AREA52 - DEBRIEFED With Chris Ramsay - Ex-Pentagon Official Confirms Alien Language Exists - Lue Elizondo - DEBRIEFED ep. 24

Episode Date: January 31, 2025

Lue Elizondo is a former U.S. Army counterintelligence special agent and a former senior intelligence officer for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. With decades of experience in national security, he conducted and supervised clandestine operations worldwide, specializing in counterterrorism, espionage, and advanced aerospace threats. He is best known for his role as the former head of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), where he investigated unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and pushed for greater transparency on non-human intelligence (NHI). In this episode, we dive deep into giant underwater UFO footage, the existence of NHI, and the upcoming documentary Age of Disclosure. We break down reports of egg-shaped craft, alien writing, and Bob Lazar’s claims, and discuss Jake Barber’s insights into UAP phenomena and of course the famous 2027 claim. Buckle up. Patreon Exclusive Content: https://www.patreon.com/Area52investigations AREA 52 Shop: https://www.Area52.shop Join The Area52 Discord: https://discord.gg/C7ZB5M3qjv Follow me on IG: https://www.instagram.com/area52investigations/ Call us Toll Free: 8-333-AREA52 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/26PjFc2gsF0jE9CiMvNBVt Itunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/debriefed-with-chris-ramsay/id1724258920 Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvQ_EDuk8w67a2UkCS1ptbA/join LINKS: Lue's Book "Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs": https://luiselizondo-official.com/ Age of Disclosure (Trailer): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkU7ZqbADRs

When you calculate the speed that this thing goes by, by the way, it was bigger than the offshore oil derrick it was passing by. This has to be moving between 450 and 550 knots underwater. He reported that they have specific psionic teams taking these things, at least bringing them into range to where they can take them down. Is that something that you've been read into in the past? What would be another reason other than national security for it to be classified? Wow. We were going to set a trap for these things. We knew that having a huge nuclear footprint in the middle of the ocean would be irresistible.

Have you seen heard or know of any other egg-type crafts at ATIP? Yes. More than one? Oh, boy. Have you ever noticed seen heard of or heard whispers of any type of language or symbols apparent on these craft? Yes. If I show you a picture, can you confirm or deny? This is an image.

This is zoomed in. This is really interesting. When I was at the Pentagon, I spent considerable time research in ancient script. You were aware of craft that had script on it. That is true. Yeah, it's pretty undeniable at this point. Was it written or engraved in these crafts? No, it was engraved.

It wasn't written. If you're holding on to that type of clear imagery, it really cements the idea that it's a planned dissemination to the public. You got to peek behind the curtain. We did not. It involves our own potential religion. It involves life and death. It involves why we're here. It involves the questions of the universe. It involves the most important things that humanity has ever asked for. And you potentially had one of the closest encounters with the answer. This is important. That's what I try to tell people. Don't put that responsibility on my show. I'm just like you. I'm not a Messiah, man. That's not. That is, my job is simply as a

as a purveyor of the information, how you interpret that and what you think about that, brother, that's on you, not me. Some people's frustration, my guess, is that you have that luxury of formulating some type of answer that they would love to formulate themselves. Makes sense? Yeah, good point. And there's also a lot of trust me, bro. You're going to get hate, by the way, as I promise you.

Yeah. Just for having me in your statement and having this conversation. For me, this is not only a pursuit for them. This is a pursuit for myself as well. I want to know. There have been some people who have made suggestions to conduct illegal activities to cover this topic up. And it's going to come out. It's going to come out in a few months.

I do a lot of work behind the shadows, behind the scenes. Whether it's a new whistleblower that maybe I've been aware of for the last few years or a secret project that will hopefully blow the lid on a lot of this, you know, whether through a documentary, getting the right people to have the conversation. Can you shed any light on what's to be expected in this documentary? There's people that are being interviewed that have never. come out publicly on this topic. That we've not seen on the trailer. You've not seen on trailer. Jay Stratton does say,

I have seen with my own eyes, non-human craft and non-human beings. Do you know what he's referring to? Have you yourself seen NHI? Why doesn't the government talk about Balazzar? 2027's been thrown around. Can you shed a little bit of light on this, just so we can stop being paranoid or we can start, you know, being paranoid.

Let me see if I can thread the needle on this. Sure. How can I phrase this in a way that you can answer this? Are you aware of more than one type of NHI? Let me see how I can answer this. Accuracy is very important. What I'm gathering from this is there are potential that some of these NHI might look a lot like us. What else you want to know?

You know what this reminds me of? Reminds me of like an interrogation. That's kind of what I wanted it to be. I call it the skiff. I love it. obviously not a skiff. Too many recording devices here for it to be a skiff. We know that.

But it wouldn't be the first time you serve ventured a skiff, would it? No, unfortunately. This is a lot nicer than a skiff. Is it? People are like, oh, you've been in skiffs in the SAPF facilities. I'm like, look, actually, they're really boring. Most of them don't have windows. They don't have any electronics.

You can't bring anything in there. So, yeah, I mean, you can't even play like solitaire on your computer, right? Because all that stuff has been removed out of it. So I was like, oh, shit. How's the coffee compared to the skiffs? So I think you probably already know this. Being Latino, genetically, there's three things we do very well coming out of the womb. One is drinking strong coffee.

The other one is being able to dance salsa and meringuei. It's genetic force. You dance salsa and meringue? And then the third thing, I look more like a weble wobble out there on the dance board. And then the third thing I probably can't. talk about because it's not appropriate. Those are the three things that Latinos can do very well usually. I'll take your word for the last two. Yeah, you know, my days of dancing, unfortunately, are once you, you know, you get older and your knees start to fail and you gain

a little bit of weight in the places that really aren't, you know, very conducive for dancing. No, I hear it. I hear it. I'm definitely, I'm definitely also absent on the dance floor. All right. Let's get this started. I'm here with Lou. Elizondo. Luis Elizondo. You know, Chris, you can call me Bob, Bill, Joe. I don't care. My real name is Luis. I hear that usually when I'm in trouble with my wife. Okay, gotcha. Most people call me Lou because I look like I'm from Iowa. People realize I'm, you know, my family's Cuban. They're like, what? So you don't look like a Luis. Like, I know, I know. Lou's got a nice ring to it. Yeah. I'll call you Lou so that people who are listening know who I'm talking to. Thank you so much for being here, first of

all. For those of you who aren't aware of Lou and what he's done, I highly recommend you check out his book, which we got here. We'll be signing a few copies as well, and I'll let you know later in the episode of how you guys can grab them. But if you want to pick one up, there's a link below. Lou best-selling author, Eminent was amazing. I read through it, and I also listened to the audio version. Oh, I'm sorry, you had to deal with that. I tell people I have the silky smooth voice of a cement truck hurtling down, a, careening down a, careening down a country road with no breaks. I think I think you did a great job. I think it also helps sort of personify your story and humanize it in a certain way that we get to hear it authentically.

I always prefer that. I remember listening to communion by Whitley Streber, and it was him, you know, saying, reading his book too. And it just conveys, I think, a little bit more of the gravitas of the story when it's the person themselves narrating. Well, I appreciate that. But I also want to say thank you for taking the opportunity to speak with me. And I also want to think, even more importantly than you and me, is your audience. You know, I think these types of interviews are very important because it allows all of us to connect. I mean, obviously, not everybody listening is right here with us. But I hope they get this sensation that they really are part of this conversation. We're only having this conversation really because of them. And I think

it's really important that we recognize the value of, you know, we live in amazing times right now. You have the ability now, whereas even just 10 years ago, mainstream media, right, major, major networks like where I live down ABC and CBS and NBC, you have more people tuning into you than most of these mainstream outlets. So you have a very important voice. And the audience is arguably the most important aspect of this, right? These are people that want to hear what you have to say week after week and whatnot. And really that's that is why we are where we are today in the conversation because this

has been a whatever this conversation is. It's really been a, it's been a grassroots movement. And ultimately it is because of your audience and people like that. We are where we are today in the conversation about UAPs. Yeah. Well said. And thank you. Thank you for, for saying that.

I think, you know, part of the reason people are listening, you know, if not to tune into me, is definitely to hear from you. And I think right now, especially, you know, we've been faced with a lot of news recently in the UAP space specifically. And, you know, it's been, it's been snowballing ever since the latest congressional hearing, which obviously you were a big part of. And you attended, if I'm not mistake. I did attend, yeah. It was kind of surreal for myself. I did have an immense amount of imposter syndrome being a Canadian magician content creator sitting in the front row, you know, course-side seats to something so monumental was, I mean, humbling.

Of the 366 sightings included in the report, 171 remain uncharacterized. And many high-ranking individuals in the military and intelligence communities leave UAPs demand greater attention. contractors, are they pulling, you know, technology from this? Are they're reverse engineering this? But more importantly, after that, you know, it's these, these congressional hearings are very important, but arguably what's more important, it's what they do with that information. And where that sort of, you know, I'm sure you're sick of hearing this, but where that moves the needle.

And I think recently, you know, we've had a lot of people come forward numerous, people have come forward to share their stories as well in hopes to move the needle. And so today, I've got a lot of questions that I'm hoping that we can get through. And you've been, and I got to say for the audience listening, and by the way, if I'm ever looking over here, it's just to make sure everything's recording because I'm a one-man team here. If you ever, if you ever see me looking like this is because I'm looking over my shoulder, I'm looking over my back. It's paranoia. Yeah, sounds good. We're safe here. But one thing I did want to mention was that Lou prior to the interview said something very important. I think that a lot of people

should know. And this is not something that's usually recorded. But Lou said, I don't want to read your questions before. You don't have to cut anything out. Ask me anything you want. And if I don't answer something, I'll tell you why it is I can't answer it. And I think that's just so important that you respect the journalistic integrity to that extent, especially after, being put through ringer after ringer podcast after podcasts and being grilled on things that you legally can't talk about. I think it just goes to show some level of character there. And I think a lot of people would omit that in an interview. They wouldn't allow that. They would want to have final say. They would want, you know, certain boundaries to be put on,

especially in the position that you're in. Well, that's because they're trying to protect themselves. And in reality, this conversation is much bigger than any one person. And this is what I've said over and over again to people. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and disclosure. This transparency effort that we're all in part of must go on. The show must go on. And so my part of this is very simple. Speak the truth. Whatever that truth is, speak the truth, and let the ships fall where they fall. And I think it's important from a journalistic integrity perspective, that that be maintained and preserved at all cost. And this is why I've always made it a rule. Say, look, you're not going to pay me to do anything like this. You know,

great if you pay my hotel, that's great, you know, but other than that, I'm, I don't get payment for this. People are like, oh, you're making all these money, he's doing this. No, I'm not. I'm actually doing it for free. I'm actually leaving work aside to come out and have these types of conversations where I don't get paid. And then also having questions that are, a lot of people want to know what, you're going to ask me any trick questions. You know what, to hell with that. I don't care. Ask me whatever you want. And if I don't know, I don't know, no, I don't know. And I'll tell you that, honestly, or if I can't tell you, I'll tell you that too. And I think that's, that this topic demands that type of, I cannot, in good faith,

demand transparency from the United States government if I myself am not willing to be transparent, right? It's hypocritical. It doesn't work that way. Fair point. And I appreciate that. And I'm sure my audience is going to appreciate that as well. So for the next few hours, folks, strap yourselves in. We're going to try to get through these questions. And hopefully, you know, get some answers for those of you, you know, seeking some answers. Let me start off. Let me just start off by asking a question a little bit off target here. But are you familiar or have you been familiar in the past with any 4chan or Reddit leaks, quote unquote? I am familiar tangentially with the forums of 4chan and also Reddit.

I am not a subscriber. And that's not a good or bad thing. I'm not. necessarily, you know, pooping it or promoting it. Yeah. I just, I, my bandwidth is very limited. Also, I'm an older guy. This is gray, not blonde. Yeah, sure. So I'm a little dude.

I'm not overly technically proficient, as most people will tell you, especially my wife. Mm-hmm. You know, when people are using scientific calculators, I'm still using an abacus, right? Sure. I'm an older generation. So more than the typical social media engagement now, if it involves Reddit or 4chan. It's beyond me. But I am aware that sometimes information comes out.

Yeah. That can be very interesting. And you say that can be very interesting. Has there been a time where you're like, oh, damn, that guy slipped up. He shouldn't have said that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

But you know what? At the end of the day, look, I think sunlight is the best antiseptic sometimes. I think it's the best way to get rid of an infection. Sure. And so I've never proposed or never supported the idea. of leaking anything, anything classified. Okay. I am a patriot.

I still have my security clearance and I will never support the leaking of classified information. But there's a difference between information that is classified for righteous and legal purposes, right, to protect sources of methods and whatnot. And then there is the abuse of that system where people will classify things simply because they're trying to hide or cover malfeasance. Over compartmentalization. Or embarrassment, right? And that's a problem because that information shouldn't be classified. and it's being classified in an illegal manner. There are very specific prohibitions

because in the past my country has abused the classification system to hide the truth from the American people, whether it's Iran-Contra and Oliver North or even recently some of my work in Guantanamo Bay and maybe some of the methods used to get information from individuals. And there was no reason that should have been classified.

The only reason why they classified some of that was because we're embarrassed. We didn't want to admit what we were doing and how we were doing it. And so in those cases, when that information comes to to the public's attention, I'm okay with that, provided they're not violating any laws of real classification, right? If information is being classified illegally, then that really isn't classified. So when it comes to the UAP subject, what would be another

reason other than national security for it to be classified? Wow. So, okay, great question, but it's not a simple question. It's not a simple answer either. It's multifaceted, a bit like a diamond, really. And so you have to, in order to understand this topic, you need to understand a little bit about the history and where our country was in the state of the world at the time, right? So, really the UAP topic for the United States government really started to kick into high gear right around the end of World War II and the development of the atomic bomb for our country. That's what we really started noticing an increased frequency of UAP interest in our capabilities. Now, where were we at the end of World War II?

Well, the U.S. had just become really a global superpower and had the opportunity to dominate a lot of the world politics for about 10 years. That was until the Russians very quickly afterwards developed the atomic bomb too, right? So now it's no longer U.S. preeminence. Now there's this competition and what begins the Cold War, which, by the way, most people don't realize it wasn't really a Cold War at all. It's pretty hot. We had proxy wars going all over the place, whether there's Korean War and Vietnam and things like that. And it was kind of this winner takes all chess game. Now, you have a beautiful chess set here.

Your audience can't see it. But you can imagine this Cold War as being an invisible chess match with the Russians. And you had the United States on one side and NATO, you had the Warsaw Pack and then Soviet Union on the other side. And it was kind of this winner takes all mentality. And so what we didn't want to do was broadcast to our enemies, our adversaries at the time, that we were dealing with this UAP topic. We didn't want to let them know what we knew about it, and more importantly, what we didn't know, where are those intelligence gaps late. Sure. And furthermore, the Soviet Union felt the same way.

But we both understood each other enough to realize that in the 60s, when we started to develop really the northern tier radar systems, early warning systems for nuclear attack, both the Soviet Union and the United States realize that, hey, we better come to the table at least a little bit on this. because what we don't want to do is set up these radar systems, very sophisticated radar systems, and then all of a sudden a UAP is picked up by one of these radar systems, either ours or the Russians, and all of a sudden to get confused for some sort of nuclear strike or nuclear attack, right? So there was enough, I think, wisdom there where the United States and Russia in a secret memo in one of the paragraphs, they actually say, look, if you happen to see something, before you press that nuke button, do us a favor, give us a call because it might be a UFO.

And we don't want to start World War III because either one of us confuses us as some sort of provocation. And then you have the other issue during the 50s and the 60s and the nuclear age, nuclear family in the United States. Our government was dealing with a lot of things. We were dealing with civil rights, right? We were dealing with equity issues with between genders. We were dealing with anti-war movement. with Vietnam and even before that. And you had the, you had also had the hippie movement, which was really, you know, kind of this,

this anti-establishment effort. Just kind of can't we all love each other, anti-war. And so the government was dealing with a lot of stuff. And they were concerned that this topic, the UAP topic, was a destabilizing conversation, meaning all it's going to do is add fuel to the fire and add mistrust to the American public, especially once you start, you know, lying for decades, you have to double down on that. Because if you don't, what happens is you tell the American people, ah, we're just fooling you guys. Yeah, we've been actually monitoring these things.

We just didn't want to tell you. That doesn't hold very much water, especially if you're a government bureaucrat or a leader. So what do you do? You say, well, shelve this. We'll have this conversation later. Meanwhile, let's see if we can deal with this topic in a secret manner. Okay. So sort of interrupt.

Are you saying that the subject is being classified under the disguise of national? National security? Well, it was. That's part of the problem. And we had backed ourselves in a corner for decades. Now came a point where, okay, these things, everybody's beginning to see them. How do we deal with this? Do we come out and let the cat out of the bag or do we simply try to suppress this information and maybe deal with it down the road? And so you had the U.S. government involved in the collection of UAP data, but lying to the American people. And for, you know, look, there's maybe some valid reasons there. I don't agree with them, but I can understand them. Some of them was like, look, We need more time to understand and figure this out. Also, there were some studies done commissioned by the U.S. government that the results were very simple. Look, this is a destabilizing conversation. If you tell the truth to the American people, you risk literally potentially the collapse of civil society. People are going to do runs on banks. They're going to panic.

They're going to lose their faith in their religions. Or, you know, why do the normal stuff that normally do and pay your mortgages and whatnot when there's this other topic out here that is potentially – existential. That's really only word I know how to use, really, because it's something beyond, and when people put their faith and confident in a government, the biggest vulnerability to any government institution organization is when the people, the masses, lose faith and confidence.

So this is true with any government, not just the United States, any government. This is how they survive and religions as well. So you can't afford to lose that. If people turn around and they realize you've been lying to me for all these years, Well, you know, we already don't trust the government. Now we're really not going to trust a government. Oh, by the way, you want us to fight these wars and you want us to do this and do that and this and pay taxes and whatnot. So I think the mindset at the time was much different. We had this cold war with then Soviet Union. And we weren't prepared as a nation to have the conversation at the time. Do you think that then that's part of the problem is them, you know, admitting that this is real is also them admitting to the cover up? Yeah, well, you have to, right? You have to say, well, yeah, actually, we admit that this is real and it's been going on for decades. Yeah. And then what happens? People say, well, why did you lie about it? What about those people who told the truth? And now all of a sudden, they lost their jobs. They lost security clearances. Maybe they got a divorce. Maybe now they're homeless living on the street because of all that. But isn't the, isn't the worst outcome of the two that we discover it's real and call them liars than to them fess up? I think the time has come. We have to have this conversation. I've always said that, that secrets, a lot of people think secrets are like fine wine, where the longer you keep a cork on it,

the better it gets. I disagree with that. I've always said that secrets are perishable. They have a shelf life. They're like vegetables in your refrigerator. They'll stay good for a while, but if they outlive their shelf life, they begin to rot and they begin to stink. And now you've got a bigger problem on your hand because now you've got to clean up the mess.

And so I think that therein lies part of the conundrum, that we've been keeping this information suppressed for way too long. my government at least now realizes that it's probably time to have the conversation because it's only going to get worse the longer we can. Look at the JFK files, right? Right now in the United States, the amount of faith and confidence we have in our government is at an all time low. That's a fact. Yeah. They don't trust their government.

And that's a problem. And the longer you hold on to the ghost, the worst it's going to be, you're going to have to pay that piper, that interest, right? That compounding interest will eventually be more than the loan. itself. And so I think the time has come, and I think some people now, there's a critical mass within my government that recognizes that we now really, really, really have to be open and honest with the American people. We're an apotheosis of the UAP subject. Very interesting. I mean, there's, okay. I mean, I'm going to jump all over the place a little bit here with these questions, so be prepared from hitting different angles. Got it. Going back to the 4chan stuff,

I myself had a deep dive into a lot of this stuff because I thought it was really interesting. And I read through a lot of those back and forth AMAs or Q&As they had on those different platforms with my audience. And there was one that stood out to me in particular because it related to something that you had touched on previously in a podcast in the past. And we're talking about a giant submerged UFO. Okay. this particular 4chan leaker said that he worked on a team that was looking into what he called an MCU, a mobile construction unit that was in the ocean, in the Atlantic Ocean, that builds these UAPs and sends them out, and that they come in and out of this mobile construction unit that's massive, that's in the ocean, and that moves very rapidly. He said, he goes on to say the down crafts were recovered and that these crafts were built to spec. In his opinion, they were built exactly for the things that they had to do, the jobs that they had to do.

And it would seem so did the beings inhabiting or maneuvering these crafts. My question is, you've talked about this video that exists of this giant craft moving very rapidly underwater. water. Is there a possible connection to this 4chan leak? I mean, we can't say there's not. You know, all I can tell you is what we know. I can't tell you what we don't know. You know, that old saying, we don't know what we don't know. What I can say is that without getting in trouble myself, that it wasn't just me. A lot of people in the U.S. government that's seen this video, so it is real. Let me set the stage for you if I can. So in the late 1990s, there was this effort by the U.S. government, we would test our cruise missiles technology.

And particularly in the Caribbean when I was there at Puerto Rico, we would, every so often we would launch these cruise missiles over the ocean in an area that was predetermined, you know, no boats or air traffic. And then when they would run out of fuel, they'd hit the water, splash down, and then they would sink. And then at a predetermined time, they would blow their ballast. they would rise to the top of the surface and then helicopter crew would be dispatched to go recover them, bring them back to the Navy base and they would be cracked open and exploited,

meaning they would test for the telemetry and the fuel consumption and did the missile operate the way it was supposed to operate, right? Now, most people know that Tomah cruise missiles, some can be modified to carry a nuclear payload. That's one of the advantages of these cruise missiles.

And so there's a helicopter crew. I won't say the person's name because they haven't given me permission to say their name, but they're legit. They're real helicopter pilot. And you had, so imagine a helicopter crew, you've got the pilot, the co-pilot, a crew chief in the back, and you got a Navy frogman dangling from a line. And they're going to, you know, as he's going down the line, he's going to, he's going to put a hook on the missile that's blown its palace and fly back. And as as his frogman is dangling down the line, the helo crew notices and the frogman, some something black. The water begins to churn and something black and round, as described to me,

something black is a devil and the size of a small island. So submarines are linear, right? They look like your pen there. They're kind of long and skinny and like a tube, almost like a toilet paper tube. This was, this was cylinder round, disc shape, begins to come to the surface. Now, you understand that the trench of Puerto Rico is the second deepest part of our ocean. It's only second to challenge your deep, right? which is part of the Marianas Trench. I think it's like 22,000 feet deep, right? So the height that some commercial aircraft fly,

this is how deep that water is. So there's nothing really out there. This thing begins to rise to the surface of the water. The water's churning. The helo crew goes into a panic. The frogman is literally trying to climb the line back up because he's scared like hell. And I get it.

And right as this thing is about to break the surface, the missile gets sucked under water, and then the whole thing disappears. And the Heald crew goes back and that missile to this day remains unaccounted for this cruise missile. Very shocking to the air crew. You know, try explaining that to your leadership of what happened. Is it some sort of Soviet technology? Is it something else?

Is it our technology? What the hell took our missile? Where did it go? How did it get there? How did it is able to come up and steal our cruise missile? And several years ago, I have to be careful of the capacity I say this in, but there was It was a very, very, very, very classified video. Now, the fact that the video exists isn't classified.

Where it was taken, how it was taken, the methods, very sensitive. So I won't go into that. But it's very clear we had a capability where we're looking down into the water. And there were these offshore oil rigs, right? So these are huge platforms like think of British Petroleum and some of these other folks. have these huge, massive structures out in the middle of the water or the ocean, right? They're just like the size of a small city. If you've ever seen one of these, they have helicopter pads and buildings and hospitals,

and they're on the middle of the ocean, they're huge. And in this video, very, very clear, there's a still of the water churning. And then there is the video of this perfectly round disc-shaped object, black, whizzing past one of these things underwater. Now, there's no waves, there's no disturbance on the top of the water. water other than the still of this water kind of looks kind of roiling, if you will, in the very beginning. But when you calculate the speed that this thing goes by, by the way, it was bigger than the offshore

oil derrick. It was passing by. It was bigger than that. It's diameter. The diameter of the circle was bigger. And it was assessed to be moving between 450 and 550 knots underwater. Now, imagine that for a minute. Do we, are there technologies out there that?

very fast. Yeah, we know that Russians have the supercavitational torpedo and they have got capability, but to have an object that big, where you're talking, you know, tremendous enforces. No friction. There's just no, right. Huge. Whizzing by one of these offshore oil derricks at phenomenal speed, that's a technology that we don't have. And that is extremely, extremely compelling. When you see it, you realize, whoa, what the heck is that? This first encounter, I think was very, voiced by Graves in the past? Was it Ryan Graves or Fravor? One of the two had talked about this encounter where they went to go get.

Fravor. Fravor. One of his buddies that we know. Is there footage of that encounter? I haven't seen it. But there has to be because if it's a helicopter, probably has some type of like weapons radar footage. You know, back in the 90s, not necessarily.

You mean, you would want to document your recovery missions, but if it's something really routine, you're not always going to have a camera on there simply because it's routine, right? You've done this 100 times. It's just the hundred and first time you're doing it. But it's possible. Oh, it's possible. Sure.

Absolutely. But I can certainly ask the pilot. I mean, I know the pilot. I can certainly ask you. Secondly, the other object. Have you seen this video? Which one? The one whizzing past.

Yeah. I saw myself. And by the way, my colleagues did too. Was when I was working? What was a reaction in the room? What was the reaction like watching that video for the first time? Not what you might think. Because we have seen so many videos of UAP that at this point was just added to to.

Yeah, but this one's in the one. water. That is what made it, for me, that is what, what probably put this up a little bit in the, in the, wow, what the heck is that? We had heard about USOs before. We never really had any direct evidence other than sonar pings from submarines and Navy captains and, you know, anecdotal information like that. This is the first time that we saw one on camera. Yeah. So it was kind of like, wow.

But also keep in mind, we've been so saturated for so long on this topic when I was working at the Pentagon and my colleagues. that you almost kind of become desensitized. I know it sounds weird. I understand that. As someone who knows how magic tricks work, I get to see methods all the time. I've seen things that other... Which, by the way, you are one hell of a magician. I never really appreciated the trade until I saw you do some of the stuff you do that.

That's pretty incredible. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'll show you some more stuff a little later. Secondly, you said this object was round. how did you have that perspective? Was this a satellite footage? I can't say the source.

Remember, sources and methods are very sensitive, but let's just say we had the fidelity enough where it was very, very clear what was going on. But I mean, if it's round? Yeah, it's round. Okay, so you had a top-down view of it. It was a top-down view. Okay.

Anything more than I probably can't talk about. Now, my hope is at some point it might become public. Yeah. They'll have to strip out metadata and maybe some other things there because people on the internet get very clever and figure out. Yeah.

They can figure out. Absolutely. Leave it to them to figure out of puzzle. It's crazy. And you know what? I think that's great. It is. There's several times that I've actually been corrected for the record by a bunch of internet sleuths.

So I think it's fantastic. I actually welcome that. We need more of that. Oh, that's the whole point of the internet. Last thing I want to touch on on this particular thing is, is footage the only intel you have here? Or do you have corroborating data with this specific siting? You have sonar. You have radar.

You have, do you have other corroborating intel or is it simply just this footage? Unfortunately, I can't go into detail because that shows the type of capability we have in certain areas. Can you say yes, we have other intel? We have other intel. I can't say the type of intel. Sure, but you could say there is other corroborating information. Yeah. Yeah.

No, we had teams of very, very specialized analysts with T.S. clearance. This is not private. This is, by the way, government. Sure. This is still in the possession of the government with government people analyzing. More than, more than two points of data? I probably can't talk about that right now. Okay.

I know it's frustrating, believe me. I know your audience is like, what the hell? Why can't you just say that? No, but I mean, just saying that, you know, gives us some type of idea. Because you might, people can extrapolate, you know, the more censored data you have in a place. Yeah. The more of an interest it is for us, chances are it's more of a hostile environment. Do you know what until?

Again, I really can't go down that path. I had to ask. Yep. Okay. So we're talking about this underwater stuff. First of all, to me, this is really interesting because if we're talking about the type of propulsion or the type of capability that these crafts are using, technically, from what we're seeing in the skies, it wouldn't matter whether they're in the water or not or space. That's what some of the scientists are speculated. Look, the medium in which it's traveling is irrelevant.

If you understand physics, you understand technology, then you understand that sometimes the medium you're maneuvering in. is rather irrelevant. Including physical. Potentially. Potentially. So potentially these crafts can go through mountains. Potentially. You know, again, I'm not a trained physicist.

I took physics in college. You'd have to ask some of the smart folks in the intelligence community who've kind of come up with some of these scientific models. What I will say, though, is that for the purposes of this discussion, we can't forget the simple fact that something less than 15% of the ocean floor has been mapped. Meaning we know more about the surface of the moon than we do what's in our own oceans. And let's not forget, my generation, I remember this. I remember the notion of giant cracking in the ocean and sea monsters as being silly and, oh,

you know, this is all just wives' tales. And it wasn't until we actually had proof positive of the giant squid of the Pacific that there are giant cracking, right? It just turns out that these aren't sea monsters are part of nature and our normal paradigm, or normal reality in which we live in. So, you know, we're always learning something new about what could be and what is in our natural environment. And the ocean is certainly no exception. Is it possible that there's been speculated? Sure.

And is it? Yeah, sure. And you've seen it. Yeah. I mean, we've seen things in the water. And, you know, we know that we're, so the Navy had a program for a long time. So the Air Force had something called the Fast Walker program. Yeah.

And I can talk about that. It's been declassified. The DSO office had this effort to try to track things from space. And one of the things was UFOs, believe it or not. The Navy had something similar. And they called the fast mover program. And they would pick up information. They would pick up data in some cases sonar returns of things that are moving in very, very high velocity, almost seems to be stalking or trailing the submarine only to pass by the submarine very, very fast and then disappear.

Tim Gallaudet mentions this. Tim does. And not only Tim, a lot of folks do. In naval intelligence. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Do you think Naval Intelligence has more intel on the UAP subject than a lot of these other intelligence groups? I think they've been more forthcoming.

I'm not sure they're being – I see it. I think they've been more forthcoming. I'll tell you, I talked to a Navy captain of a boomer sub, and he was telling me the story how they were picking up on sonar, an object moving 450 knots underwater, which is really fast, right? It's insanely fast. And he said it was bigger than us. It was bigger than a boomer class submarine that they're on, right? And so I asked him, and I feel kind of silly, but I'll share this with you because it's true. I said, kind of an amazing, what did you do?

And he looked at him with a straight face. He said, Lou, we went around it. Okay. I can see that. Yeah. You know, okay. Yeah, makes sense. Dumb question, I guess.

Yeah. You avoid it. Is there, are there current discussions about the possibility. of at least some of the NHA slash UAP phenomenon being artificial intelligence? Well, I don't think we can rule it out. Have you seen any evidence that might suspect that that is the case? Like there is some type of AI controlling these things? No, my background, but let me caveat here.

My focus was more on nuts and bolts of craft. It wasn't really with the occupants or other folks that were looking at that. but let me also give you a very real example to why it's not far-fetched. Right now we have the capability. You can put a helmet on and we can fly drones remotely using a helmet using our thought patterns.

There was a gentleman probably earlier this year who gained some significant notoriety. He was a quadriplegic and they decided to give him an implant that allows him to play a video game. In this particular case, I think it was Call of Dood. and just using his brain and thought patterns, and it turned out that he wound up being almost better

than just about any gamer out there because that interface was instant between his brain. No bandwidth. Right. So we are already using technical means to manipulate matter. Now, you know, taking away the spookiness of it in telekinesis, no, it's technology. Not telekinesis is technology.

It's simply the ability to interpret brain waves in a certain way in electrical signals, neural electrical signals and bioelectric signals, and translate that into an action using technology. So we, as a simple species, are already doing that. So does it make sense that in the future, not only our own species, but anybody else who's technologically proficient,

would do the same. I mean, it's clearly a more efficient way of doing things. By the time the signal goes from the brain, down through the muscles, and then causes a response and a reaction, there's a delay there. That's not really efficient, is it? And also, the signals can be misinterpreted.

right. So it makes sense to have that type of technical interface. And we are already doing it as a species. Now, you get into the artificial intelligence aspect of it. Can NIH somehow, could it be some sort of form of artificial intelligence? Because it could potentially predict what you're doing if it already has information on what you've done. Right. Absolutely. And so, you know, if you look in Commander Fravers case where this Tick-Tac object sort of got anticipated almost to his waypoint. you know, part of that could be, oh, it can read the future, but part of that is it's just really good at mapping out the past. Right. Or exploiting the data systems on board the aircraft as well. Right. So there's options. I think artificial intelligence is a brave new world for us. Because for the first time, we may be on the verge of creating true sentience, but not biological, based upon silicon and not carbon, right? Based upon electricity and not the bioelectric processes in the human brain. So artificial intelligence is Anything's almost possible Because we're just now beginning to scratch a surface On what it can do And we've already seen some of these capabilities

Which are very compelling Which can be disturbing for some people Because that brings into other questions of like really free will And fate, right? Which is really uncomfortable as a species For us to consider Because most of us look at life and say

Well, I've got a series of choices You don't know what I'm gonna What choice I'm gonna make ahead of time Unless you're like you who's a magician, right? You kind of already know that to some degree because you set the stage. You set the environment where only one choice is possible, right? But they think it's free will.

That's very concerning for a lot of people because we don't like that idea that we're not in control of ourselves in our environment. And so when you talk about artificial intelligence and the capabilities of it, that's something we're going to have to deal with in the very near future because maybe we're not as free will as we're. It's also something as an intelligence. you'll have to exploit. Right.

Right? Because we have to. Yeah, you have to. Because the enemy's doing it. That's right. So we have to. The adversary is doing it and they're doing it quite well. Yeah.

So we need to, as well, we need to do that. We also need to figure out a way to defend ourselves also from artificial intelligence and how to, which is very fascinating to me. If artificial intelligence has a 99% certainty of something happening because it's done all the, the calculations and algorithms and looking at our previous behavior patterns or whatnot, then is there a way to spoof? Is there a way to circumvent that? There's a way to do something that artificial intelligence hasn't predicted yet. Because that's how you're going to survive. Because if an adversary knows your next move on a chessboard and knows how to win the game and put you in checkmate, then you've got to figure out a way where they don't know what your next move is.

And so that's kind of the situation we're in now with the- Yeah, I think the best way would be to make them think you're playing chess. That's right. So, well, this is this is really interesting, and it leads me to also understand because, you know, you said you're tracking nuts and bolts. This is part of what you were doing. Before I ask this next question, I also just want to ask, are there more videos of submerged vehicles out there that you guys have access to? Well, is there more evidence information? Yes. So video is something very difficult. when you talk about underwater. Sure, but you have more, you have more data. A lot more data.

A lot more. Yes, there's some video evidence. But underwater is much more difficult than in the atmosphere. Right. Because water will affect the electromagnetic spectrum a little bit differently and especially the electro-optical. So we don't see, that's why we use sonar. We use sound waves instead of radar under the ocean because sound waves travel very well,

whereas electromagnetic signals much, much more difficult. I see. And so it's not, you're not using the same tools to, quote, unquote, see something underwater. You're using technical equipment to give you a site picture of what's there. But you're not actually physically seeing it. You don't have a photon of light bouncing off something coming back into your eye and then your camera lens and interpreting that data because light doesn't travel.

Look, if you've ever been any of your folks out there, your audience or scuba divers know this. Once you get past 300 feet underwater, it's virtually dark. You can't see anything. Light stops. Now, there's some animals and fish that have very sensitive eyes and they can see much, much deeper. But for the most part, the human eye is restricted because light waves and photons of light eventually get absorbed by the water. So it doesn't travel as far as it would. Like when you look at the horizon, it's maybe 11 miles away.

Underwater, your horizon is maybe a couple hundred feet. But that sonar information can be just as valuable. Oh, yes. That sonar data can be high fidelity. like incredible fidelity. Are there reports of these giant craft down there that you've sort of speculated that the information is pointed to that these things might be massive down there? Well, we've heard already from Tim Gallaudet, Admiral Gallaudet, right? Yep.

These things have been a mystery for the Navy for some time. And you don't have to even look at the United States Navy. You can go back. There's anecdotal information, even by some of the United States. some of the great explorers hundreds of years ago. Yeah, Columbus. That's right. That's right.

That experience strange things under the water. I spoke to some civilian fishermen in Mexico when I was down there off the coast of Ensenada, kind of between the little island there called Huadalupe Island, Isla, Huala Lupe and Ensenada. And they report these luminous objects, these balls of light all the time under the water, and sometimes even pop out of the water and then fly away. And so this is not, and these are people who have no interest in being sensational. In fact, they love their privacy. They don't even want to be, they don't even want to be associated publicly with this. But they've experienced this. And there's log books of other seafaring captains and peoples who've reported very similar

experiences going back centuries. Does that make it a place of interest for the government? Well, it should. But no. So government's interest typically is from a. national security perspective, meaning how do we protect our people and how do we maintain a strategic advantage over our adversaries? Anything that is, and this is one of the, people have always asked me, well, Lou, how much research did you do into UFOs when you're at ATIP and historical stuff?

Did you talk to this euphologist? No, I didn't. Because really, when you're talking to a three or four star general, they don't care what happened in the 1950s or 1960s. They want to know what happened yesterday, right? And so you're really kind of narrowly focusing on the incidents that involved military equities and as they're happening now. If you go to a general and say, well, here's a report from 1966. They're going to say, what the hell you're showing me that for? I don't care. Sure. You know, I want to know what happened yesterday. And so their focus is on the here and now. Yep. But I think that's part of a mistake because I don't think you can get an accurate understanding of the here now unless you understand a little bit about the past and realize that

there's paddle camp. As an intelligence officer, we're all about patterns. Kind of like magicians, right? There's certain predicted patterns. And if you understand those patterns, is like putting together a puzzle, you can figure the puzzle out. And that's why it's so important that we do take a historic look at this. Now, some of the information is going to be bunk or junk, but some of it may be very, very telling. And most of it happens over water, it seems. Yes, water.

And also, so there's two really interesting patterns that we've seen over time. One is there's an interest in our military capabilities and our nuclear, nuclear capabilities and technology, and also large bodies of water. There seems to be an overwhelming number of UAP sightings in and around bodies of water, which kind of answered the question you asked me about the Navy. Are they most proactive? Are they seeing the most? No, but they're all in the water the most, aren't they?

Right. And so what else do you have? Well, you've got, let's say the USS Nimitz or USS Rosefeld. That is a huge nuclear footprint. In fact, in some cases, when that fleet goes out with the nuclear carrier and nuclear submarines and other nuclear powered boats with potential nuclear weapons and other technology, that's a bigger footprint than the entire state of New York from a nuclear perspective. And you're on the water, which is why we early on in the Pentagon set up this Operation

Interloper, which I can now talk about. Pentagon's giving me permission to do it, where we were going to set a trap for these things. We knew that having a huge nuclear footprint in the middle of the ocean would be irresistible to these UAP because we had experienced it so much. So the idea was to set a trap, set up a... Now, when I say trap, I'm going to say, I'm going to shoot it down. A lure, right.

And we had, we had the intelligence community approval and joint staff to do this, the approval from the joint staff. So this was a very, very comprehensive effort that we were, we were proposing and was almost unanimously accepted because they were seeing the same issues we were seeing at ATIP. So we were going to create this, this lure. And unfortunately, at the last minute, they pulled the plug. They pulled the plug on the project.

On the project. Yeah, it was called project. It was called O'Plan Interlooper. I mean, there has been rumors that the government hasn't been too shy about creating these type of lures in the past to attract NHI activity, to attract UAP activity. Namely, now this goes into a lot of what Jake Barber talked about. Now, you know, before we had psychics, now it's psionics, before it was UFOs. now it's UAP before it was NHA, before it was extraterrestrial, now it's NHA. It's all these other terms. Right. But all three of these terms were used by Mr. Barber in his recent

three-hour podcast with Ross Kulthard. And I wanted to get into that a little bit because I think you've already touched on it and had said that these objects that he's describing, these egg-like objects are not, they're not these weather balloons. They're not ours either. And they're not ours. He reported that they have specific psionic teams taking these things or at least bringing them into range to where they can take them down. Is that something that you've been read into in the past? Have you been read it to any of these programs regarding psionics?

So let's break it down, I think, for the purposes of your listener, what sionics means. Sure. Because you obviously know what it means, but the word sionics. Cyanics is something that is not a general term. It's a sci-fi term. Right. It's a sci-fi term. Right.

It's a sci-fi term, right? So, psionics comes from the base word of psychic. Psychology, psychic, whatever. And dealing with the brain, right? And potentially human cognition and things like that. There is some speculation. Remember, we talked about technical interfaces with brainwaves, right? So that technology already exists.

if you were a super sophisticated society, would it make sense to create technology that you could potentially interface with, manipulate, work with using brainwave functions instead of necessarily, you know, wasting the time for the signal to go down to the hand and make, you know, make a movement, which, by the way, is not very precise. I think there's an argument to say for that. Has then you have to ask a question, has U.S. government in the past been involved with psionic type research or psychic research. And the answer is, again, a definitive yes.

We now know through programs like Stargate and Grill Flame before that. The Centerland. That's right. That the U.S. government and her adversaries have had a long and deep, rich history in doing, using psychic research and using it for purposes of espionage and the collection of data. That's a fact. Anybody can look that up and it was actually very, very successful. then you have to ask the question, well, fine, but do we really accept that now in society? The answer, again, is a definitive yes.

Look at a lot of local police force will employ psychics. And by the way, to a great deal of effect, they've actually solved murderers and found bodies using psychics, right? Now, people can poo-poo it all day long. The bottom line is it works. Now, how it works, maybe a different story. We can, you know, debate that all day long. But the bottom line is proof is into pudding. Statistically, there is something there, whatever.

that means and however it works. So that's already, we've ready crossed that bridge. We don't have to argue that. It is what it is. So is it possible now to your question, specific question, is it possible that the U.S. government employed certain individuals who had a predisposition to some of this phenomena, psychic phenomena, whether you call it remote viewing or channeling or a psychic or what, use your name to shore, to try to interface with or communicate with a a non-human intelligence. Well, I think it'd be foolish to assume that we didn't or we wouldn't, given our previous history in human cognition.

The question is, has the government found success in there? I can't answer that. I don't know. I'm not surprised that the allegations are there, because certainly if I had an unlimited budget and I was in charge, I would try throwing everything at it, trying to figure out how it works, right? And we, people say, well, that's a bunch of hooey and say, look, here the bottom line is, you know how we tell if people are dead or not in the hospital? Brainwave function. Sure. And when there's no brainwave function, people are presumed to be dead. Now,

what is brainwave function? Now, some can argue, say, well, they're actually still alive. Yeah, yeah, yeah, maybe. But for argument's sake, we use brainwave function to determine if a human being is still alive or not. And brave way brain, to detect brainwave function, there's nothing more than electrical process going on in the brain. And we have technology that can detect it and actually say, yes, there's higher functioning of the brain or no, this person's in a vegetative state. Very little chance are going to come back. That part of the brain is shut down. And how do we know that? Because we have technical equipment that can detect it. We know that. That's a fact. And that's technology we accept all the time every day. So does it make sense that if that is real,

that there is an actual physics behind brainwave function, and we can detect it, which we do. Does that also apply to something else that may have some sort of brain or higher brain function? And can we, is there a way to interface with their form of brainwave function? And therefore setting up tests

where you could have people try to, if you will, interface or in some, have I even alleged that there's some sort of conjuring capability there. I don't know that to be fact. I know there's a lot of people out in UFO. hijacking. Hijacking, right. You know, it's certainly very interesting.

And there was even in a Russian something called psychotronics. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that. But the psychotronic weapon development system. And by the way, the CIA also invested in that. Might know that to be a fact. And that is the ability to use human brainwave functions with a piece of technology to affect matter. Now think about that for a minute. People talk about telekinesis.

The bottom line is that there are ways to interpret brainwave functions using technology, technological interface and then affecting change. And we talked about that with, with, you know, even the God Helmet and other experiments we're working on where we can use... Necros of Mir. That's right. All these other experiments.

But back to Mr. Barber, you know, because what he's coming out with recently seems to be... I mean, it seems to be obviously a lot for a lot of people. Because, you know, not only did we go into, he, you know, was part of a team that were... covered a craft that was of exotic origin, but also talked about being recruited as someone with psionic ability, also talked about using other factions that are non-governmental contractors and using their technology to help down some of these things when they're in close proximity.

And then also about other crafts that were recovered that somehow had some emotional effect on him. And, you know, this gets, it gets woo really fast when listening to a lot of this stuff. And, you know, I know there are a lot of listeners out there that when they hear of anything other than UAP, they're out. Because it took them so long to even get to UAP. But we do have to understand that something's piloting these things. These UAP, you know, maybe they're flying themselves, but at some level, something is piloting these things. You can't have a conversation about extreme advanced technology without then having the conversation of who built it. How does it work?

Why are they doing right? And these are the follow-on questions. Yes, I understand it can be disturbing for a lot of people. And people say, well, our government never would be involved in anything like that, you know, using individual to do certain things. And, well, look, if that's what you think, I don't know what to tell you, but there's lots of. of examples where we have. I mean, we've done some pretty heinous stuff and experiments on human beings without their permission. Look at the CIA's use of LSD when we first testing that. Canada had a hand of that too, by the way. Look at the syphilis experiments, right? Where we allowed

human beings to die when we had the cure simply because we wanted to see what happened, right? So there's a long laundry hist of malfeasance and things that people have done in the name of national security that wound up being absolutely atrocious and heinous. And, you know, yeah, if there are children who are predisposed to having some sort of psychic capability, as stated by some individuals, are there individuals in our government that would try to exploit that? I think in the past probably, sure. You know, and I've got my personal reasons for saying that. But I also want to be very careful not to be conspiratorial because I don't have firsthand knowledge. I have, I've heard the rumors when I was an A-T-T-T-P.

of this going on, but I was never part of that effort. To be clear, you heard of the rumors of the psionics teams? I heard rumors of sionics teams. Or you heard rumors of the sionics team bringing down craft. Not bringing down craft of trying to use human brains. To try and interface with some of these things. Whatever that is correct. But again, I wasn't there for the experiments.

I don't know. This is just kind of the hearsay that I heard when I was at atyp and then afterwards. It makes sense. you look at the government's interest into people like Chris Bledso and why that would be so valuable if he could just summon them at will. Right. You know, if that was the case, then that would be absolutely, you know, a leg up on the competition. Sure, sure. I, you know, I've, there's a lot of weird stuff as a kid I experienced.

I don't never talk about it publicly, but, you know, there's been times I kind of scratch my head and say, huh, was that, was that coincidence or was that, you know, something else? Did someone plan this to, you know, it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility. And by the way, for the record, the whistleblower that you're referring to that came forward, he is who he is. He was a special operator. He's an American hero. He's done a lot for his country. Now, whether his observation and his perspective is accurate, I think he's telling his truth. And I think people need to understand it.

He put himself to a lot of risk Jake did for having this conversation with America. Now, for the record, I've never. never met the guy. But I have special operator friends of mine who I've worked with that were actually there with him and providing some security support and have said, hey, this guy is legit. And here's his background. And these are the missions he's been on. So he is part of that elite group of the best of the best of our country. And I know it's kind of difficult for a lot of people to absorb that you have this guy that's coming out kind of out of the blue and making these claims. But I think I think everybody deserves to be heard.

Have you seen heard or know of any other egg-type crafts at A-tip? Yes. You have? Yep. More than one? Boy, yes. There's a story I'm dying to tell you. Hopefully I can get clear at some point to say it.

That has to do with this? It has to do with egg-shaped vehicles, yeah. Have you ever noticed seen heard of or heard whispers of any type of, language or symbols apparent on these craft? Yes. If I show you a picture, can you confirm or deny? It depends. Can I try?

Sure. I'm going to put my old main glasses on. For the record, this is gray and not blonde. So I'm an old dude. I need as much help as I can get. This is an image. This is zoomed in. Someone has taken the liberty of pointing some of these symbols out and saying that there is

some type of resemblance to this. language? This is really interesting. When I was at the Pentagon, I spent considerable time researching ancient script and hieroglyphics and symbology and even cuneiform. And

to see if there was any similarity on what was seen on the outside of these vehicles, which appeared to be some sort of glyph or ruin. if you will. I am not familiar with this actual one, but... But you are familiar with there being symbols on the outside of the craft. Yeah, which, by the way, signableness, that means something.

Look, when you have, what, what, let's break this down from a, from a human and a scientific perspective. What is the pearl? I see your notes there. What is the purpose of, of written script? What is it? To communicate. That's right.

To communicate. And, and more importantly, there's a way to communicate. When you are reading notes or you see a word, I just kind of give it away, how do you detect it? How do you, how can you read written script? Because you have eyes, right?

It's a visual thing. People who are blind can't read. Sure. So they use Braille. So whenever you have reports that a, a UAP, a UFO has something written on it, There's a few things that you can surmise immediately. First and foremost, that they're communicating something.

You don't write something unless there's a meaning behind it, whether it's Chinese character or, you know, English, ancient Elizabethian English, right? Or even going back to some of the older forms of written communication. You're conveying an idea, a thought, or a directive, and you're doing it through visual sight. So that means whoever that is intended to see and whoever wrote it, chances are they have eyes or they look, they use the, the electro-optical spectrum to discern their environment.

So that's not too dissimilar from humans and other animals on this planet. And that there's a higher brain function. You know, dogs don't use writing. They don't, you know, read dictionaries. It's only a human thing. In fact, of all the animals on our planet and all the primates, the only animal

that actually use written communication are human beings, right? So ever since we were living in caves and we were painting animals that we hunted, and painting our palm print, the human print on that side of that cave, we are the only ones that do that. So when you come across in this particular case of UAP that has some sort of writing on it, there's some assumptions and presumptions that can be made immediately. Yeah.

And that there may be not that dissimilar from us. Now, maybe it simply is like if you ever had a Jeep, you know, and you have those upside-down stickers. If you can read this, flip me back over, right? Maybe it's something like that. Or if you can read this, you know, phone home for me because I'm not. I'm in trouble. Or maybe it means something else.

But yeah, we looked at that at ATIP as wondering if there's some sort of intent that we can glean from script. Because you were aware of craft that had script on it. And not just me. No, there's there's a lot. At A tip. Yeah, it's pretty undeniable at this point that were the, was it written or engraved in these crafts? No, it was it was ingrained. It was it.

Did it look not too dissimilar from what I just showed you? Yeah, much more precise than that, actually. I mean, there's no doubt about what you showed me there is someone's interpretation of what could be either script or could be just scratches and the ablative process of. It was very blatant. Oh, yeah, like, clear. Looking at that. Yeah. It's like, hey, that's there for an intended purpose.

You've seen these on egg crafts? Let me do a polite pass on that. It was on a different craft. But the egg craft is something that is people are now just saying, oh, this is a new form of you. I mean, no, it's not. And not just us. This is, there are people, if the story ever comes out,

we have been dealing with this shape for a long time. It's not new. People think it's new. It is not at all. Very interesting. There's some very interesting intelligence information about that. I cannot go into any detail. I'm very hopeful that information will probably come out soon enough.

Not by me, but some scientists who actually, research some of this stuff. And it is not new to our intelligence community either. I mean, we've been hearing about egg crafts with symbols on it since Lonnie's Amora. You know, we've also spoken to Chris Bledsoe who he described his as being

an egg as well. So these things tend to tend to pop up, but more than that in both of these stories, they have some type of intelligent being on the inside. Well, and if you think about an egg, it's almost nature's perfect

solution. It is the egg shape is, there's a reason why it is, it is what it is. Yeah, it's perfect. It's perfect. And it's extremely resilient to external forces. Try again. There's an old trick where you take a egg and try to smash it with your fingers. You know, it's very tough to do. And so there's a reason you could even surmise a reason why some of our early space capsules almost had that little bit of a egg shape to it because it's very resistant to Earth's atmosphere when you're coming in on reentry. It's a very efficient shape. It is naturally aerodynamic, naturally. So there's a lot of, there's a lot of advantages to having something the shape of an egg. In fact, if you look at World War II and some more bombs,

they look like eggs with fins on them. There's a reason for that. It's because of the efficiency of that shape. I mean, it's really interesting, you know, that we're talking about this because to me this just communicates that we also have data, specific data on, on, crafts that are very close up, very HD, very, I mean, that type of information leads me to believe that, you know, the information that we were given with the Tick-Tac, the gimbal, the GoFast was all just preparatory because if you're holding on to that type of clear imagery, it was really, it really cements the idea that it's a planned dissemination to the public. Is it, but let me ask you something.

If you were in charge for just a day and you know that this whole experiment only works because people have faith and confidence in you, right? This is a term we call catastrophic disclosure versus controlled disclosure. I know people hate that idea. You know, I have no right to control. Look, if really there is even a remote possibility that this really could be destabilizing conversation, then it is the responsible. move to handle this in a very methodical manner.

Sure. Right? Because you don't want to disrupt low. At the end of the day, people still have to pay their mortgages and pay your cell phone bills. You've got to go to PTA meetings. You've got to take the kids to soccer. I think we all get it.

But it's the admission of that. I think that people have a hard time with. It's not so much the act of it. But brother, look, you already had a former director of national intelligence state for the record that these things are real, whatever they are. You had a former director of the CIA. You had two former presidents of the United States. You've got other elected leaders in other countries all saying it.

I mean, people say, well, when are we going to have disclosure? I said, look, you already. We've crossed the rubicon already. Now the question is, what are we going to do about and how are we going to have? It may not be the flavor of disclosure you want. Yeah. But you already have the government. Look, you have the setting up of arrow.

Yeah, I know there's some hiccups there and they still kind of dorking around, but that'll be fixed very soon. Yeah. You have a new administration in the United States that is very proactive in this topic, wants the American people to know the truth and think the American people can handle the truth. And by the way, same with our elected officials. For the first time, we have a bipartisan issue. that both Democrats and Republicans can agree with and say, yeah, you know what, Americans deserve the truth. So we've already had disclosure, Big D, as people call it. It's just maybe not the

flavor people are expecting. Well, I think a lot of people are just of a simpler, you know, sort of mind where they're like, well, just show me what you got, you know. And I think that's what it really comes down to with a lot of people's frustrations is not that. Yeah, transparency. It's a transparency issue. Exactly. And this is, This is what motivates me. I agree. Look, I think we need to level with the American people. I think we need a level with the world.

And let's face it, look. If we know they aren't adversarial, that is. Right. Well, even if they are adversarial, we need to know. And look, the dumbest secret there is is that the Canadians have been dealing with this. The U.S. has been dealing with this. The Mexican have been dealing with it. South American have been dealing with it?

The Russians and Chinese. Isn't it the worst kept secret at this point? You know, is it possible that maybe this is the one conversation that can actually get countries that are adversarial to each other, say, look, for this one thing, let's agree to agree, and let's work together on this, you know, and I will make a treaty, I promise I will not exploit this technology to hurt you, and you have to do the same thing. Let's work together scientifically on this, because maybe it'll help us as humanity move forward. Clean energy solutions, for example, or better medical. Look, one only has to look at the 10 years, a one decade that we had this

space race with the then-Soviet Union, right? Now, Russia. What happened during the Apollo years. We went from 1960 to 1969 to putting a person on the moon. And we did it almost routinely, if you can imagine that, right? What happened as a result? Well, over 6,200 industries, not products, industries were a result

of that one decade of competition to get into space and ultimately get on the moon. Things like the LED light bulb, things like the CAT scan that have outlived their initial intended purpose and have changed the well-being of humanity for the good forever, right?

Yeah. And so, and that's just 10 years of trying to get to the moon. Can you imagine this type of technology, the potential benefits you could have for our species? Now, with that said, there's the counter argument, right? Of course. Every time, like, look at nuclear energy, yeah, like in power a city, but it can also destroy it, so you can't ignore it.

Because there are rogue nations out there that will say, hmm, well, if I can fly from here to there almost instantly and be, not be seen, then I can put a weapon on that thing, right? And now all of a sudden, uh-oh, you know, Pandora's box has been open and there's a liability there. So, you know, maybe it's, we need to have a conversation, an adult conversation with the rest of the world, you know, and I'm not talking like United Nations. I'm fucking bigger like a, no kidding. Hey, guys, we got to get to the table on this because we're going to wind up. You don't want to die.

We don't want to die. We don't want to kill each other with this. You know, this is like for real, real. It's like nuclear weapons, right? You know, let's not use them if we can. This is the Manhattan Project on steroids. That's right. But if we're smart, we'll do this for peaceful purposes.

Yeah. For once. For once. And I think we can. And by the way, the reason why I have hope is not because of my generation. My generation is paranoid. We screwed this topic up. Long enough, we've hit it.

We suppressed it. And then we ruined people's lives for it. It's your generation. Because when I had to have secret conversations about this topic in the Pentagon, it was always because we were afraid of the reaction we were going to get, the visceral reaction and the fear, your generation, which is the generation of my daughters, seem much more open to this. It's much more, hey, listen, we really need to get to the bottom of this because there could be a benefit here. And look, we don't want to go to war with Russia.

We don't want to go to war with China. Can we all just get along for once and try to work this out because this involves all of humanity? And that gives me encouragement. That's why I think the time is now to have this conversation because unlike before previous generations like mine that completely botched this topic, your generation, actually seems to be more open and more responsible about it. And I think it's partly because of this type of technology. When I was in high school, if I wanted to learn about the Andes Mountains, I had to go to a library, pick an encyclopedia off the shelf that was probably 10 or 15 years old already.

Luckily, maybe the page was still there, wasn't ripped out for some other kids' project. And I got about a paragraph, a half, about the Andes Mountains. Now, in virtually any language, instantaneously, in any way part of the world, you can pull up on your phone, all the information you want, and have volumes and volumes of volumes of volumes about the Andes Mountains, how they were made and the precipitation rate and the population and erosion rates and all that stuff, right? You have more information at the tip of your hand for the first time the world is connected like never before. There's great power in that because for the first time, your generation can understand how people in your generation

in China feel, right? And you can communicate and how people in Iran feel and people in Russia and China and the UK and France and Germany and and if you don't understand language, it'll automatically be translated for you. So that that communication barrier has been evaporated and also the cultural barrier. You guys are far more accepting of new ideas, new principles, new perspectives than mine. Look, I grew up in a generation where I was on the tail end of literally where we had separation of races. Can you imagine that, right?

How foolish and silly is that? And now it's like, my God, what the hell were people thinking, right? But that was an associated norm. That was an expect norm. When I was in the military, we're always told, don't ask, don't tell, right? And oh, homosexuality in the military is bad. Well, it's silly. It's stupid.

What the hell did we ever care? Why? Because we were ignorant. My generation made these dumb rules because we didn't know better. Your generation is not that way. You don't have these preconceived notions of what. should and shouldn't be. You use common sense. And I think that's why the timing is like never been before because we've never had the technology before. And we've also never had a generation

like yours before. And that those two perfect storms allow us to have a conversation like this. Great. I mean, that gives me some hope. You know, the one that one of the scariest things that I've ever heard was, I think it was Howell put off, I who said this. And if the military, if the government discovered a drop of water, the first thing they're going to do is figure out how to drown you in it. Yep. And, you know, part of me is thankful for that because, and you can say what you want, but if we didn't invent the nuke first, this podcast would not be happening. That's right. And that's pretty much a fact.

And we're speaking a different language, perhaps. Absolutely. But at the same time, you know, it's, you bring up a really interesting point. There is this weird, if you look at from a biological perspective and a sociological perspective, this, this, I guess the best way to describe it as tribalism. Ancient mankind had a small circle of people within their tribe, maybe living in a cave, living in a hut, whatever. And that was your reality and everybody else were enemies, right? Because we were living in an environment where we were resource starved. So either I ate or you ate, and if you ate, I didn't.

And so we had this weird competition. And then as society expanded into the village, it became now a village mentality. And we still write books now, you know, it takes a village, right? So our society and our little myopic society that we kind of encapsulate ourselves and everybody else is out there, the enemy, and we're going to stick together. And then you had the urbanization. And once we became, we kind of entered this point of agriculturalism and we weren't no meant anymore. We kind of gravitated to a central region and attracted more people. So that

population density became greater until eventually you had regional areas. And then eventually you had borders of nations, right? United States and you're a Canadian and you're Mexican and, you know, but as we continue to push our boundaries, we begin to realize that we're really all the same. And this is something that I've tried to tell people, look, if you're ever in space and you look down out the earth, you don't see the lines between countries. We're all together. We're all together. We're all, you know, we go, well, I'm American. What does that mean? You know, because people in South America, they're Americans, they're Americans, they're just South Americans versus North Americans, versus Central Americans. We're all in this together. And, but we're fighting instinct,

because our instinct is to be tribal. Our instinct is my loyalties to my people, my country, my family, my this, my that. And that was a survive, in order to survive as a species, we needed to. Animals do the same thing, right? You have a pack of wolves and he stick together and they go after everything else. And so that is part of the Darwinian survival and evolution of all things biological, because why we live in a resource-starved environment? It's either them or me. Eat or be eaten. But we're now realizing if we want to evolve to the next phase of our existence as human beings, where we rely on this and, you know, not this, not bronze, but our brains and our hearts, we have to overcome that instinct to control, to dominate, to dominate,

to do all the things that nations and religions do. In fact, that is the one thing I think that is stopping our evolution to the next phase of human reality, which is, do we have enough sense to get rid of some of these instinctual habits that we, by the way, required to survive to get to where we are now, like you said, the bomb, right? Thank God. As bad as it was, thank God we had it, not them. But have we been able to outgrow that to the point now where we can actually all have a

conversation together and say, look, we're all brothers and sisters. I may not agree with you. I may not understand you. You may not agree with me and understand me, but we can agree that humanity's survival as a species demands that we begin to work with each other, communicate with each other towards a common goal and stop this infighting in competition. And maybe at some point we'll get to a point where we're not in a resource starved environment. We are an environment where we don't have that competition and we don't need to have that competition. Yeah. Yeah, great. And I think that, you know, Reagan said it too at the UN meeting there back in the day when he was like, it would take, you know, an external extraterrestrial threat

for all of us to like be, you know, realize that, hey, we're in this together. Maybe, hopefully it isn't an extraterrestrial threat that we're facing. Okay, I have a question here. I have a few more questions that we've got to get into. I'm just still fascinated with all the things that you've seen. And I think that's where, I think, and I'll speak for a lot of people here, I think that's the broadly, in a general sense, why people are so fascinated with people of in your position. because you got to peek behind the curtain.

We did not, right? So we, to a certain extent, careful what you wish for. I know. We just say, it's a double-edged sword. That's another question I have. But for now, like you have, you know, access to the mechanism.

You have access to at least a portion of the mechanism. And you get to peek behind the veil. And all the rest of us are curious, right? We're curious because it involves mankind. It involves our own potential. religion. It involves life and death. It involves why we're here. It involves the questions of the universe. It involves the most important things that humanity has ever asked for. And you potentially had one of the closest encounters with the answer. That is a great. That's heavy, man. You'll put that

on my shoulders. Are you kidding me? That is what it is. That is why people are so passionate about this. That is why people get fired up, whether good or bad or angry or happy or they get fired up because this is important. This is the big question. And, you know, there aren't so many people that have come forward to talk about that. And the second we get somebody, you know, is the second we need to grill them. It's the second we need to put them through the ringer because we're like, you're playing with my emotions. Right. And truth, whatever that truth is. And you're going to come out and if you're going to say this is the truth and you know you better prove it exactly and so you know you of all people can understand the amount of you know frustration and vitriol and all of this stuff combined because

deep deep deep down everyone's just hoping for an answer that's just deep down um but my but my role isn't to provide answers my role is just provide information it's to you to find those answers okay is what i've tried to tell people well put you know it's don't put that responsibility on my show I'm just like you. And I'm valuable and I'm a human being and I, you know, wake up and I spill my coffee and, you know, I'm not a Messiah, man. That's not, that is, my job is simply as a, as a purveyor of the information, here's the information, here's the data, here's the facts. How you interpret that and what you think about that, brother, that's on you, not me. But a lot of us are not willing to make that answer as long as there's information being

withheld. Oh, agreed. No, you're right. And that's why we're doing what we're doing. Right. Here's the information. We're going to get more out. We do, we do want to make those answers. And hopefully, you know, we don't look to anyone else for answers and we can come up with those ourselves. But as long as we're aware that there is information that is being withheld, we can't fully formulate a proper answer. And some people's frustration, my guess, is that you have that luxury of formulating some type of answer that they would love to formulate themselves. Make sense?

Yeah, good point. So, you know, forgive me for always, you know, prying into what it is you've seen. But that's the underlying value in this, is that some of us just want to know more so that we can make our own answers. Sure. And that's fair. And I think that's a really good point. And that's, you know, I guess indirectly, some of why I do what I do, you know, I want you to have information so you can make your own assessment. And this is why people say, well, Lou, what do you think?

You know what? It's a hell with what Lou thinks. It doesn't matter what Lou thinks. What matters what you think? You know, my job is easy. This is why, you know, I always tell people when I was a former special agent and, and, and, you know, and when I was a special agent in charge, our job is very simple.

Provide the information to the jury, let the jury decide. Doesn't matter what I think about it. But it doesn't matter how I feel about it. What matters is what does the data suggest? What does the math suggest? What is the collection of data and observations provide? And then you allow the people to make that decision for themselves.

Correct. Right. And I think it's the problem we have right now in this UFO community, which I do not consider myself a euphologist. I'm not a researcher of UFO. It happened to have the job. That was it. paid by the government,

American taxpayer dollars. I think it's critical that people be allowed to make their own interpretive decisions for themselves. Because this is people of course. People say, Lou, what do you think?

It doesn't matter. What matters what you think? Here's the data. You figure that. Don't be so quick to give up that that sacred right you have to think. But once again, we don't have that data.

Right. Well, we get some of it. We don't have it. You don't have all of it. There's a difference. You do have some of it. Yes. We do have some of it.

Some of it. And I know it's frustrating because people say they want more. I get it. I understand. Well, it's because it's like chocolate. And it's not, and that's not on you that it's frustrating, by the way. And I know you shoulder a lot of that. And, and to, you know, to a great extent, it's very unfair. Because you have been forthcoming with more information, I think, than most people would have gotten in a lifetime of research, you know, thanks to, thanks to the things that you've done coming forward. Oh, thank you. I am trying. Absolutely. Absolutely. And that is undeniable. And I'm willing to fight anyone on that. You know, but the problem is once we scrape the barrel, we're like, okay, well, what's next? Right. And we know there is a next. We know there is something, right? Right. Okay.

I think part of the frustrating, and let me just completely transparent with you guys, I do a lot of work behind the shadows, behind the scenes, in order to get to like where we are now, whether it's a new whistleblower that maybe I've been aware of for the last few years or maybe a secret project that will hopefully blow the, you know, that will hopefully blow. the lid on a lot of this, you know, whether through a documentary, getting the right people to have the conversation. The problem is when you do that in the dark, people think that you're hiding something from them. They don't realize that, look, it's not you I don't trust. What I don't trust are some of the elements over there that don't want this conversation to happen.

And I can't have the conversation with you without them hearing it. So I have to do things behind the scenes in the dark until they become revealed, right? Yes. And people look at that as, oh, well, that's Lou being secret. That's Lou, you know, obfifis. the truth. That's Lou controlling a narrative. No, it's not. What it's doing is allowing me the time and the ability to present the information where someone's not going to take it away from you. And that's why I do a lot of what I do when I leave these breadcrumbs. People say, I don't want breadcrumbs.

That's why you're doing that. Look, if you look for the last seven years, everything I've ever said has come to pass without exception. Every single thing. And I do that deliberately so people know, look, I am fighting for you. I'm working for you behind the scenes. I just can't tell you everything that I'm doing right now, but eventually you'll know. And I'm trying to, you know, I know people say, well, but it's been seven years. Yeah, but we've done more than seven years and we haven't the last 70. I mean, guys, I'm working my ass off. Believe me, I'm putting myself on a lot of risk. I lost almost everything pursuing this, you know.

And like I said, how much are you paying me to do your podcast right now? How much are you paying me? Zero. That's right. Find any podcaster that I've taken a penny from, you know. It costs money, baby. I'm taking time away from my family to have this conversation with people

and people don't realize that. You know, he's a grifter. Man, you don't know what a grifter? If I was a grifter, you know, how much money I'd have right now? I'd be flying a Lear jet. You know, I deliberately don't do that. Simply because I don't want to pollute the topic.

And I respect that. And I think, you know, just from my observation, I try to remain really sort of unbiased from all of this and just look at it from like a spectator perspective. And I think there are a lot of other bad actors in this specific area. Oh, yeah. There's a lot of people that have been selling a line of bull to people for a long time.

And now they've got to double down, triple down. And there's a lot and there's also a lot of trust me, bro. Yeah. Right? And people are sick of the trust me. Yeah, absolutely. And because there's a lot of it. And so, you know, I guess the reason there's probably so much frustration.

You're going to get hate, by the way, as I promise you. Yeah. Just for having me in your statement and having this conversation, oh, loser grifter, he's full of crap, he doesn't know. I mean, I've been called the same. I'm aware and I'm currently unfazed by it. Because for me, this is not only a pursuit for them. This is a pursuit for myself as well. I want to know, right?

And whatever means I have to get that information is the means I'm going to pursue. But they would also be lying if they said they wouldn't want to be sitting right here and talking with you right now. Interesting. I think a lot of people probably would. Yeah, if anything, to throw a tomato at me, probably. Fine. But if it means getting a little bit more, a little closer to the answer that they're so desperately seeking, then I think it's worthwhile. But you know the answer, here's, here's a great point.

The answer doesn't come externally. And this is why I've told people before. If you really want to know what's going on out there, you first got to know what's going on in here. And this is the filter for everything we see and we conceive and we perceive. Right. And so you have to stop saying, I demand the truth. Give me the truth. Look in the damn mirror and say, first of all, what can I do to be a better father, a better husband, a better citizen, right?

And let me be the best that I can be. and then hopefully that, whatever that is, makes more sense. Sure. Right? Because as long as we have these pride and the ego that so many of us carry around and the inability to look in the mirror and say, you know what, I don't really like that aspect of what I see. We're in a society was, oh, you have to love yourself. You know, oh, you're the best. You know what?

That affirmation is BS. We need to be hypercritical of ourselves so we can be better people. There's a, I'll share you. You know what these tattoos here on my arm? And by the way, I don't normally like tattoos, but I don't. did it for military and other stuff. What this says? It's Latin.

It says, accept and pint it to you. It means with regret. Because there are people out there live their lives. I have no regrets. You know what? You're a moron then because you're never going to learn a lesson. I have lots of regret. I've done things that I wish I didn't have to do.

Now, if I was put in the same situation, again, would I do it for my country? Damn right I would. But I regret the fact that as humans, we had to even be put in that situation. I never want to forget the faces and the lives of other human beings that maybe you aren't here anymore, right, because of things maybe I've done, right? And so, no, I want to remember their faces. I don't want to glorify that because I'm still a human, you know, and I did things because I had to, not because I wanted to.

And I think we have to be self-reflective. I think we have to have the courage to look in the mirror and say, you know what, I can be a better person. You're not going to be perfect. We're humans. We're never, ever going to be perfect. but it shouldn't stop you from trying to being a better human being. And I think that is maybe one of the keys to unlock this greater mystery.

You know, we can't, how are we going to, I'll give a perfect case in one. I had a general about two and a half years ago now. It's been a while. He says to me after giving him a briefing on this topic, he says, Lou, this one, I was a US Space Force. He goes, look, Lou, I really don't care about this. All I care about is if this thing lands on the White House lawn, do I go ahead and extend my hand out to shake its hand and in friendship or to a point an M-16 at its head. And I looked at and I said, my dear general, you're missing the point. It's not an either-or solution, right?

Both of those may be the wrong way to react to this. We need to do a better job of understanding what's actually going on. In order to do that, you first have to understand how you're wired yourself. What makes you tick? What motivates you? Because that's going to depend on how you interpret that data. Is it friendly? Is a threat? Or is it something completely different? And so we all have to be on that same sheet of music. You know, we all have to have that honest conversation with ourselves.

You know what? We're not perfect. You know what? I'm not the best person out there. You know what? I'm not the prettiest. I'm not the richest. I'm not the most influential.

You know? And yeah, I've got some bad habits. Maybe I don't clean up the bathroom or I drink too much or I'm a gambler or whatever that is. But be honest with yourself, man. And then make the effort. of trying to to learn those lessons and become a better human being because maybe that's what it's going to take to really understand out there. You've got to first understand here. I love that. I love that. Thank you for sharing that. And I think that's a great point. And it's one of the most

refreshing things I've heard in this topic because even Jake Barber, we'll get back to him, you know, he had this sort of this providence, this, this holy, moment when he perceived him being contact with whatever emotional feminine energy entity was in this craft. But that changed him fundamentally. You could see that on camera. He almost broke down into tears just even talking about it. It was very real to him. And he said something. He said something to the likes of everybody should feel this in order to understand, you know, that perspective is everything. I don't disagree with that. I think. he's absolutely right about that. Yeah, and when you have, you know, I've always, I've always stuck to this.

If you understand someone, it is impossible to hate them. And, and, and I will die by those words. Think about anyone in your life who you dislike, find annoying or hate, and now really try and understand them. Really try and walk a mile in their shoes and try to be empathetic to what it is their entire story is from beginning to end and current. And that's hard to do. It's really hard to do. But if you can do that, even if you can get close to doing that, you find yourself feeling all sorts of other feelings for this person that aren't negative.

Well, and think about if you've ever been guilty of that same behavior, which chances are we have because we're human. But we don't want to do that. And sometimes in life, we want to have someone we can point the finger to. Well, of course, because they're human beings. And it avoids us having to point it out ourselves. And accept responsibility, right? Yeah.

The harder thing to do, like I said, is look in the mirror and accept responsibility and say, you know what? Shoot, I could have done better. Sure. You know, I did not, I did not give it my best. And I know it. Yeah. And I need to. I need to work on that, right?

And you're not without your flaws. And that's something that you've also been vocal about as well. Right. Is that, yeah, mistakes happen. Things happen to people, but you got to own up to it, man. still you haven't given up. No, and you know what? Accept responsibility.

Remain accountable. It's not that hard. Yeah, it sucks. You got to swallow your pride, but guess what? That's the only way you're going to succeed. You have to have those lessons learned. And if you don't, right? And for me, I had to be dumb enough.

I had to put up my arms to remind myself of it. You know, you're going to be doomed to repeat those same mistakes over and over and over and over again. And something magical happens when you actually accept. responsibility, even though it's a gut punch to the pride and ego part, all of a sudden you become free. It is freedom in a way that you would not expect, but it's very, very liberating, and it's also very, very, I think, encouraging, and it's helpful because you all of a sudden get more out of life. You begin to appreciate things. You wouldn't before. You're walking in a park

and you look at a little flower that's growing underneath the tree and we all say, wow, that's, that's magical. How many times have I walked by here and never even noticed that or cared, right? And now all of a sudden, wow, beauty is right there. I don't have to go searching for beauty in a Vogue magazine or, you know, a New York runway. It's right there. Nature's beauty. Right there.

And here I am this entire time taking it for granted, right? So I think, you know, this is what I know to frustrates people. People always say, well, if I want to really. know about that. What's your one suggestion, Lou? Say, stop worrying about that. Start worrying about that. Start worrying about what's in here. And then maybe you'll unlock the secrets. Yeah, get a fresh perspective. Yep. All right, let's get back to the nuts and bolts. This is great. I love this, by the way. And thank you for addressing that. Okay. A bit of a fun question. Okay. If you can get access to any archive out of the 19 intelligence agencies, if you can get full unrestricted

access to any of their archives. And we're talking DOE, CIA, DOD, whatever it is, DIA, whatever, what agency? Well, it's a bit unfair for me because I had a very high security clearance. And you had access to them. And have access to a lot of stuff. But I think for me, okay, if you were in my position. The CIA, and here's the reason why, not because it's, it's, you know, the CIA. It's domestic. It's not domestic, but more importantly, they share a lot of a lot of information from other agencies goes to the CIA. So it's not just CIA information you'd have access to. You'd have access to a lot of other agencies, both domestic and foreign, information that the CIA has access to.

It's kind of a belly button, if you will. And so if you can get into there and really have full open access, you would learn a lot. Is the DOE interesting as well? Absolutely it is. Look, by law, anything that gives off a certain amount of radiation falls under the DOE. Is there? Okay. So we're speaking about lures earlier, right? And how the ocean, big bodies of water, but also, you know, possibly strife and conflict, nuclear war, these things seem to attract. Are there any environmental factors that attract them? Yeah. What are some that aren't the ocean? What are some other environmental factors that you've seen activity in? Or atmospheric.

Certain. So there is a lot of information on this topic to suggest that uranium mines are a particular interest. And other mines as well, believe it or not gold. Now, if you think about it, why gold? Not from a monetary perspective, but what gold is. You know, gold is a very interesting metal, and which, by the way, makes it valuable. Not because it's pretty into gold. It's because of the property.

The reason why NASA and the Air Force use gold a lot on the inside of it. radiation properties. All sorts of properties. Right, right. I've got to be careful what I say here. But gold has some very interesting properties.

And there has been some information to suggest that UAP are interested in mining operations, both uranium and gold. That was also suggested by the 4-Han whistleblower who talked about the underwater construction unit.

Yeah. Interesting. Very interesting. I mean, it's just my brain's jumping to Ariel, the Ariel School, they were close to a uranium mine as well. That's not the only one.

Yeah, I'm sure there are other mass sightings. There's some reports, governmental reports. I could probably talk about they've been released through FOIA now, so they were classified. CIA reports on mines in the Congo, gold mines, where these things were seen by many, many people. Wow. Australia, too. Oh, I mean, okay. So there's one thing being.

interested in the material, but there's another in extracting it. Have you any recorded data of observing these UAP extracting anything? No. None. I have not. It doesn't mean it's not the case, but not in my experience. I haven't seen actually any extraction of minerals from the earth. Okay.

The four-chan whistleblower said that like the technology they used was laser somehow, and that lasers were really interested. and that China was actually using some of these lasers and had figured out how to bore these holes and to mine things that left the United States baffles. So are we sure it's actual lasers? So laser is very interesting. It's in a visible light spectrum. And it's a very specific frequency of light. So a green laser only uses green.

It looks green because it's green and the photons are coming on very specific frequency. Blue lasers, red lasers. There's things that can be confused as lasers directed at. energy that are really not based in photons or the emission of actual light. Then you also have a, in some cases, what they call a Doppler shift. So part of the discussion we had in ATIP was some of the biological consequences of people getting too closely things and suffer injury. Yeah, exactly.

Doppler, redshift, blue shift. What could be coming out in, let's say, a certain radio frequency when it goes through a certain process and perhaps leaves the, the, the, the, the, the, you know. UAP or the UFO, it gets Doppler shifted into a higher frequency that now becomes interpreted as visible light or possibly even energy like it could hurt you, right? Like x-ray, for example. So when someone says, well, they're using laser technology. You could look that way.

Yeah. Is it really laser technology or is it something else that we are now superimposing our own understanding of physics? I think, oh, that's laser when really it might not be a laser per se, but it's interpreted that way. Yeah, it has laser-like properties. Right, right. Okay. Has there been through what you've been shown any reason to believe that the, the NHI or the UAP that you've been observing has a distinct and perhaps adverse effect on our religious beliefs? Well, you don't have to look at aliens and UFOs. A lot of things can threaten religion. But was there anything specifically that, you know, because there has been talks of Jesus and Bibles and stuff.

Let me explain. Let me explain it this way. There's nothing that I'm aware of that threatens or hinders my own interpretation of spiritualism and religion. Sure. But we can look back in the past, for example, look at Galileo Galilei, when he first proposed the non-Earth-centric view of our solar system and proposed the heliocentric view of our solar system. What happened? Well, religion responded very violently and almost put him to death. for it until they can't it, right? At the end of the day, we realize Galileo didn't do anything

to threaten religion. It was mankind's interpretation of religion that was being threatened. Sure. Not God or the notion of God, but mankind's understanding of God or the great architect or the great beyond, right, whatever you want to call it. Well, I guess more specifically, my question would be, has there been anything in what you have studied that would confirm or deny religion. Everything I've seen only reinforces the notion of... The notion of religion, but nothing specifically, there's no specific data that points to any of the major religious events or any of the...

Well, you have to be careful because it's very subjective, very interpretive. Let me give an example. I hear over and over again, people say, well, the Bible's full of UFO encounters. Look at Ezekiel's wheel. Sure. Okay, great. Or it could have just been someone's dream or it could have been a vision that wasn't related to UFOs at all.

We don't know because we're separated by space and time, right? So we weren't there. So how do we know what the writer or the author was thinking at the time? You really don't. So we have to, we have, there's a lot of interpretate, a lot of subjectivity there. Okay. I, look, I don't think, I think if anything, this topic only reinforces the notion that that there is certainly a degree of order in this universe and that the cosmos is incredibly

vast. Let me give you an example here. I've said this a few times before. There are two barriers to human beings really understanding the universe. In fact, if you look at the entire, there's five fundamental senses for which we judge our environment. And if you can't touch it, taste it, hear, it, smell it, et cetera. We really don't know it's there, right? Because that's the only way we have to, you know, it can use technology to help enhance some of that.

But we only have five senses. So let's look at that, let's look at human vision first. second. What is human vision? Human vision is a very, very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. We call the electro-optical spectrum, right? Really tiny. You can see red and we can see up to blue, and that's it. And we think we can judge the entire universe. But that's only 0.0035% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, meaning most of reality lies beyond our ability to perceive it. Now, are there animals that can't? Sure, honeybees can look in ultraviolet. There's animals I can see in infrared and whatnot. We as humans can't. So we realize,

on technology where I live in Wyoming, beautiful night skies. Take a look at that night sky and you'll see all these stars. Now look at that same night sky through a radio telescope and you start seeing things you can't see normally. You see large gaseous clouds and Nova and things like that that are just as real, but they lie beyond our ability to perceive. And then you've got a scalability issue. You and I are sitting in this wonderful studio you have here, having this great conversation between you and me. And when you look at the scale of the universe, so the visible, most scientists believe that the visible universe, visible horizon, it's about 40 billion, billion light years across. Now, to understand that and really perceive that, what does that mean? Well,

that means take a photon of light, which travels at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, seven and a half times around our entire planet in a second. Now, think how far light can travel in a week and in a year. And now, take that multiply it by. by 40 billion, right? Incredibly vast. And that's only 10% of the actual size of the universe. Most cosmologists agree that the universe is 10 times bigger. It's just that it's so vast, light will never reach Earth.

So that's our visible horizon of 40 billion. But really, the universe is probably over 100 billion light years, maybe even much bigger across. And we are this infinitesimally small speck somewhere in the middle. I would encourage your audience, if they ever get a chance, get on Google, look on Google images and type in pale blue dot. What is that pale blue dot? that is earth everything you ever thought dreamed hope cried laughed occurred on that tiny dot every moment of history that we know of since the beginning of time occurred on that planet everybody who's

ever lived and died on that tiny little blue dot hurling through the vastness of space right that's very uncomfortable for people to look at and realize that and how vulnerable we really are real perspective now let's do the reverse let's go down let's look at avagadro's number 6.2 something times 10 to the negative 23rd a high atom, a proton, neutron, electron, and electron for hydrogen. That is times 10 to the negative 23rd in size. That's roughly the same order of magnitude as we are to the universe, and it's inside every human being, meaning most of reality is either too big or too small for human

beings to really interact with and grasp. And in fact, we can as a species, if we're lucky, one or two orders of magnitude up or down, and that's it. That's our reality. The truth is most of the universe is beyond our ability to even perceive it because it's either too big or too small. And so by that definition alone, and the fact that we look at 0.0036% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, some incredible number, we can perceive 0.000,000,000, keep writing those zeros all the way down, 1% of the entire universe in our reality. And we know most of the universe and reality lies beyond that.

And so that's fact. That's not suppositioning. That's reality. And we have to understand that this is an awfully big and complex universe. And there's other things besides physical distance. We talk about physical distance, but you understand quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement. There are some things in the universe that really don't follow the rules of a three-dimensional

space and time. It's inconsequential. It's irrelevant. And I know for us as a species, as a human physical species, that is our reality. It's hard for us to perceive a reality where space and time is irrelevant. But the fact is those universes exist. And so we have to really recalibrate the way we think about things. If we want to imagine the unimaginable, we first have to redefine what unimaginable is.

A lot to think about, man. That's a big pill to swallow. Lou, you have a gold standard. case that you look at, that you think back on? They're all different. There's so many gold standard cases. The ones I can talk about because people know about it, like the Nimitz incident. Okay. But there's other set. But the other ones. Okay, platinum standard. Yeah. Because if you can talk about the Nimmix and Nimitz and you consider that a gold standard, I mean, there's got to be something above that. Yeah. A lot. And there's a lot. Yeah. In your mind, when you hear of a case or you see a

case or you see a photo or a video floating around or whatnot, you have a Rolodex that you can compare it to that you know for a fact is anomalous that is confirmed an anomaly. Correct. Are we going to see some of those cases in the near future? That decision's not up to mind, but I certainly hope so. Let me give you an example without saying something specific. Sure. Let's say this coffee cup for, you know, better again, let's take a look at this water bottle.

Let's say this is birth, right? It's round, completely round. Yep. The way that gravity works is there are expected trajectories of things coming in and out of orbit. And especially if a satellite, let's say, on retrograde, it comes in. That's how we know it's going to burn up over the Pacific Ocean. That's how we know at what time you can see the fireworks show in the sky right, of the rocket reentering and burning up and the satellite and whatnot.

Things, there's an expected path that things take. Even ICBMs and missiles, if we were to launch on Russia or Russia were to launch on us, There's a very predictable pattern because it's physics. What you wouldn't expect looking at this as the Earth is something, because most things come in at a, come in as an arc. Yep. You wouldn't expect something going straight down and then popping straight back up. Because the amount of energy required to do that is enormous.

Beyond our capability. Well, certainly beyond our capability now. And so when you see that and you have the data, and it's not just looking at it, it's hyper-spectoral, data and there's other ways to collect information besides a human eye. Remember, that's only 0.0036% of the spectrum, right? So that's a little narrow window. Let's get a big window here. Let's get all the data, baby. You know, give me, give me all the frequencies and I want to see everything. That's when, you know, you have something really special because sometimes, you know, they say

seeing is believing, but your eyes can fool you. Look, you're a magician. I mean, this is how you, this is your trade made, a slight of hand, making something appear to be one thing when it's really something else. So we need more data points. We need, we need beta to include beyond the visible spectrum. And I can tell you a lot. I can tell you, can tell you heat, right? Things like infrared and what something is even made out of, because depending on the trail and the color, just like we look at a star, we can tell there's a planet around it. Why? Because we can tell actually the atmosphere of that planet and what is composed of, because as light from that star travels through it and then eventually hits Earth in our eyes, we can say, oh, that plant's primarily

nitrogen or that plant is primarily hydrogen, that plant is composed of methane because the light behaves, it's absorbed by the type of gas. And so when you see something coming in and out, and if there happens to be a trail on it, you can look at that, and you can analyze, okay, this thing is this is what it's comprised of because of the color, because of the length, the heat, all sorts of different things. So without giving away specific capabilities here, hyperspectral technology can be very, very informative. It can tell you a lot more than just simply seeing something on a camera. And so those are the ones that really get very compelling. Especially when you also have footage. Especially when you have footage. When you, I mean, when you see,

when you like when you browse stuff and you're and you're shown things online, are you ever just like, me because of what you seen? But that's, listen, but that's not because it's not compelling. It's because I've been desensitized. Because you've been desensitized. I have, right. It's just like, you know, a cop who comes across a crime scene and people are like, oh, my God, that's horrific. He's like, okay. You know, and it's unfortunate because that's just the reality of us. It's just like anybody who watches shows and horror shows on movies, you know, someone might say, oh, I don't like watching horror.

That's disgusting. Someone says, that's not really that bad. You get desensitized. Yeah, it's like a magic trick. It's like knowing how a magic trick works. And it's funny because I actually got to ask Bob Lazare that question. And he said, for the same reason, he said, it's exactly like. a magic trick.

Why doesn't the government talk about Balazar? Well, probably why they don't talk about me. I can imagine. You know, we go against the grain. I've never met Mr. Lazzar, to be honest with you, and for the record. So people say, well, what do you think of Lazzar? I don't.

I have no way to judge. I've never met the gentleman. You know, I think he's saying his truth, whatever that truth may be, just like I'm saying mine. Sure. You know, but look, the government has spent a lot of time doing the same thing to me. When I first came out, they even denied that ATIP was real. I know denied that I was part of it, right? I think somebody even accused out. It wasn't even at the Pentagon. I'm like, dude, you're kidding me?

I mean, there's my desk. You know, there's a safe that's got all the stuff in it. So I suspect if he's enduring the same thing, it'd be for the same reasons. They try to obfuscate, you know, there's a saying we have. First of all, you deny everything. You admit nothing and then you make counter-accusations, right? And so there is this spectrum of efforts that happen when there's an inconvenient conversation to have in a government. The first thing you do is they deny it.

And then when they can't deny anymore, you know, they'll start trying to take away someone's credibility like they do with Dave Groo. 24 hours of him coming out and this, by the way, is American hero. This guy, I know, personally, I worked with him at Space Force. He is exactly who he is.

We had the same briefings together. We saw the same UAP data, right? So he comes out and says the truth. And within 24 hours, two guys from CIA leak medical data and try to use his PTSD against him. Now, how disgusting is that, right? Oh.

And totally, by the way, if I were to go ahead, into government and release someone's private data, I go to jail. That's HIPAA violation. That is also the, there's PII information there, personal identifiable information there. There's medical, radical. It's been doxed by the government.

That's being doxed by the government. Shame on you. And you wonder why people are pissed? You wonder why people like me do what I do? That's why. Because that to me, let me, this is a, you're getting to a point now in this conversation that is very near and dear to my heart.

And I want to share something with you. A lot of people know in my book, I talk about my mother passing away. And no, I'm not plugging the book. That's not why I'm here. I'm just simply saying that people know that because I was forthcoming about it. But some people may not know, and I only just started talking about it, was a death of my father. My father was a revolutionary in Cuba. It was part of the Bay of Pigs.

In fact, if you type in my name and type in the word Bay of Pigs, you'll see his prisoner number. and he was a tortured and tormented soul because of it. But his later years, he became very introspective. And so about a month before he passed away, he passed away two years ago on Father's Day. I had the opportunity, I knew he was dying, but he wouldn't tell me. But I could tell he was dying, and I knew my time was limited. So he came out to visit me, and we had an opportunity to take a road trip together. So we're going to drive back down to South Florida together.

And about halfway through the trip, I asked him a question, and I, You know, I look back and I feel kind of guilty about it because I was kind of flippant, not expecting the answer that I got. And I said, Dad, what is the greatest threat to humanity? Now, I'm thinking to myself, is it a natural calamity, an earthquake, is it a nuclear war? Is it a biological pandemic, you know, like COVID was? And he looks to me and he says, thought about it for a thing. He says, corruption. It's corruption?

I said like, financial corruption? He says no, son. Corruption. Corruption in any form is the act of trading away one of your core values in exchange for something else. And whether it's religious corruption, moral corruption, governmental corruption. If you have corruption in government, then what winds up happening is you wind up chipping away, eroding the very foundation of a democracy. and when that occurs, it's a very, very quick and slippery slope down to total tyranny. And it's something my father actually had direct experience in.

And so when you have in the government corruption and people making decisions that they don't have the authority to make for reasons that they don't have the authority to even consider and doing things like they did to Dave Grush and myself and other people, that's a problem. because now the entire democracy is at risk. This is not just, hey, the government trying to insulate it. Hey, man, you're now going beyond the Constitution here, which is something we all agree with. And you're telling me now the Constitution doesn't matter and that I have to play by the rules and you don't. Hey, buddy, I don't know if you remember, but 1776 happened.

You know, people have a vote. And if you think that they're going to sit here and tolerate corruption, you know, there's an old saying from Bob Marley, you can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time. And if you think you're going to do that, brother, that's not the government I signed up for. That's not the Constitution I signed up for. I didn't go to war to allow you to do that because now, don't look now, but you're the enemy, right?

Yep. And they have hijacked what the values of our country are and they're making decisions. They don't have the authority to make, right? When they're not informing Congress, they're not informing the president, and they're lying, that's a problem. I don't care what you can justify it all. long. I don't give a crap what your answer is. It's still wrong. There are laws and things you have to abide by. And so when you see that action of people trying to defame somebody, that is egregious. And to me, look out. Because you're now going into a territory here into some very dangerous waters that, you know, you're doing things that are against the very ethos of what it means to be a free society and you don't have that permission. And by the way, I went to war for it before. Don't think I'll do it again. That's, you know, our Congress and our executive branch deserves better.

And if you are some mid-level bureaucrat making decisions on behalf of the president and Congress for which you're not allowed to make, watch out, baby. You're going to have some serious explaining to do, as we like to say. Yeah. And rightfully so, I think, I think, you know, the pursuit of that and especially in defense of people who have given up something for, you know, the freedom of people and the freedom of choice that people have, you know, I think it's, I think it should be valued and protected and upheld to a standard that I think most people should be on board with. I think that just goes to that saying. It's egregious, like you said. I mean, I'm going to have to ask 2027. No, I don't know why people keep saying 247. Listen. People like, oh, Lou, said 2027. Stop, guys. I never said that.

You know what happens that people in the internet have got way too much time on their hands. They will clip together interviews I have to create a false narrative. Okay, so let me know. Then what is it? Is it, you know, Bledso says, Bledso has a hard date, by the way. He says Easter Sunday, 26 is like his date. I've heard people say 2025 is when we begin this, whatever. And like it, you know, it's obviously the gold post is going to shift depending on what's been said.

Recently, Jeremy Corbell in his special, in his three-part special, at the end of it said that the government was intending on having some mass sighting or like a giant mothership come in and that, you know, this is going to happen. And then 2027's been thrown around. Can you, for everyone's sanity, shed a little bit of light on this, just so we can stop being paranoid or we can start, you know, being paranoid. Let me see if I can thread the needle on this. Sure. Take your time. You know, I know a lot of people, you know, this is nothing new. There's entire religions that are that plan for doomsday, right?

The end of the world's coming. Then you have, you know, oh, there's Y2K and then, oh, it's in the Aztec calendar, right. and you know Now there is some speculation and I won't say specifics

that there may be something in later on but the problem is I wouldn't go to the bank with it and what the specifics are because it's first of all it's hearsay and it's also was yes there was an official

effort by some people in the government to actually look at this data and there were some products produced. That's a fact. I won't go any more detail in that. But it wasn't 2027. Okay. And it was based upon certain observations. And again, I can't, this is, I'm very careful because what I don't want to do is people are going to take this.

They're going to hang on to these words and say, Lou said something's coming. No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that there were some people who were anticipating something happening. And it was, it was officially considered. to buy some people based upon certain things. And a product was written. Anything beyond that, I really, I don't want to discuss because I think what happens is people take that and they take it to the bank. Sure.

And that's very dangerous. Yeah, you don't want to give any credence to something that could be untrue. Right. I mean, look, anything could happen, right? A tornado could hit your studio in 10 minutes from now. Could. Probably won't, but it could, right? So we have to be very careful.

There's no such thing as absolute. But it's when you say something was observed. that people's ears tend to perk up. Yeah. I can't, I can't go into more detail of that. Because, first of all, I didn't collect the data. I was a part of that effort. And thirdly, you know, that's not really for me to discuss.

But I don't think people need to be, you know, panic at the disco and, you know, oh, my God. We've been down this road many times before. Let's let's stop speculating. Let's stick to what we know. And if it turns out that there's a revelation based upon of us all. working together on this and fine, maybe it is what it is. But we need to make sure we don't do ourselves the injustice by predicting and predicating things. I think that's a, yeah, I think that's a dangerous move. And I think unless the government comes out and says something, hey, you need to

pay attention to this, then we probably should focus on other things. I mean, and most people would probably agree with me, but if the government did say that, we might be questioning why they said that. Right. Sure. And that leads me to another question. do you rule out the idea that you might be being used to further some type of governmental agenda? Always. Always. You have to consider that. I don't think, I have rocked the boat sufficiently that, and I've made decisions that if that was a case, I don't think they would have anticipated. So I probably made their life very, very difficult. If I was supposed to be on some sort of agenda, I think I'd probably strayed from that agenda a long time ago. But what if this, I say 2027, but what if this future revelation is something like that?

And it happens. You know, you're not immune to that is what you're saying. No. Is that like that might be, you know? Look, you don't know what you don't know, right? That's right. How do you know what you don't know? So is it possible there some sort of master scheme there to manipulate Lou Alizando and a few other insiders to get our message across?

It is. But I'm also familiar with those techniques. And I think I would be able to see at least one tell tell. No one's that good where you can keep the secret. forever. You just, you really, it's, it would be really, really hard to do. Have you ever had disinfo come across your desk? Um, not at the Pentagon. No, well, foreign disinformation, sure. Yeah. Sure. Sure. But actual disinformation on the UAP topic, not at all. Not at all. No, in fact, nobody wanted to talk about it. Right. So, you know, you're not going to get disinformation.

Disinformation is, yeah. Usually when, when people are at least talking about something and you want to affect a decision, but when no one's talking about it, you know. But you're aware of projects, Are you aware of projects of the UAP narrative being slightly obscured? They did in the 7th. Look, Air Force OSI penetrated civilian organizations, you know, in violation of DoD-540.1 and other rules of regulations, possibly executive order 1-2-tru-3, and conducted intelligence operations and propaganda and manipulation against the American people. By the way, what happened two days ago? A document came out from the CIA proposing it's okay to keep. kill Americans if we want to go ahead and predicate a war and have an excuse to have a war with

Cuba and an invasion. Now, think about that for a minute. Wait, wait, wait, who the hell are you to propose killing American citizens for a political agenda? Dude, that's, that's worthy of a coup, man. Well, that's not American values. You know, you have, don't look now, but you've now become the enemy that we all hate. You don't have the right to do that. And this is what fires me up. There have been some people who have made suggestions to conduct illegal activities to cover this topic up. And it's going to come out. It's going to come out in a few months. It's just telling you, because I was victim to some of it.

When the American people find out the length that some people in the government are willing to go to to to keep something secret, it's going to blow your mind. It's scary. Yeah. And it's honestly, it's disappointing. You know, I never thought my people, I won't say my government, because I don't think it's reflective of the government. I think it's people in the government. Let's not forget, government is made up of people, right? And there are some good people and there are some bad people.

And, you know, that old saying, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Maybe that's what we're dealing with. And so I want to be careful of that. I'm not accusing the government. I'm not labeling the governor or mad at the government. What I'm mad at are those rogue elements inside our government that are. are making decisions that are not in the best interest of the American people and, frankly, that are against our Constitution. That is what motivates me to continue doing what I'm doing.

And if I have to pay the ultimate price for it, then so be it. I knew that while ago. Like I've told people, the only thing that's going to stop me is a bullet in the head or, you know, maybe I got hit by a bus or, you know, a car accident, right, which has happened in the past. You know, but I have to pursue the truth. And I think, I think any real, real patriot who served time serving their country feels the same way. You know, at the end of the day, you know, we owe it to the American people. We owe it to our government. There's no excuse why a president wouldn't be briefed on something.

There's no excuse why oversight committees in our Congress can't be briefed to something. And that's exactly what's happened. And that's a problem. And that's not a reflection of God's you can't say that's a government's fault. No, that's people in the government. It's their fault. And they will go. go, there's some people that will go to great lengths to, to, to information.

And it's not just the people in the government, because what we've seen, I think, more frequently and more rampantly is these people who are working with the government. Oh, yeah. And proxies, yeah, media, some of the elements even in the media. In the media, I think those tend to be a little bit more dangerous. Well, we saw this last, right before this last election, right? I mean, there were people in the media who knowingly lied about people. We just had a case, landmark case, against one of our.

major networks here where there was a veteran where they tried to slain or lie about him and defamation. And he won the case, right? And this is this is a media, a huge media organization that was super well respected. And it turns out there were journalists who had an agenda. And then, I mean, look at everybody who's surprised by it. Right. Nobody, right? Nobody's surprised at the media would go through that lengths. But sometimes we are surprised to find out that these other contractors are involved in things like this, you know, the big ones, the Raytheons, the, the, the, the, the, you know, I mean, there's, there's a few of them out there. One in particular, and, you know, feel free to answer however

you want to answer, you know, because you've been asked about Lockheed in the past. You've been asked about, you know, a lot of people are familiar with the Wilson Davis memo and, and all the stuff that went on there about like the inside program and people doing reverse engineering. what about EG and G? Where did they go? You know, I'm very careful not to mention companies specifically. I went through a year process through the Pentagon to even reveal a few of the names that I did in my book. And I was given very clear instructions not to deviate from that. Okay.

Because of your association with the Pentagon? No, because of their association with the Pentagon. I see. because of their association with the Pentagon and that some of these companies who've been responsible for doing some not very nice things in the past, I've been asked to, you know. Have you, have you, are you aware of EG&G even being part of the picture? I know the name. Okay.

I don't want to speculate one way or the other what I might have heard or what I didn't hear. Oh, I'm not asking for speculation. Yeah, yeah. No, no, I'm just, my point being is that I, look, there's, anytime you mention, especially in this topic, if I mention a particular name, there's liability issues. Mm-hmm. Right. And you have to be very, they're legal, real legal consequences.

Sure. So unless you get it approved by the Pentagon like I did, you got to be really careful. You can have the lawyers coming after you. So you've got to be really, really careful. And, you know, when you're someone like me who I'm living fairly modestly. Isn't that convenient for the government, though? like, I mean, it seems like, it seems to me because these private corporations are protected. They are protected. We're not allowed to knock on their doors to find out what they're working on because it's, it's private.

It's, it's got IP that we don't have access to. And so we legally, and there is that fine line of like, well, I mean, then you can just knock on anybody's door and take anybody's technology and proprietary, you know, information. But in this specific case, which is why, you know, people are trying to pass this UAP Act and trying to see that, like, hey, if there is recovered technology, then we should have access to it. Right. You know, Congress should be aware of it and, et cetera. But the fact is that there is a law preventing us from doing that. Right. It seems to me that that's a very convenient law. Well, and this is part of the, the, the double-a-old.

sort of any capitalistic society, right? You have free and fair competition until you don't, right? And so in theory, everything is free and fair competition and that needs to be protected, and I understand that. And it's, you know, I'll tell you something fascinating here. Do you know where the word corporation comes from? I've never thought of it. Corpos, meaning body, body. In the United States, you can actually, when you look at the tax laws, a corporation has the same exact rights as an individual. Interesting. And so when you have a lawyer, a group of lawyers creating this corporation, this corpus, they're creating a living, breathing entity according to the rules and the rights of our country. They have to be recognized as an individual.

And so they're afforded the same rights. And only when the conjurers, the great conjurers, the lawyers come back and they de, they do. establish a corporation and it is no longer a living body, right? It's a living thing. And even then there's some rights that that translate to that. So people understand that in the United States corporations have the same rights and privileges as individuals, just like a human being. Rights to privacy. Right. Right. Right. Very convenient. Well, it can be abused. It is, it works until it doesn't. So I want to make this clear. I understand why, because the U.S. is a capitalist society, and that's how we thrive, you know. And we've all agreed to that. That's our

social contract, that this is the type of government we want. I agree. We want the rights to cert. If I have a company, I want my company to be protected, right? I don't care what it does. I want to be protected. And I want my private information to stay. Private, right. So that's not a bad thing. The problem is when it's abused. And there's some gray areas. And that's why you have rules and regulations on how corporations, whether it's S-Corp, C-Corp, LLC. And I'm not going to, you know, go into a class here about corporations. But it's something I know a little bit about because I was involved in it. And so we have to respect that. And then when you have a corporation, just like a human being that's got security clearance that's working on

national security type issues, they're even more protected, right? Because we don't want adversaries to get a whole of that technology, which is, again, understandable. I get it. The problem is when people in those corporations, not the corporation itself, people in the corporation are making decisions like people in the government are making decisions that are not consistent with the ethics and expectations we have in these organizations. For monetary gain and power mostly. Correct. Okay, I got maybe a couple questions left and then we're going to hop into the questions from the interns.

Okay, yeah. You've been great so far. Thank you so much for sticking through this with me. Sure. Okay. Coffee helps, by the way. I can get you another one here shortly. Okay.

There is a documentary coming out that you've been a part of that we just saw that's been making the round the age of disclosure. It seems like a big one. It seems like a dops or dream team. There's a lot of people in that lineup. Can you shed any light on what's to be expected in this documentary? So I haven't seen it yet. I'm very eager for it to come out.

I have been part of facilitating a lot of people who are in that movie to come forward. It's been a long project probably about three years now. It's been done, as most people now know, sub-Rosa, right, in secret, because it's very important. And there's people that are being interviewed that have never come out publicly on this topic. That we've not seen on the trailer. You've not seen on trailer. I think people can expect, oh, you know what? People are funny, right?

Because some people come back and say, wow, this is the definitive documentary. And then other people will come out and say, nah. Nothing, Burger. Yeah, because they've, because you're not meeting their expectation, right? You know, and so, you know, I'm very, very, but I think it does. It certainly moves the needle in the right direction. Everything I try to do is to move the needle in, in the right direction. I think this film project is another example of some very brave Americans coming forward.

First-hand witnesses? You know, I'll, I don't want to give too much way. I'll let, I'll let the audience decide for themselves. You know, I want to be very careful what I say and what I don't say. but I do believe it's going to change the conversation irrevocably. And I'm very excited for it to come out. Are you aware of any new footage of UAP or NHI being featured? I can't discuss the details of the film.

Like I said, I have to ask on behalf of the audience. Yeah, sure. I have, you know, I have not seen the film in its complete form. But, you know, you have some very, very significant information in that, in that documentary. Jay Stratton says... Not just Jay. Okay. Well, I mean, that is interesting.

But Jay Stratton does say that he has seen an NHI. Do you know what he's referring to? I do, but you have to talk to Jay about that. I don't like speaking on other people's behalf. I've probably noticed that in other interviews. I never... I'm not a kiss and tell kind of guy. Yeah.

And I'm the kind of guy that, you know, if people want to throw rocks to me for that, that's fine. No, I respect that, actually. I think that's probably the best move there. But is it safe to assume that you know what he's talking about? I don't like to presume or assume anything. Great. Just have to have to. Have you yourself seen NHI?

Let's just share that one for a little later. A little later, like after this airs? Maybe never. Again, I am very restricted on what I can say and how I say it from the government. I still am very loyal American. And I, you know, this conversation is continuing. And I think more will be forthcoming in time. And I'll leave it at that.

Can I ask one more about that? You can ask whatever you want. Because that's the one I want to know. how can I phrase this in a way that you can answer this? Are you aware of more than one type of NHA? Let me see how I can answer this. Accuracy is very important. Being aware of is not necessarily the same as having proof of.

Roger. Some people, let me give you case. By the way, even that proof of doesn't, Even there's a double-edged sword with that. You know, there's people that will say the Earth is flat. They're flat-earthers. No matter what you tell them, Earth is flat. The fact that the Earth is round is not a truth for them.

You know, when ancient sailors used to talk about sea monsters in the Great Ocean, Pacific and the Atlantic, and people said, well, that's not true. That's just their observation. And it turns out that there are blue whales and great white sharks and giant squid. It was just our interpretation at the time that made it difficult, right? We said, these are monsters. Well, the reason why people didn't believe in them because we called them monsters. She said, hey, look, there's a giant mammal out there that looks like a dolphin, but just got a lot bigger.

You know, that's different than saying there's a giant monster out there that does this and that. I know I'm being evasive on this, and I'm trying to answer your question without. Well, what I'm gathering from this is there are a potential that some of these NHI might look a lot like us. That's certainly a potential. You know, we do camouflaging all the time. And as I mentioned on another interview some time ago, you know, you can go to a zoo in Beijing right now to the panda exhibit. And you'll see that the zookeepers wear these fuzzy little panda suits. And they do that because they don't want to perturb or disturb the pandas in their local environment.

And so they feed them and they do whatever they do. But they have to wear a panda suit to do it. Now, is that a panda? No, it's not a panda. It's a human, you know, badly acting as a panda. And probably the panda's realize it, but maybe they say, I'm getting food. I don't care anyways. But it's an attempt to blend in.

In intelligence, camouflage, and I don't mean camouflage necessarily physical camouflage, like in a military unit. I mean mental camouflage. The ability to assimilate into an organization or a society is very important. And that's how spies work. Spies do their job because they're like a magician. to get away with doing things that most people don't perceive or see. And it's a way for us to protect ourselves and to do things.

So it's not unusual. You know, I want to give an example. I might get in trouble for this. So there are certain circumstances in the military where military personnel don't advertise their affiliation with the government. It doesn't say U.S. Army and Sergeant Johnson. on there. They go in with sterile uniforms and they do that for a reason. Because they are trying to, they don't want the affiliation of a formal government entity to be known. That in itself is a

form of camouflage, blending in with the society. Army special forces do this all the time when they go into a country to train individuals in weapons tactics and things like that. You don't advertise, I'm a special forces guy, right? They got the long shaggy beard for a reason because they don't want to look military. They're wearing civilian clothes and jeans and carrying a clash and a cough for a reason without getting into a lot of detail, right? So is it a hard, is it a hard idea to say, well, look, if something is visiting us, would it want to blend in? You know, there's certainly an argument for that. Oh, okay. There's an argument for that. Are there, Is there evidence pointing to that being the case?

Not proof. Let me stay on the fence with that. Okay. Look, again, knowing how people are predisposed to take information and run to the hills, you know, Lou Elizano confirms the existence of hybrids, right? That's what I'm trying to avoid because Lou Elizondo is not. You said it not me? Yeah, I know.

Lou Elizondo is not confirming the existence of hybrids for the record. Okay. You heard that. But I'm saying is it a possibility? Sure, the possibility. You know, there's, there's, camouflage is not just a human thing. Yeah. Animals in the wild do it, you know, fish do it.

Lizards and chameleons do it, right? It's, it's part of our natural ability to, to blend in. And if you ever want to see a master of disguise, look at an octopus, right? Yeah. They do it for survival. So it's not, you know, a con, people say, well, you have to be a smart thing in order to try to camouflage and blend in. Not necessarily.

That's not true. No, camouflage is seen throughout, there's a reason why my background is microbiology and immunology. Let me give you a perfect example. There are parasites and there are microorganisms that are parasitic that mimic healthy human tissue to evade the autoimmune response. And these are bacteria that will have brains and high functioning, you know, thought processes like we do.

This is at a very basic. elemental scale of our reality of nature. Nature is a master of mimicry. And there's a reason why even plants, plants will sometimes have attributes that mimic other plants. Yeah, but we're not talking about plants. Well, but in the greater context, you're trying to answer your question without answering.

You know, is that a distinctly earth thing? Or is that any form of life that evolves to a certain point uses camouflage to blend it. And we don't have that answer, but it's something that's being proposed, it's something that's being looked into. It's certainly something that has been discussed. It's been discussed. But obviously, as someone who's in this topic,

you're also aware of the other kind, the one that's a little bit more blatant in terms of observation. Sure. Of not being from here. Right. Are there images or videos of these beings? I don't want people to take this wrong way. So I'm going to abstain from that answer.

And it's not because I'm trying to be evasive and be like, oh, Lou confirmed. No, I didn't. There's a very specific reason why I'm on the fence with this. I'm hoping it becomes more apparent soon. But I'm very careful not to commit one way or the other. Have I heard it? Yeah, of course. Yeah.

The people that I trust and known and had the conversation, yes. But I also haven't myself experienced that. So for me to say yes or no is not so. So what I'm doing is proposing if people are having trouble understanding the question, they only have to look at Mother Nature to see countless examples. Okay. Where biology does it for them automatically. So is it that much of a stretch to look, you know, we have we have stealth aircraft right now.

that can be confused as a bird because of its radar profile and radar return, right? And we do that on purpose. So I, you know, camouflage is something that is, is animals, all life forms, on Earth at least,

have been using that and mimicry since the beginning for survival. Okay, we'll get off the NIH stuff. Thank you for answering those questions. I know I didn't answer it. No, no, no. Your audience is going to be really pissing me for that,

But I mean, I think you're reluctant to answer some of these questions provides us with enough information. And I'm not going to assume anything, but I'm going to say that this topic is being taken seriously. And I think, I think that all options are on the table until they're not. Yeah. And I, you know, when it comes to pilots, obviously, you guys are thinking about that. Obviously, there's a department that is all about the pilots. If you're the nuts and bolts guy, someone else is the pilot guy or girl. Consider me more of an airframe kind of guy.

Okay, airframe kind of guy. Okay, it makes sense. But, you know, I mean, even your background in microbiology does make it really interesting, you know, because. I know. I've had a lot of people approach me about that. Like, yeah, but it's not a coincidence of your background. I don't know what I say. There was another 4chan whistleblower who claimed to be a microbiologist, and he had, I mean, this is something I could maybe run by you eventually and have you look at what he wrote.

But he basically dissected a gray alien and says he was at, you know, what was the, what was the, I forget the location. But essentially took these grays and, you know, from on. to mouths, to nose, to the pores on their skin that's to create this like ammonia-type stuff to the four fingers and the entire being. And this was posted to Reddit and this is a massive file. It's very complex to look at. And I've shown it to experiencers and to, you know, abductees. And it seems to coincide with all of the red flags that they've, you know, perceived as well. And so, you know, I would expect there at least to be, is there a department that is looking into just NHA? Without getting into trouble, let me give you, let me ask you a question.

Sure. Let's say hypothetically, you know, you're doing something and one of your vehicles crashes. And so what do we do? We do recovery mission where we go and say, okay, we're going to recover our craft and get the pilot out of there. And how would you feel if when you get back and not only is the plane been taken away, but when you say, well, how's our pilot? Oh, yeah, about that. We chopped them up in a bunch of pieces and studied them.

Okay. So what you're saying is that there's nothing left to give back, right? How would you feel about that? And what would the reaction be? Again, I'm a nuts and bolts guy. I'm not a biological guy. sure. But, but, but.

That you're saying it's, that's not a good thing to put out there. Probably not. Right. Because, you know, how would you feel if, you know, that you're out in the jungles and your helicopter crash, one of your buddies helicopters crashes. And it turns out that the, that the natives, not only, you know, dismantled your helicopter, but wound up chopping up the pilot into a thousand pieces and, you know, expiring, oops, sorry about that.

We didn't know. Yeah, that's a whole other cane of worms. Sure. That turns out to be potentially the case. If it turned, again, again, let me count on. If it turns out to be the case, you know, that could be probably. That's not a great way to have diplomacy, right? Understood, yeah.

Okay. Interesting stuff, man. All right, we're going to get to some questions from the interns, probably a little lighter. Hold on a second. Let me prepare a minute. I'm a Gemini, like long walks on the beach, peanut calatas. I mean, it's, okay, let me turn on this camera. Okay.

And while I set up the other camera, I thought it was interesting that we were sitting with the person who's partially responsible for turning the term UFO into UAP officially. So I thought it might be time to make UAP UFO again. You can pick these hats up at area 52.shop. This is actually funny because it kind of has to do with what we were just talking about. Oh, that's cool. Survey says. your Q I think is supposed to be an S Oh yeah, it could be

What does the say here? Oh yeah Do you believe any sort of cohabitation between our species And the alien species Exists And this is from Hex 0811 Correct sir

So to Hex 0811 Um Let me Let me throw this at you Most anthropologists agree that modern human species, homo sapiens sapien, has been around between 200 to 400,000 years. Our Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, both scientists and geologists. And so we have really only been around in modern form for a very short period of time. And we've only been looking to the heavens with technology to actually allow us to look and only been off this planet for the last 60 years.

Right? Out of that 400,000 years. And we've always been asking the question, are we alone? And we know life here on Earth is prolific. It's everywhere. It's all the places we never expected to be. It's miles beneath the Arctic ice. It's in the bottom of the ocean by the black smokers.

You know, there's life forms that every time we try to define what life is, Mother Nature wiggles our way out of the box. There was a time when I was taught that all life derived from photosynthesis. Turns out that's not true. Go to the bottom of the ocean. There's animals and critters that live off something called. chemosynthesis around the black smokers, these very, very hot upwelling of water and minerals in deep oceans. There's bacteria that can live on the skin of the ISS space station, where the radiation levels are through the roof and the extremes of temperature, right?

And every time we try to put Mother Nature in a box, we learn that we're wrong. And so in our quest to find intelligent life in the universe, in all that time, is a possible that life found us first? Is it possible that because the same way we detect planets with their atmosphere, someone detected us and said, hey, that's a really special little planet out there.

We need to figure out what that's about. And it's not that this cohabitation of our species is something recent. Is it possible there's a long history of there? In fact, when we were proto-humans, is it possible that some sort of advanced species was already observing us? You know, the universe is very old.

And even the Earth being four and a half billion years old, the universe is much older. You know, we're a third, maybe fourth generation star system, which means the stuff that made our star came from another star, which came from a supernova, which before that became from a hypernova, which before that became from, you know. So even our Earth is only, it's relatively young in the scale of the universe. is possible that in our attempts to find intelligent life out in the cosmos that it has found us first, I think it's certainly possible. I think it's more than likely. Yeah, we are not alone. Okay. Next question here.

Let's see how this one goes. Manipulations. Mutilations. Yeah, mutilations, right? Battle and human mutilations don't seem to get discussed. What's your take on this? And this is from Senzabine. Yeah.

Sinsabine, okay. We know of the observables in the Pentagon. We always talked about the five observables, but we've always maintaineders actually six. One of them is biological effects. So, you know, the word, I think the issue here is the word mutilations. We are superimposing two different things. A mutilation is usually something very negative, and it's usually a problem. crime. And so we hear about cattle mutilations. Why? Because a cattle is the sovereign property of the

farmer. And if an animal gets hurt or injured or destroyed in a deliberate fashion, or whether it's by an animal predator or human or anything else, it's a mutilation. Human mutilations usually have something called human experience, not a mutilation. Most of the people, they refer to themselves as quote-unquote experiencers will relay they're very positive or very negative

cessation. But mutilation is usually not not ascribed because it's not permanent. It doesn't result in death like it does

for a cow, for example. There's been some examples. Yeah, well, yeah, there are some, there are some outlying stories of individuals

have been with similar effects that the cows head. Sure. Well, the cows aren't around. Usually the cows and horses aren't around to tell you their story. Right.

What we're left is with a body that's in the process of decomposition, advanced decomposition, in some cases, that appear to have some sort of surgical precision without loss of blood and instant cauterization of blood vessels, right? Without a trace of... Without a trace of... Right. And I've spoken to an individual who worked for the Department of... Let me see, maybe sure we don't get him in trouble.

He was a USDA person who happened to be also a veterinarian. And so he worked for the government, but he was also a senior veterinarian out somewhere out west. And I had a chance to speak to him. And he told me, point blank, look, what's happening to some of these cows, it's not natural predation. And it's not us. Something is doing this. And we're very concerned. within his office.

As far as as humans, there are people that we have, like Dr. Gary Nolan, who focused on the biological effects, whatever you want to describe that, right? However you want to describe that. Where there does seem to be,

at least in some cases, brain scarring and... Yeah, Guadateeputaman, correct. So where there's been specific morphism, Now the question is we have to ask, is it deliberate? Look, it could just be a product of the technology. If I stick my head too close to a microwave oven while the microwave oven is on and the door is open, don't be surprised if I get severe negative medical consequences.

I'm putting my head next to radiation, right? It's not the fault of the microwave, it's doing what it does. If you get near some advanced technology that you don't understand, don't be surprised if something happens, right? If I'm at an airport, I jump on a 737, hey, no threat. But if I'm at an airport, I jump onto the tarmac, the runway where that airplane is, and its engine is throttling up, what's going to happen? Well, I'm going to go deaf. I'm going to get burned.

I'm, you know, bad things happen. Is it, is it the fault of the airplane? No. It's my fault. I got too damn close to it, right? Yeah. So, um, that's for humans, but for the, for the cattle part, I mean, that just seems. Right.

Well, so let's go back to the question. Cattle and human relations don't seem to get discussed. Well, not publicly. Well, but, but we're discussing it now. Yeah. right and what's my take on it uh my take is that there are some similarities but there's also some very significant differences um from what i have learned and been privy to again i am not an expert on on on bovine i'm not an expert on equine yeah um and it wasn't part of the you know

it could just be like the i guess the because it's scary when you see these animals yeah and they're Well, it's disturbing. It's incredibly disturbing. And they're lovely animals who didn't ask for that. And, you know, when you see them in the state they're in. But don't we do the same, though? Not to be, not to be obvious. But don't we do the same to those animals?

We do the same to those animals specifically. We eat them. Yeah. Brother, we put them in a place where they're with a bunch of other animals. They know they're going to die. Correct. And we put them through this awful little runway where they're forced to run down. And the next thing they know, they've got a bull in the brain or they're getting a throat slashed.

And they're choking on their own blood. You're correct. So, you know, when we say, the cattle mutilation, that's awful. Well, you know, what's really awful? We do the same thing. But we also don't advertise that. And that's my point.

I think for the same reason is why it doesn't get discussed. We don't talk about the, you know, deplorable conditions in these farms that these, you know, pigs get slaughtered in or like this. Terrible. But we don't talk about it. We don't advertise it. Right. Could it be that that's the same reason we don't talk about these cattle mutilations?

Well, possibly we also don't know that maybe. these cattle are being selected, maybe they're being dispatched or perhaps killed before that happens, right? We're assuming and presuming it's all happening at once, these poor defenseless animals have, you know, they're just being tortured. That may not be the case at all. It could be they being euthanized. And then they're doing, and then, you know, okay, well, let's put it there in a far corner

there where it'll naturally decay and well, the humans, dumb humans come across it, okay, but it's what we're doing. I mean, it's, you know, we as a species do that. We go all the time. We mutilate animals all the time. I mean, go to some of these, I want to be careful here. I don't upset anybody, but go to some of these wet markets, right? I mean, have you seen the way some of these animals are?

And they're living and breathing and conscious. And they see, they know what's going to happen to them. Dogs, cats, right, animals, birds. You know, cattle mutilate. If you ask me, that's a hell of a lot more humane than the crap we do. Yep. All right. Good take.

I like it. And we do it to ourselves, too, unfortunately. That is true, too. Okay, last one from the audience here. I'm old school, so I remember actual the shows, the game shows that did that, right? Train stations. What is more interesting regarding the UAPs and related phenomena? The Sky or the Sea?

Wow. And this is from Dennis W. Dennis W., good question. All of them were good. Let me show I can do this. Well, interesting and subjective, right? So if you're, if you're, if you're, between me, well, to most people, if you're an aerospace person, then the atmosphere. So what I mean?

To you, this question is directed for you. No, but I'm saying here, I'm looking at it through a specific lens. I see, I see. I'm caveat. So people know that I'm not, the reason why my perspective is the way it is, because it's to me and my background. Okay, I got you. So if you come from an aerospace background, the things in the sky are very, very interesting. If you come from an oceanographic perspective, let's say like Tim Galli-Dette,

then the undersea thing seem to be more interesting because you are an expert in those areas and when you see the UAP performing the way they're performing, whether you're an aerospace guy or an undersea guy, it's pretty, pretty amazing, right? So you're like, wow, how is that problem? Yeah, the air stuff is interesting, but the water is so dense and how is that possible, right?

And then the aerospace guy says, yeah, but we're going to, these things are coming in from outer space and do you understand the physics involved? And so it's important to caveat that because one is not more important than the other. It's no different than you driving your... What's more interesting when you're driving your car? Do you like driving your car in the rain or the snow?

Well, it depends. You know, if you're not used to driving in the rain, you'd rather driving the snow. If you're not used to driving in snow, I much rather driving, you know. Am I from Florida or am I from Buffalo, New York? Right? So it's going to be different for people with those backgrounds.

For me, I find very interesting the... The stuff that is in the sky. But not for the reason you might think, not because of my background in aerospace, because frankly it's a cop out. It's easier to collect the data. For me, it's, look, we've got so much things,

airborne capability, spaceborne capability, ground capability, radars and all this other stuff. And it's easier to collect the data. And more people see it. Underwater, it's very tough. And unless you have a collection capability right there, chances are you're not going to catch it. So it's not as frequent and not as often.

It doesn't mean it doesn't happen just as much. It just means we don't have the persistent surveillance capabilities that we do above the water. And people look, we're terrestrial things. We live on land, right? We can see the sky. We don't live underwater. We're not a fish or a shark, right? So for me, I find what's in the sky very interesting, but only because the data is more available.

And it's easier to make a determination what, is conventional technology, someone's being, they're confused between that. That's actually an airplane in 737 on its way to L.A. Or that is a satellite or that's part of Starlink or that's part of a, whatever that may be, versus undersea. It's more of a puzzle up there. It's more of a puzzle up there. Underwater, we have less information, but it's also to be more scary because it means it's a lot closer.

Right. But these things are from the ocean. Now it's like, wait a minute. We're neighbors, you know. Yeah. Next time I'm on a carnival cruise ship, you know, heading to the Caribbean, is it possible one of these things are below us, right? You know, that's an awfully deep ocean, like I said. And it's interesting to consider.

It's a really good question, but my answer is keep in mind, it's a fair subjective. B, it's unqualified because I'm not an expert in the ocean. And C, it's a cop out for me because it's easier. There's just simply more data for me to go through. Yep. All right. Great answer. All right, man. Do we almost pulled three hours here. Did we? Yeah, that's crazy. One more favor I'm going to ask you. Yeah. I'm going to ask you to sign two of these. Well, three of these, one of them's for me. And I bought two extra ones because we're going to give some away. I love it. To the audience. We're going to give them a chance to get a signed copy here. Guys, simply, if you'd like to win one of these signed copies, make sure you're subscribed. Like this video. And then, Comment below your favorite part of this podcast or this discussion, something, some piece of information that you found interesting, that Lulet slipped through the cracks. And I'm going to choose one of you there.

And the other one is going to be an intern. So if you want to increase your chances on winning one of these, because there are far fewer interns, and there are people watching this, you can go ahead and join our membership. by click on the join button, or go ahead and go to, is it patreon.com slash area 52 investigations and join for five bucks a month there and we got all sorts of extra stuff. But I'll be choosing one of our interns to win the other signed copy. Thank you so much for watching. And Lou, thank you to all of you.

I don't know which primary camera, but to all of you, thank you, thank you for your time. Hopefully I didn't drone on and bore the hell out of you. Talk to my wife. She'll tell you. I got a lot of people all the time. But thank you truly. And if you don't mind, just so you know, you are making the difference. This is only possible because of you.

And not only are other people listening, but governments of the world are listening to you. So thank you for your courage and having the curiosity in this topic, a topic that was once perceived as being, according to the American Psychological Association, as being an extreme form of deviance. Thank you for being curious. Thank you for your courage being part of this conversation with us. And we do it for you. So thank you. And God bless.

Thanks, man. You got it, brother. Appreciate it. Absolutely. My honor and privilege.