Robert Powell and Morgan Beall - The Puerto Rico UFO Video

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