I really try to find original materials. Part of that's because I'm a historian. I'm sentimental. I like to have original pieces of history. In September twenty twelve, on eBay, of all places, I'd love to tell you I got this through some secret government insider, but I actually purchased this on eBay.
I found an original nineteen forty two photograph that is a clearer image, slightly clear image of what you see on the Internet if you google the Battle of la and see the famous photograph. But what was intriguing about this, And again, I've done a lot of other historical research, so I know what to look for on these photos. Not only was it an original photo, but on the backside was stamped on the back February twenty fifth, nineteen
forty two, property of a associated press. And it has all the relevant earmarks that are indicative of a legitimate photo from that time. I have others I can compare it to. But besides that, it actually had the original news teletype on the back, and on that teletype it states at the very top and the very bottom associated press photo, caution use credit. Now what's
interesting about this is all the indicators show it's an associated press photo. Yet historically previous researchers thought that the photo was taken by Paul Calvert, who was a photographer for the Los Angeles Times. The only reason that I've been able to deduce that they thought that was because it was mixed in with other negatives attributed to Paul Calvert in a little photo sleeve at the Los Angeles Times Archives.
Recently, in the last few years, our mutual friend and colleague Ben Hansen did a TV segment for a show that I worked on as well,
albeit for a different episode called UFOs Declassified for the Smithsonian Channel. And it was very interesting because Wayne Abbott, the producer, went to the Los Angeles Times Archives with Ben and they did an on camera interview with Simon Elliott, who is the chief photo archivist for the Los Angeles Times, and they pull out the original negative and what was interesting and I heard this firsthand from both
Ben as well as Wayne Abbott, who was the producer. As they're looking at the original negative, Simon Elliott states that I've noticed something I've never noticed before, and he indicated the notch codes, little notches on the side of the negative. And he stated, I've never noticed this before, but in the tens of thousands of negatives that I review here at the LA Times,
I've never seen a negative with this notch code. And the LA Times, I believe have like a triangular notch if I'm not mistaken, or a double triangular notch on the side. This one had a semi oval shaped notch. And so he stated on camera that they said, well, what does this mean? He says, well, it suggests it was not taken by an LA Times photographer. All LA Times photographers used the same film stock. Now, this is so funny how the story evolves, because that literally literally was
filmed the day before. Wayne Abbott and the same film crew came to my home to do a segment on triangular UFOs and when they walked into my research room, they saw my photo hanging up, the original photo from forty two, and they said, yeah, we just did a story on that. And he said, I said, well, that's the original photograph and he goes, what do you mean. I said, this is an original photograph
from February nineteen forty two. And when he looked at it and he saw what I saw, the fact that it's all attributed to the Associated Press, he says, this makes total sense. He goes, let me show you the footage we just shot the day before, and he showed the scene with Simon Elliott, where Simon Elliott states, this is suggested based on this notch code, it was not taken by a Los Angeles Times photographer, but they didn't know who enter my picture with the Associated Press. We now think it
was the Associated Press that actually took the photograph. Now more specifically, and this is what's very interesting. At the beginning, we talked about researching these old cases, and you never know where new data will take you. I reached out to the individual that sold me this photograph, and I've actually gotten to know him quite well with subsequent interviews by phone and via Skype. The gentleman lives in the Los Angeles area, and on weekends he and his wife
would go to yard sales and the state sales. One particular Saturday, they went to a yard sale not very far from where they lived, he told me, and while his wife was looking at miscellaneous items, there were two folding tables in the front yard, and under one of the folding tables were two large fileboxes, and each filebox was filled with old filefolders. Each one had an eight x ten glossy black and white photo with a news teletype similar
to the one that I described on the Battle of La photo. And he's looking at these, and he said, Dave, there were wartime photos. There were photos of Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, just all types of celebrities and basically anything that made news in the forties and fifties. There were photos, and these were all original and they all had the original news teletypes glued
to the back. And as you or I would if we were in that situation, the gentleman, his name's guy asked the woman that apparently was in charge of the yard sale, ma'am, where did you get all these photos? These are really fascinating, and very innocently enough, she replies with, Oh, those belonged to my grandfather. He was a photographer for the Associated Press, so apparently this was his personal portfolio of photos that he had taken
during his time at the Associated Press. And after seventy five plus years, I think we now know the name of the photographer. The photographer, the grandfather of the woman that was having the yard sale. Her grandfather's name was Ira W. Goldner, and I was able to research him, and with contacting the family, was able to get additional photos of Ira, photos of his press badges from the thirties, forties and fifties, and in fact,
he even had a studio in nineteen forty two in Hollywood, California. And when I researched him, if your audience members listen to this and they google Ira Goldner, you'll find only two or three references to him. But one is a photo of Bing Crosby and his family and it credits associated Press Ira Goldner. But more importantly, Alejandro, another photograph shows Los Angeles police rounding up Japanese citizens and it was dated I believe February tenth or twelfth of nineteen
forty two in Los Angeles. So we have Ira Goldner that took this, that had this photo in his portfolio. We have his studio in Hollywood, California, nineteen forty two, and online you can find a photograph of him photographing Los Angeles police rounding up Japanese citizens a week to a week and a half before the Battle of La incident. So it puts him at the time and place where he would have had to have been to take that photo. And the negative, I guess was found in the Times archives. Correct,
the original negative is in the Los Angeles Times Archives. But to Simon Elliott's point, and I certainly you and I during the break, we're talking about finding credible sources to verify this information. He is the chief archivist for the Los Angeles Times, and he stayed on camera. Of the tens of thousands of negatives that I have, and I manage here at the Los Angeles Times, I've never seen a negative with a different notch code. Who knows how
it got there. I guess maybe just because they decided to purchase it or use it through the Associated Press more than like and then just to bolster my argument. Also in doing my historical research, I found two other references to the famous photos. One was from Time Magazine, the March eighth, nineteen forty two edition, and in it it shows the famous photo in Time magazine. Time Magazine actually ran the famous photo and at the very bottom it credits
Associated Press and the Ashville Citizen newspaper. I have an original copy from February twenty seventh, nineteen forty two. It ran the famous photo on their front page and at the very bottom it credits AP as the source of the photo. So you found where it comes from. But what does this photo show? I mean a lot of people argue that it shows a dime in shape, but that also other people argue that know that diamond shape is actually the
convergence of the convergence of the light. Yeah, do you feel you're able to make anything out? Yes? I do. But to clarify your point, the famous photo that's circulating out there on the internet was a doctored photo in the sense that there was enhancement done to the search lights, so that the photo which still shows the search lights, I have to clarify that it
still shows the searchlights, but they're not as intense. And so they used to do painting and air brushing, if you will, on the original negatives back in those days, to so the image would translate better into newsprint, and so the one that's out there is not the original negative. Ben Hansen, while he was there, was able to secure a high resolution image, and to your point, it shows much more clarity. It shows the original
image undoctored, and I think that's very important. Any work that anyone has done on the image that's circulating on the internet is worthless because that was enhanced artificially. So we have to go back to the original negative and to your question, after enlarging it, after dropping the brightness down to where all the search lights wash out, what you're left with is essentially what looks like any
lips or an oval shape. I know it's going to dash a lot of people's preconceived beliefs against the rocks, but if you see a flying saucer with a little dome on top. I'm sorry, it's just not there on the original photo. The dome that people often see in the doctored photo, you can clearly see when you do basic contrast enhancement, there's three or four explosions that were taking place at that split second that the photographer snapped the famous photo.
And you can see this clear as day. It's not like reading into the clouds and seeing a giraffe or an elephant. Very clear and I believe Alejandro, you saw it during my recent presentation, and you can very clearly see these circular or globular explosions of a much higher light density than this object or thing that appears to be either directly behind those explosions or underneath those explosions. But for people that see a flying saucer with a little dome on top,
I'm sorry, that's just not what the original negative shows. But to your question, we're left with this mysterious object. Now something else is not only the object, but the search lights. And again understanding we're now looking at the original negative. Some of the search light beams apparently are reflections,
and I don't mean the ones coming from the ground up. But on the original negative there's at least one beam that shoots off at an oblique angle from towards the top of the object, and as you look at the light density, the light density is stronger closer to the object, and as it tapers
away off to the edge of the photo, the light dissipates. So, in other words, the source of that light beam is the object itself, which suggests it's a reflection that whatever this object was, it was light reflective, and at least one of these search light beams is bouncing off of some type of object. Now we're running out of time. Unfortunately, I know
it flies, but I guess to wrap up the picture thing. That's where you've got some ongoing research where you are continuing to get some analysis done of the photo. Correct. Yeah, our mutual friend and colleague marcty' antonio I recently shared a copy of that high resolution image and asked him if he could to please try to extrapolate whatever information he can, if any, from that original negative image. So that information is still pending, but I look forward
to seeing if he can glean any additional detail from that. But again, my thanks to Ben Hansen for providing that you know, we all were collaborative. Collaboratively, we can't do it alone. So I want to thank him for his efforts. But you know, this brings us back to something that I had mentioned in my recent presentation on this. When we look at a case, and you alluded to this at the introduction, Alejandro, when we look at UFO cases, like you said, many aren't that credible or many
don't have that much corroborative information. But I always like to point out when you look at the Battle of La incident, we're not just dealing with a multiple witness case. Because admittedly, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of witnesses observed this as this as these series of events played out in the sky over Los Angeles in the surrounding area of February twenty fifth, nineteen forty two. So it's a multiple witness case in that regard. It's a
photographic case. We have the photo, we have a scan of the original negative it ran in the newspapers of the time. It's all radar visual case. It's not just eyewitness testimony. We're basing this on. We have radar confirmation from three radar systems. We also have military engagement with this object, whatever it was, where we fired on it repeatedly with multiple weapons. And as a result of that episode, we have official documentation documenting that, yes,
these events did happen. And then of course we have all of the newspaper accounts as well. So when you roll all that together, I would argue, yes, this is an old case, but many of the new cases we have don't have even close to this amount of information exactly, And I think that's a great point. And you know, records are still records, so especially with this case, and when over l A, I mean just after Pearl Harbor, obviously it's going to be a very very very big
deal. And surprisingly right just that nobody died from the shrapnel falling, surprisingly surprised. Yes, people did pass away from like heart attacks. There were five or six deaths, unfortunately, which you know I always like to make mention of people tend to laugh at this, you know, the skeptics laugh at it, but you know, at the end of the day, it was a chapter in World War two history and a sad reality is to your point, five or six people did die. They died of heart attacks and
vehicular accidents. Some people were trying to drive during the blackout, which is not exactly the smartest thing to do. And then, of course, with the heightened state of anxiety, for people that were already maybe predisposed to have heart conditions, there were two or three heart attacks. So some people did die as a result of this, and I always like to make mention of
that fact. And you know, remember them, you know, I mentioned their names and my presentation just to pay tribute to those individuals that unfortunately lost their lives. MM. Well, thank you so much. This is just a great case. Now. I wanted to just go over it during the show. However, your lecture, which is very well organized and laid out, you did it during the seventy fifth anniversary essentially of the event. We were just I believe days from the seventy fifth anniversary almost to the day.
So that was a really nice opportunity. I want to thank you for Oh you kidding, it was our pleasure. It's amazing. So and you can watch that in the twenty seventeen lectures at the video on demand for the UFO Congress. But we're out of time, of course, the time flies. Thank you so much for joining us once once again, thank you, Thank
you so much to David Marler for joining us on the show. I will put in the show notes a link to his website, but also a link to his talk at the UFO Congress on Battle of La because even though we got to cover quite a bit, we did not cover everything, and he does so in his talk, and not only that, it's laid out very logically, very organized, and it really is the best way to see everything about this incredible case from nineteen forty two, the Battle of La It has
a great name. Also, so thank you so much to David Marler. He was wonderful as usual. Thank you to Martin Willis for joining us with the news. You can find all the news that we talked about at Openminds dot tv, where you can also see a link to my Patreon page where you can see some of my dentive geek articles, including the space tourism stuff that we talked about earlier. And I have a new article too on the science Fair. So this is a documentary that's really cool. It's about this
high school science fair. It's the biggest in the country. All these people from all the world around the world come and compete and these kids are amazing. I mean, the projects are really groundbreaking. They're important projects that change the different fields that you know they're entered into. So you'll definitely want to check out that documentary and check out my article which includes interviews from the directors. So it's a lot of fun. Find that on my Patreon Otherwise,
the UFO Congress. The UFO Congress Video on Demand page has more videos, so almost all the twenty eighteen lectures from the UFO Congress are up there now, so there's hundreds of lectures that you could see there. Just for a few bucks a month, you can have access to all of them, or if you just want to watch one, you can do that too. So that link is also in the show notes, and you can go to Ufocongress dot com or at the top of open mindstat tv in the upper right you
also see a link to that. Be sure to join our email list to keep up on everything going on for open mindstat TV and the UFO Congress. Again, you can find that out open mindstat TV. Check out all of the cool news stuff that we're posting on the open minds Video YouTube page. We have our UFO Seriously Live and other videos going up there, including a new video real soon with David Marler and others from the Devil's Tower UFO of Rendezvous event that was a few weeks ago. And I've got a great video
going up with interviews from those guys very soon here. Otherwise, I want to, of course think Caleb Hanks for the opening and close music. It rocks. If you go to the Open Mind GFO radio page on Open Minds at TV, you'll have a link there and you can read more about Caleb Hanks. And then also and his brother Micah Hanks is actually in those videos that I'm talking about that i'll be putting up that I've put up one and I'll be putting another. He was at the Devil's Tower UFO event as a
speaker. Also, I'll be at Alien Con in Baltimore. I think I mentioned that earlier. So that's gonna be a lot of fun. So check that out, especially if you're on the East coast. Come say hi, I think I'm going to do you like three or four different events there, lectures and different things like that. But also of course thank you the listeners. This has been another great show and we'll have another great show for you
next week. Thank you also much for listening, and until next time audios moved, duchos, you were motionless.