Podcast: Play in new window | Download
This week on The Gralien Report, after massive drops in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Micah gives us a breakdown about what’s happened thus far, before moving on to a secret “robotic” device discovered by a Chinese fisherman which authorities believe they have identified… but as what? Also, fears among technology advocates are growing that Google might be able to sway the 2016 election. Finally, new details about the origins of the controversial ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’ have begun to emerge; but do they suggest it is real, or just a modern forgery?
In hour two, we shift gears as we are joined by Alejandro Rojas of OpenMinds, who gives us details about a Department of Homeland Security video which purportedly shows an unidentified object flying over Puerto Rico. Theories about the footage range from an object of technological origin (possibly a drone), to more prosaic explanations like a balloon, or as one recent analysis suggests, possibly just a pelican in flight. Alejandro provides us with further details on the Scientific Coalition for Ufology report (which can be viewed here), in addition to information about the origins of the film, how it was obtained, and what may have been filmed over Puerto Rico at that time.
Want more from the Gralien Report?
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Also, for more from the bunker, check out Gralien X, where you can get additional weekly podcasts, as well as monthly specials like Gralien Enigmas and Crypto X.
by 
I actually proved that the Scientific Coalition for Ufology made serious technical errors. Once you see their mistakes, a proper analysis throws out all of their claims. Sorry, guys. It’s all fun and games, I guess, but I expected much better work from scientists. This one was easy to figure out. Those who still wonder are engaging in wishful thinking.
The bigger question that should have been asked is, what is the government up to and who are they testing in releasing this video? It is a test, I’m sure. And the UFO community failed, I think. I’m not really part of that community as my interest is primarily in consciousness-related phenomena, but it took me under 10 minutes to see the goofy mistakes that the SCU analysts made…although the math took a little longer. 🙂 Anyone can replicate my work – anyone – and prove that the SCU got it wrong at every point. Again, sorry, but it’s true.
It would be very simple for you to show your math, using up less room than you have in your previous three comments. The math could easily be accurately audited by several qualified members of the Gralien community. If you’d like to post your work, We can tell You what we find.
This is how science actually works, outcomes without peer review are entirely moot, and effectively irrelevant.
To use an amusing meme-
One does not simply…
say they have the true answer.
Wtf, tgr turned into some boring news show after much zany, forced laughter and men in love with their own voices at the beginning. Dunno if I can be bothered trying to find start of interview
Hey, that’s alright. No one is forcing anybody to listen here… so if it doesn’t strike your fancy, quit yawning, and just go back to sleep. 😉
Hey if you really hate people in love with their own voice then you better go home take all your CD’s and Record’s and throw them in the trash because those people are REALLY in love with their own voice.
Also, I want to make it clear that Alejandro Rojas COMPLETELY misunderstood my interpretation of the data. Yes I mentioned about viewing the road from above and the bird flying at ground level, that was only to say that this would have been the ONLY way you could have used the lower left coordinates to estimate speed.
How much more clear do I need to make this? There was no locked target so the lower left coordinates describe the mean average of the distant ground, and that is all. You can’t use them to estimate a speed, no matter what triangulation method you use, because those numbers are in constant motion EVEN WHEN VIEWING STATIONARY TARGETS? The ONLY way you can make a speed estimate is by triangulating a stationary object of known width, which is what I did. SCU didn’t do that, they used the ground coordinates, so they got it wrong. If you use a stationary target, you can’t get that bird’s speed anywhere near their claims, no matter how low you have it flying. Period.
SCU did it wrong. They messed up big time. It was a really dumb mistake, and they’re still trying to cover their tracks. Now THAT is embarrassing for the whole UFO community; right up there with the Roswell Slides people.
NOTE: I typed left in the above comment but meant right. The “Target” portion of the display is a mean average of the ground when there is no locked target and is affected by the aircraft speed. The fact that SCU used those coordinates to attempt a speed estimate was wrong and resulted in a cascade of errors. Even if you put the bird at 40 feet, when you do a proper triangulation using a measured ground target, you’re only getting 30 MPH. They just did it wrong and that made everything they did, including their conclusions, wrong.