Julian Dorey Podcast - #237 - UFO Crash Retrievals, Lockheed Alien Experiments & Remote Viewing | Luis Elizondo

Episode Date: September 19, 2024

SPONSORS: 1) This episode is sponsored by/brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/julian and get on your way to being your best self. 2) ZBiotics: https://zbiotics.com/JULIAN (***TIMESTAMPS in description below) ~ Luis "Lue" Elizondo is the former head of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which investigated UFOs, now referred to as Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). A veteran of the U.S. Army, he has worked in counterintelligence and counterterrorism worldwide. His new book, "Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs," is available now (Link Below). BUY LUE’S BOOK, “IMMINENT”:  https://www.amazon.com/Imminent-Pentagons-Responsible-Investigating-Profound/dp/0063235560  EPISODE LINKS - PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey    - MERCH: https://juliandorey.myshopify.com/   - AMAZON STORE: https://amzn.to/3RPu952   GUEST LINKS - X: https://x.com/LueElizondo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor  FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/   INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/   X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey  JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips    - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily    - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP    Get $150 Off The Eight Sleep Pod Pro Mattress / Mattress Cover (USING CODE: “JULIANDOREY”): https://eight-sleep.ioym.net/trendifier ****TIMESTAMPS**** 0:00 - Writing #1 NYT Book in America 4:45 - Working for Military in Korea/Afghanistan; Daughter born premature 7:54 - Lue joins Director of Office of Intelligence 16:22 - Jim Lacatski & UFO Program 20:03 - First Meeting in Top Secret Room (SCIF Breakdown), Espionage Tools  26:50 - AAWSAP & AATIP UAP Programs; Senator Harry Reid & Robert Bigelow 33:38 - How AAWSAP transitioned to AATIP & what mission is 39:32 - Living with Top Secret Intel & Shocking Reaction, Signatures of UFOs 44:45 - Brazil Colares UAP Incident w/ Jaque Vallee & Hal Puthoff 50:09 - The 5 Observable UFO Features 58:12 - Colares Brazil UFO Incident Conclusions, Methodology Investigating UFOs 1:07:12 - 3 Alien Possibilities; UFO Nuclear Sightings; UFO Abductions 1:16:55 - Human Origins & Scientific Method; 5 Senses & Human Bias; Avogadro’s Constant 1:27:43 - Creepy Submarine UFO Story 1:29:58 - Most Compelling UFO Abduction Cases (Rendlesham Case & CIA Spy) 1:33:04 - Lue Experiencing Light Orbs  1:37:43 - Lue Studied Gov UFO History; “Hot Words” 1:40:12 - Declassified Technology; Pentagon Bureaucracy 1:45:43 - Lue’s late Cuban Revolutionary Dad 1:50:49 - Lue still working for Intel? 1:51:55 - Edward Snowden vs UAP Disclosure debate 1:56:02 - The “I Wanna Believe!” Cult; Responsibility of disclosure 1:58:38 - ... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Have you stood in front of a recovered UFO? I am, uh... I have had in my possession material that was allegedly recovered from a UFO. Who gave it to you? I cannot say. Former Pentagon and intelligence official Lou Elizondo. Luis Elizondo. Lou Elizondo.

I was told several years ago that I could never talk about crash retrievals or material. Ever. People are wildly fascinated to hear from someone who was apparently inside the Pentagon looking at the most mysterious thing that exists in our world. Now, are there people out there in the government that know more? Probably. They're out there, man. There's things that are going on that, yeah, that's not our technology. It could be like some sort of PSYOP.

Ooh, this could cause ontological shock or an existential crisis if we just dump this on people. You're talking about a conspiracy on a level. You would have to keep a long-running secret, and you'd have to backstop it for years beforehand, like decades. You allegedly left the Pentagon in 2017. Do you guys ever really leave? Come on. Hey, guys.

If you're not following me, please be sure to hit that follow button and leave a five star review. And also if you'd like to follow me on Instagram or X, those links are in my description below. How's it feel to have the number one book in the United States of America? Wow. What a great first question. Just, just throw me into the deep end right just there you go dude um you know in i don't think about it isn't that terrible i i not at all i i don't because it must be nice having the feds help get you all the way to the top of the list huh if that was only the case if that were true i'd probably be a senator um. You know, I wrote that book for a very specific reason. I never expected it to even be successful. I wrote it because I wanted people to know the truth about what was going on in the government

and how their tax dollars were being spent. And at the end of the day, I wanted it to be a record. You know, people write books for different reasons. And for me, written word, unlike spoken word is indelible. What do I mean by that? It's, it's forever. And I've said before, this is why the Egyptians wrote the book of the dead on papyrus. It's the reason why the Magna Carta was written on parchment. It's the reason why our Declaration of Independence was written down because written word out survives those who wrote it, right? It becomes a permanent record. And then when it goes to the Pentagon for a security review, right? Now I know for the

first time I am actually allowed to talk about this. I won't get in trouble because I've said something that's either classified or something like that. And so that was really my motivation to write the book in the first place. Whether it sold one copy or a million copies, I never paid attention. That wasn't my motivation. And so I purposely try to avoid looking at statistics, how good something is doing or how bad something is doing. It was no different. I'll share something with you actually. I don't think I've shared this before. So, um, some time ago I had a little TV show and we were doing on history channel with some other folks.

And, um, I remember the. Pull that mic in a little bit. I'm sorry. I remember the producer coming to me and she was really, really excited. She's like, oh my gosh, we just got greenlit. You know, it's fantastic. And I said, oh, that's great. And she said, well, aren't you excited?

I said, well, do you know when, obviously the show got greenlit, but do you know the very first moment when the show's going to get canceled? She said, no. She got like really almost like concerned. I go, how do you know a show's going to be canceled? I said, the very day it's green lit because no show lasts forever. So yes, in some cases it's celebrating a marriage, but it's also awake because at some point every show comes to an end. And so I don't allow myself to, she will revel in the moment because it's kind of for me a little bit of a distraction from what my core mission is. So I know it's probably not a satisfying answer.

No, it's perfectly fine. It's interesting talking to someone while wildly fascinated to hear from someone who was apparently inside the Pentagon looking at the most mysterious thing that exists in our world, allegedly. So we're going to get into all that today. First of all, your book is very, very good and there's a lot of different details you delved into there and I'd love to get through some of those stories and break them down but i think one of the things that gets a little lost with you in the years i've seen you on the internet is the fact that long before 2008 2009 when you got to atip and started working on uap you you had 11 12 years or something like that before that where you were in the army and then specifically within like army intelligence and doing some pretty badass shit around the world?

I was actually only in uniform for a very short period of time before I got recruited into, into another program. Um, I was, it was right after college and I did spend some time in uniform. Uh, I was a lower enlisted grunt. Um, I actually explained it in, in, in my book, the reason why I could have come in as a army officer in with my medical background and my degrees i could have been in the army medical corps but you know my father when i was a kid used to always tell me you know you'd always call me chino chino uh my father being cuban uh so it's always chino um you know if in order for a leader to be a good leader they must first first know what it means to follow, right?

Know what it's like. And so that stuck with me. And I also wanted to have freedom to do the job I wanted to do. I didn't want to be stuck looking at more Petri dishes or, you know, mending broken arms. So I went into the Army as a lower enlisted guy, purposely. And was there for a short period of time. Military intelligence, did some support to special operations, spent some time in Korea. Very interesting, wonderful time to be there actually. There was a lot of stuff going on. North Korea was always

being provocative and you had students and riots going on back in the mid-'90s and then came back to the United States and did some more investigations, CONUS. And then I went into the civilian side where initially I spent some time in Latin America. Down in – What year? Panama. Gosh, 1998 to 99 and then 99, I was in the Caribbean and then came back for a short stint, CONUS, and then what happened is that 9-11 happened. And my wife had just given birth to our second daughter.

She was born very premature. My wife had all sorts of medical complications. She had a thing called preeclampsia and HELP syndrome, H-E-L-P-P, I believe. And so my daughter was born very premature. After a month or so in the NIC unit, tubes sticking out of her body, and it was awful, we brought her home. And she was, at the time, the smallest baby ever, ever released from the hospital. I think she came home at either three pounds or 2.9 pounds.

Like, you know, look at my hands. I got sausage fingers and, you know, my hands looked like they'd been through a meat cleaver. And here's this tiny little fragile life that's been popped into my hand and said, okay, here you go. Take care of it. I mean, what? I mean, her vocal cords weren't even developed so when she cried you couldn't hear her uh my god what a what an incredible experience that

was so anyways 9 11 happened and a few months after we brought her home and i wound up going um over to afghanistan kandahar right kandahar yeah that's right kandahar we were the first really the first group of folks over there um spent some time time there. And then long story short, we got involved in the Iraq stuff, spent some time in the Middle East. And then finally, my wife came to me and she said, look, you got to stop going on these deployments. You got to find another job here. You either got to get promoted or do something because you're not going to make it back home. Real quickly, you had said you went into the civilian side, this before 9-11 or whatever. For people out there, can you just explain what that means? Yeah, sure. So the intelligence community has a requirement to have people, operators, that work collection operations, but also have military experience, right? Because a lot of people think the CIA is sitting, you know, some embassy somewhere and, you know, James Bond and having cocktails. They don't do that? Well, some of them do, yeah. Some of the lucky guys.

But then you've got, you know, the other folks that are doing ground collection, human operations and counterintelligence operations and investigations, and they're on the ground. A lot of these folks have military backgrounds. For example, I don't know if you're probably way too young to remember this, but in the beginning of Afghanistan, we lost a couple of really good folks. One of them was a gentleman named Michael Spann. Michael Spann was a CIA officer who died in combat over there. Anyways, long story short, there's a requirement to have military people or formerly trained military people, and they kind of transition into these more tactical roles.

And so I did that for a while, and finally my wife was like, look, you know, I don't like you doing this. So from there, I took a promotion, and I came back, CONUS. I wound up going to D.C., where I actually wound up, Washington, D.C. Actually, that's not true. Just south of D.C. It was at Fort Belvoirvoir where I was running. Rather than doing investigations, I was supervising investigations. So you get promoted yourself to behind a desk and you're trading your gun and you're trading for a pen.

Now you worry about desk pops. Yeah, exactly. And worry about budgets and inspector general investigations and inspector general investigations and the lawyers, you know, coming down. Why are you opening this investigation without blah, blah, blah, blah. And then from there, I went to back up to D.C., worked with several different intelligence agencies, some with DOD, some outside of DOD. And then in 2000 and maybe seven, I'd have to say seven or eight, seven. I went from the National Counterintelligence Executive, which is where I was working there at NCIX. And I went to the Director of National Intelligence, the DNI. Actually, it's ODNI, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

And then the director's called the DNI. Is that under DIA officially? No, no. They are the top dog. So great question. If you don't mind, let me digress because I think this is important. So the real cause of 9-11, of course, we know it's terrorists doing bad things. But that was a result.

That wasn't the cause. The cause was there was intelligence failure within our country. Oh, yeah. You had pockets of information that were held at the CIA, pockets of information at the FBI, and pockets of information at the Department of Defense, and we weren't sharing that information. So after 9-11, there was a commission, 9-11 commission, that realized basically what the failures were. So they created a new position that fell directly under the president, and it was called the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, IRTPA 2004. That created a national level bubba, a guy, a gal, a point of contact that is the director of the national intelligence and says, of DIA, NGA, NRO, everybody, la-di-da-di, you are all responsible to that guy or that gal, whoever that is.

And so they created that position. The first one was a gentleman named John Negroponte. John Negroponte was a – he was a politician and I guess he became a diplomat for a while, an ambassador, and then became the first DNI. Then you had some guys like McConnell and Blair that filled. Those were the times that I worked at DNI. This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. One of the unfortunate things that happens sometimes as we get older is we stop that curiosity of wanting to learn new things. And that can even extend to learning more about ourselves and what makes us tick, which is why therapy can be a great tool. I've talked about it in the past on my show, but there have been a couple times in my life where therapy really helped me reset my mind

and get through some difficult situations. A big thing I struggle with is that I'm an overthinker. So having someone across from me during those times to help me organize my thoughts and focus on what actually matters was incredibly important. So if that sounds like the kind of thing that could help you and you're thinking about starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and you can switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. So rediscover your curiosity with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash Julian today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P.com slash Julian. Discover the exciting action of BetMGM Casino.

Check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer or enjoy over 3,000 games to choose from like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, make instant deposits or same-day withdrawals. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. And then I was also living, as we had discussed prior, I decided to raise my family on an island in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay because D.C. was just, for me, not a great place to raise two girls, young girls. I feel you there. You know, so I –

Beautiful area, by the way, the Chesapeake down there. It is gorgeous, you know. And so we've always been on the water, you know, maybe because I'm Cuban, right? We love the water. I'm surrounded because i'm cuban right we love the water uh but uh surrounded by cubans i know man hey you know what can i say you know um but i grew up near the water a lot and that was part of my life and i wanted my girls to to kind of share in that experience and not worry about crime and the hustle and bustle and sirens and horns and traffic and you know i wanted them

to have a normal life ride your bicycle in the neighborhood not worry about you know being run over or something worse oh yeah it's so quiet like my aunt used to have a place in tillman island down there yeah tillman beautiful yeah so you get it right st michael's i mean it's it's kind of if you got to work in dc and don't want to live in dc that's where you want to live how far is that though from that ah so there you get into my point. Why? Okay. So it's almost as if I gave you a script or something.

So that's precisely the issue. Quality of life is fantastic, but the commute out to past Langley, which is where I was at, past there, was a three-hour one-way commute. One way, three hours. So I was, and if there was any traffic like on the bridge. Oh, fuck that. Dude, I'm literally in the car longer than I am at work, and I'm at work eight to three hours. So I was, and if there was any traffic, dude, I am, I'm literally in the car longer than I am at work and I'm at work eight to 10 hours. Right. So zero quality of life. I'd

come home. I crammed some frozen food down my throat and I go to bed and I wake up and wash, rinse, repeat all over again. So my quality of life was terrible. My kids had a great upbringing. My wife had a great life out there, but my life pretty much sucked. And so I had an offer in 2008, late 2008, to come back to the Pentagon for a bit and establish a information sharing relationship between national, still part of the 9-11 commissions, but hey, we're not sharing enough information. So now that we're getting FBI, CIA, and DOD to share information and whatnot, we're still not getting that information down to those who need it, like the cops on the ground, right? Those folks who don't necessarily have a national security clearance, but they also have a need to know, because if you want to stop and prevent terrorism or anything

else, you got to, ultimately that information is useless unless it gets to the right people. So I was brought in to work with DHS to try to figure out a way where we can take national level intelligence information and get it disseminated down in a way that didn't, that was still effective and useful, but didn't compromise national level secrets. Because these guys didn't have, a lot of these guys and gals at the local level didn't have security clearances. So you can't share with them a secret document because they don't have a secret security clearance. So how do you do it? Well, long story short, I'll spare you the details, but you do it through terror lines and you do it through certain capabilities on automation that

can strip out certain sources and methods information, still get most of the information that's needed down to the level. So that's what I was brought there to do. And then it was, as you said correctly, soon after that is when I got exposed to the government's UAP program, UFO program. Okay. And this is, I believe, Jim Lekaski? Correct. Dr. Lekaski. Yeah.

So this is what I try to explain to people. If you want to know a little bit about Jim, he is the epitome of a rocket scientist, literally a rocket scientist. And in fact, if you were to ask me, in my opinion, probably the world's premier rocket scientist, certainly one of the best in the US government has ever had. This is a guy that can tell you the burn rate of a first stage solid rocket motor booster. He can tell you the trajectory and reentry speed of a MIRV warhead coming in from low earth orbit. I mean, this guy is amazing. And so I didn't know it at the time, but when I finally met him, he actually looked like, I hate to say typical rocket scientist, but he had the glasses, the nice tie, a little bit crooked and hair. He was more interested in doing the work than he was in his own appearance, right? Because he's a rocket scientist question at the end of our first discussion together. And he said to me, he said, what do you think about UFOs?

And this just came out of the blue. I mean, I wasn't even – I'm like, what? And so I thought for a second. Let me get my joint out, please. Yeah, right. I'm like, is this a trick question? It was like a psychological eval. And so I answered him truthfully.

I said, I don't. And so he kind of looked at me and he said, what do you mean? Do you not believe in UFOs? And I said, no, I didn't say that. You asked me, what do I think of UFOs? And I said, I don't think about UFOs because, frankly, I don't have the luxury to. I'm too busy doing other work. Have you ever thought about it before?

No. On your own time? No, I was never have the luxury to. I'm too busy doing other work. Have you ever thought about it before? No. Like on your own time? No, I was never into like a science fiction kid. I wasn't into Star Trek or Star Wars or anything like that. I may have seen an episode coming home from school once because someone had on the TV. But I couldn't tell you anything about the storylines or anything like that. I wasn't overly interested in that stuff. I was more of a GI Joe kid.

And yeah, so long story short, he said to me after that, he said, look, I just want to warn you, don't let your personal or analytic bias get the best of you because what you might learn may challenge any preconceived notions or narratives that you have on the topic. And I found peculiar and and and realized very soon after that what he was saying was 100 legitimate why was he meeting with you and where was he meeting with you like what was the pretext here because obviously he dumps it on you in the meeting like hey what are you thinking ufos but that's not that wasn't what was what was on the schedule right so what earlier on i had several meetings with some people that were part of his program they had blue we

call them blue badgers is what i had as a member, you're a member of the intelligence community. So that means you have the top secret SCI security clearance. You can get into any, any building you need to. So these folks had the necessary requisite clearances. And they were telling me that they have this program that's very sensitive. They need some counterintelligence support, which is my background. I initially thought it was because of my background in advanced aerospace technologies. I had spent an earlier part of my career doing technology protection for high-energy lasers, unmanned aerial vehicles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, Apache Longbow, avionics, some advanced space-based systems. Only later did I learn that they just needed a really good counterintelligence guy and security guy for this program. They were worried, in essence, in the vernacular.

They were worried if the Russians or the Chinese were trying to penetrate the program. So that's what I initially thought that this was, is just another special access program, another sensitive program in the US government. Not really that uncommon. They just needed some expertise to help them out. Was this first meeting in a skiff? Yeah, in my building. Yeah, in my building. So here's the problem.

When I wrote the book, I actually put those details in there. Unfortunately, the government redacted them, so I'm not allowed to say the specific location because we're sent to the buildings. But they were in the NCR, National Capital Region. They were, I can say, very close to washington dc downtown i can't say anything more than that um so a run-down townhouse it's a safe house really masquerading for the cia basically look you can fill in the blanks as you want i i personally don't be filling them in all day i don't look good in an orange jumpsuit so i'm gonna i'm gonna mind mind my manners here um and so uh yeah i went, I went to his location. After they

came to my location several times, I went to his location. Again, another undisclosed location in the DC area. Looked like a normal building. It was not. And visited him, I think it was on the 10th floor. 10th floor, I think. All right, that narrows it down unless you start Googling. I know someone's going to be out there right now looking for all buildings that at least have that. It's got to be this one. So, yeah, so I met him at this place, and then the rest, as you say, is history, I guess. Yeah, and this whole concept of a skiff, though, this shit is so cool to me. Because you talk about it so nonchalantly

because you're doing all the a lot of these meetings in in these places but essentially these are like they're like container ships that are like blocked out from the world so nothing no type of like counter intel can get in there or something like do we just have skiffs like sitting in the middle of the hallways in the pentagon like how does this work we do so think look think of this room that we're in here as a skiff right it's it's designed to be sound efficient meaning that we can have a conversation like this and you're not going to get any outside noise from outside well a skiff is kind of the same way but in reverse we don't want the noise in here being heard out there so you build a room that has been accredited to be a sensitive compartmented information facility, SCI facility. So you have three levels of classified information.

You have confidential, you have secret, and then you have top secret. So think of like a rainbow. While at that top tier of top secret, there's several categories within that top secret. So you have top secret SCI, SAP, CAPS, and some other things. And so a SCIF, like you're showing up there- Yeah, we have it on the screen right here. And that SCIF there is actually a tactical type SCIF. So that's a mobile SCIF. So they're built in a container. As you see there, they are soundproof. They're also RF proof, radio frequency proof. So you can't eavesdrop into a conversation. And those are portable ones.

Now, not all skiffs are portable, right? That is – that's really something that was built for the – initially for the special operations community during – right after 9-11. And you could put them on a boat, put them on a plane, and you could drop it off anywhere in the world and you could do what you needed to do. Yeah, look at the soundboards in there too with Obama. Well, and there's also white noisemakers. I don't know if you know what that is. No. So a white noisemaker, and you could probably pull that up, it creates a level, a baseline level of ambient sound to restrict people from, if they do happen to hear a glimpse of a conversation, it confuses them.

So those are white noisemakers. And you'll see those in the skiffs. And then you have shielding because bad guys are really good at eavesdropping. And there's all sorts of ways to do it. Another one is to coat. Most skiffs don't have windows. But those that do have special coating on the glass because if you know what you're doing, and I'll be careful what I say here, there's technology out there where you can allow the vibration of glass and translate it into

voice and sound and pick up on someone's conversation. So there are these things that people do in the world of espionage to try to collect information. Another very interesting program, which I can talk about now, it's unclassified, type in the word Tempest and look at what Tempest means from a secure communications, and it will pull up, type it, yeah, Tempest secure communication. There you go. Perfect. Okay. Can we click that first one, Alessi? Yeah. Go ahead, Lou. So basically, everything electronic gives off emanations, right? Cameras, this microphone, everything. A computer monitor.

And so it's possible if you know the frequency of the oscillations of certain things, and again, I would be careful of certain electronic equipment, I can see what's on your monitor, your computer screen, without ever looking at your computer screen. And so you want to prevent that by having your conversations and having your equipment in these skiffs so the bad guys can't collect information. So skiffs are really, really common. They have to be accredited periodically. But really, it's nothing more than a room like this on steroids.

I mean, you're kind of like in a skiff yourself, except for it's the opposite. You're trying to limit noise from the outside coming in, or the skiff is trying to limit noise from the inside going out. But you're telling me in like 2007, 2008, this was standard technology we had. Oh, absolutely. It's older than that. Brother, it goes back to the 70s, man. Are you kidding me? That's what I'm saying. I feel like DAR back to the 70s, man. Are you kidding me? That's what I'm saying.

I feel like DARPA is 50 years ahead, man. Yeah. That's crazy. So you're doing all these initial meetings where you're getting read in with like the Jim Lekaskys. Oh, everything in a skiff. Everything in a skiff. Yeah. You basically, you go into a building, go through a door that's got a bunch of security codes.

Then someone goes and says, okay, let me see your identification. Okay. You're good. Yep. You got the blue badge, which means you have a commensurate amount. And then if you go into a certain, like a SAPF facility. So if you think a SCIF is something, try getting into a SAPF facility. That's like a vault within a vault within a vault. Right. And that's, that is a obscene level of security requirements. And yeah. And so I had, I worked out of one of those um they could kill you in there no one would ever know it oh or here yeah i mean it's hermetically sealed in fact some of these are have uh well i better not say how often does that happen where they whack someone in there

well i mean i wouldn't be able to tell you, would I? That's not a denial, to be clear. Just get that for the record. Truth be told, those are for our guys. We use SAPFs and we use SCIFs for our own people. We don't – typically, unless you have a security clearance, you're not getting into a SCIF. I mean, there's some exceptions to that if you're being escorted and whatnot. But for the most part, you don't get into a SAPF unless you're read on and you don't get into a skiff unless you've got at least tssci for the most part got it so i i think one of the things that often gets mixed up online

when people are looking at the alleged history here of like the program is the whole all sap and atip thing it's like eventually it was known as a tip. We'll get into that whole acronym and whatever soon. But when you're getting read in on this, and then I guess within a few meetings brought in as the counterintel guy, my understanding is that this was when at the time, Senator Harry Reid, who was a major Senator and at one point, the majority and minority leader in the Senate had basically started this thing called OSAP and was saying, we need to look into not just our history with UAP, but we need to look into what this is from a national security threat perspective. At the time, was it already funded though?

Like, was this something that the rest of the other people in the Senate were read into, or was this strictly like some kind of offshoot Harry Reid's talking with, you know, people in the Pentagon and they're doing this private team that no one knows about? So great question. Let me rewind the tape here a little bit and see if I can help do a level set on this. First of all, it wasn't necessarily just a Harry Reid thing. A lot of people think, oh, it's Harry Reid's pet project. No, it wasn't. There was two other senators that were involved. You had Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, who was also a military veteran. And you also had Senator Inouye from Hawaii. So it was bipartisan, both Republican and Democrat. Love that.

Yep. Absolutely. Right. And these were senior dudes who literally all were veterans and in some cases literally gave their right arm for their country, right? Stevens himself had his own UFO sighting, his own UAP sighting while he was flying a mission. Then you also had astronaut John Glenn at the time. It was also part of this effort trying to push forward. Now, the impetus to that is still up for debate. I can't tell you in the early days of OSAP because I wasn't there. I know there was a lot of people that say a lot of things. What I can tell you personally, because Harry Reid told me before he died when you'd see him periodically in Vegas and whatnot. Unfortunately, he passed away as everybody knows, but- RIP.

Yep. Absolutely. Rest in peace. He did some very good stuff for this country politics aside he did some he was a patriot um so long story short uh he told me um that he had at one point when he was a senate majority leader he had been accidentally and i say accidentally you know quote because that's what he said to me that he was right on to the uap program and then very quickly they came back i think it was maybe the next couple of days or a week later. And he said, hey, listen, we need you to sign this document. We accidentally read you onto something you shouldn't know about. And he was incensed. He said, what do you mean? I'm not signing anything. I'm the Senate Majority Leader. I should be read onto every program. That's part of my job as the oversight. I'm part of the gang that is responsible for all

intelligence operation. They said, no, we're reading you off administratively, meaning we're not going to talk about this with you. And so he indicated to me that he was really, really upset. And this is how he started getting very vocal about his concern that certain elements in the US government were hiding the truth about UFO, about UAP. And so again, I can't tell you what he did other than with OSAP because I wasn't there for it. I can tell you what he told me and there's other individuals I can probably tell you earlier on like James Lukatsky or even Jay Stratton will probably tell you more about the OSAP how it started. So OSAP was a contract vehicle that looked at UAP, but also looked at other stuff. Contract vehicle?

Yeah. Contract vehicle is a mechanism by which the US government funds projects, right? So you have a contract because most people think, oh, the government does all the work. They don't. They contract out. They subcontract. Oh. Yeah.

And so this is- Now we're getting into the good stuff. So this is where Bigelow Aerospace gets involved. He bids on the contract. By the way, people think, oh, it was a sweetheart deal. No, it wasn't. In fact, he was the only one to bid on the contract. He had the expertise and the capabilities to do it, his staff.

And oh, by the way, he funded a lot of this stuff himself out of his own pocket. You're talking about Robert Bigelow. Correct. So people give him a lot of crap, not realizing that the guy really is a patriot. He's done some incredible stuff for this country out of his own pocket. So anyways, long story short, the contract gets awarded and they start OSAP. And OSAP is also looking at other things, like for example, the Skinwalker Ranch. Again, things that I wasn't really involved in. My focus really was more in initially counterintelligence and security. Then it became when AATIP became AATIP itself and the OSAP program kind of faded off.

When was that? 2012, 2013? So the contract for OSAP ended in 2012, I believe. Went from 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. So five years. And it petered out. We had requested another $10 million for FY13 and FY14 fund. We did it under what we call- Fiscal year. Fiscal year, right, FY, which is different than calendar year. You government guys got all these goddamn old terms and shit. I'm sorry, man. I know, man.

It's an entire forest of acronyms, and I know, I know. It's his own language. If you ever want to have a secret language conversation with somebody, just talk in government speak. No one will know what the hell you're talking about. E4, E5, blah, blah, blah. That's right. I have to tell you about this game-changing product I use before a night out with drinks.

It's called Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol. Pre-Alcohol is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in your gut. It's this byproduct, not your dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make Z-Biotics your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Look, I won't lie, I was a bit skeptical when I first heard about Z-Biotics, but I recently had my buddy's wedding and I figured, why not? Let's

give it a try. So I drank Z-Biotics before a night of great festivities. And to my surprise, I woke up the next morning feeling pretty damn good. I was able to work out, go for a walk, take some calls, clean my apartment. Life was good. So whether it's vacations, weddings, birthdays, reunions, or just a good night out, make the most out of your upcoming plans by stocking up on your pre-alcohol now. You can do that by going to zbiotics.com slash Julian to get 15% off your first order by using code Julian, J-U-L-I-A-N at checkout. Pre-alcohol is backed with 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied with your product, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. So remember to head on over to zbiotics.com slash Julian

and use code Julian at checkout to get 15% off your first order. Thank you to Zbiotics for sponsoring this episode and the link is in the description. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous

without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. So anyways, long story short, the A-tip piece was really more focused on nuts and bolts. So we were looking at military encounters, aircraft encounters, Navy ship encounters with UAP. And things that we were picking up, not just with gun camera footage

and FLIR footage, pod footage, things that we could also corroborate with radar data, hard data, right? And also eyewitnesses like the F-18 fighter pilots that were coming up close, in some cases, very up close and personal to these things. So you had several issues going on. And so the ATIP program was initially, you know, some people, depending who you talk to and what day of the week it is, they'll tell you a slight variation of it. I can't tell you really much about OSAP because that wasn't my focus. I can tell you about my involvement with AATIP. From my understanding and from my observations, because AATIP became a very legitimate program and is still recognized. You can talk to Harry Reid and other folks are like, it was real. You

know, I don't have to tell you. Yeah, he's put it in memos. Yeah. I mean, it's a real – that's what P stands for, a program. Now, it may have started off in the early days before I came on board as a nickname or whatever it is. I don't doubt that. But it was a real, real program towards – certainly from 2010 onwards. And as AllSap faded away, ATIP kind of contracted, meaning we really, we limited the number of contractors that were involved. There were really only maybe five or six contractors we kept on board from- Meaning like the Lockheeds and the Northrop's

and stuff like that. I mean, contract people. I don't want to say their names right now because I don't have permission to say their names. Oh, you're referring more on an individual basis? Individual basis, yeah. So like at Bigelow, but again, I'm not putting names in your mouth. I'm just saying. Yeah, something like that, where we had certain people that had a deep amount of expertise that was really, really what we consider low density in the U.S. government. But the people who are involved with OSAP when you come into it and AATIP on the inside of the government, it seems like that group is kind of the same. It is. Transition. That's exactly my point. Well, that's what I was trying to allude to just now without saying people's names. So a lot of the core expertise that were in OSAP came over to

AATIP and stayed with us. But there was also a also a lot that went like, I think with Bigelow and the contract had like, I think the initial list was like a hundred and some people. By the time we were really focusing on the ATIP piece, we had really very, very few contractors. Most of the folks were government people at the Pentagon or at Strategic Command or within other agencies. And it was not focused on the skinwalker ranch stuff after certainly after 2012 when the contract died we were if we were focusing only

on military encourage incursions into military controlled airspace over sensitive military installations in and around our ships at sea and stuff like that so and you know it's convoluted so it's totally understandable when people, I mean, first of all, the government's already complicated, let alone, you know, the nuances and the eaches of each. So I totally, totally get it. And I think even some OSAP and ATIP guys might even be kind of confused because some of them weren't there for every meeting, right?

Some of them weren't necessarily brought into everything we were doing. Including you technically. Sure. Absolutely. Yeah, sure. Yeah. So yeah, because I try to simplify these things and make it easier from a 30,000 foot view. Essentially, it's not like you're walking into places and there's a giant sign on the door, welcome to the ATIP meeting. Welcome to the OSAP meeting. It's like, get in the fucking skiff and let's talk about this, right? Well, look, here's a perfect example. You you and your producer right you guys work on this project together you're in a lot of the same interviews together and yet he might go out get a cup of coffee you might go out and get a sandwich and you now get involved in a different conversation with somebody else

on the street and you come back you know but you're not necessarily going to share that's right every little nuance of hey i went to get a frappuccino and i ran into bill and he told me his dog needs to be walked and just got shots at the vet. That's not realistic. But essentially, to keep it simple, maybe the focus of the exact types of events you're looking for or context of UAP technically like has a shift or whatever between OSAP and AATIP, at the end of the day, you guys are a group of government individuals who are read in on serious secret shit that even people above you technically in rank don't know. That is correct.

And you are evaluating the national security implications of UAP, which is the term you guys, I guess, were coming up with back then. Correct. And there's reasons for that. People say, well, why didn't you just say UFOs? Stigma. Well, that's one. That's one. But also the fact is it's not even accurate, right? So when the word UFO started getting used back, I guess, 50s and 60s, what does UFO mean? Unidentified flying object. Well, what's flying? Well, flying is, let's say this is a plane, right? There's four fundamental forces. You have thrust, lift, drag, and weight. And when you understand that, you create wings. And wings create lift, and then you fly. That's what flight is. It's lift. These things don't have wings. They don't have rudders. They don't have control surfaces. They don't have ailerons. They don't even have cockpits sometimes. So they're not really flying. They're in there. They're in the sky. But they're not really flying in a conventional sense. And also we see them underwater. Oh, and also we see them in low earth orbit. So you don't fly underwater, right? So you do other things

underwater, but that's not actually technically flying. So there were several reasons. First of all, stigma and taboo with the UFO term, but also it wasn't accurate. And then it became unidentified aerial phenomenon. And then it got changed to what? Unidentified anomalous phenomenon, because now we're talking multiple domains. We're talking multiple environments that we aerial phenomenon. And then it got changed to what? Unidentified anomalous phenomenon, because now we're talking multiple domains. We're talking multiple environments that we are encountering these things in. And so I think part of the effort was just to make the term more accurate. Yes, remove the stigma and taboo associated, but at the same time, be more precise in our verbiage. Yeah. So when you first like agree to be brought in on this though, you've had a few conversations. Obviously you can't go home and have pillow talk

with your wife about this stuff. This is, this is pure intelligence. So you are, you're walking out of skiffs and you're living with the information, unable to speak with anyone about it. And like you said, in the first meeting, when Lakaski asked you have you thought about ufos and you're like no well now suddenly you're thinking about ufos uaps right do you have a moment where i don't know if it's like you laugh to yourself like is this really my life like are we doing this or you're like holy shit like this stuff's real and like was there this reality moment where you're just sitting outside and looking into the sky going, oh, my God, like what am I getting myself into here? Yeah. So there's typically two – in my experience, and I can't speak for other people, I've noticed two types of people, how they deal with this information.

First of all, when you have a security clearance and you're right onto a lot of programs, it's really hard to be surprised because you learn a lot of things and you kind of start getting, I don't want to say numb, but used to the idea that you're going to learn a lot of things that most Americans are never going to know about until the day they die. And so it's not really that big of a deal. This is a little different because you've been told for so long that it's BS, right? Now it's like, well, okay, wait a minute. So the two types of people I've noticed, there's this group of people that have this aha revelatory moment. And I've seen it when I've been briefing them even at the Pentagon. It's like, oh my God, it hits them like a ton of bricks. Like, you mean they're real? Like, this is real? Like, no kidding? This is a joke? And it's this kind of this revelatory moment where it's like an epiphany.

Right. And then there's the other group of people, which I probably fall under, which is more of a slow and steady gradual realization that we're dealing with something that's certainly not conventional. It's definitely not our technology, and there's a really high likelihood it's not adversarial technology. And that's been my experience. And that's the way I came to terms with this. It wasn't this, I left a meeting and all of a sudden, we're talking about aliens? We're talking about UFOs? That wasn't the case for me. It was always, well, could this be adversarial technology? Could this be Russian? Could this be Chinese? Is this some sort of... And as you continue to go down and you start getting more and more details

and facts, you start realizing, okay, well, it's definitely not Russian. Could it be Chinese? Well, let's see what the Red Force technologies are, right? Let's see what their capabilities are. Because it's not just technology. I see this thing flying. Is this Chinese? It's okay.

What does it take for this thing to do what it's doing, right? And do they have that technology to do it? It's not just simple as saying, oh, yeah, that's clearly Russian or Chinese. Because it's not just the object. it's the signature of the object. And I got to be careful not to go into a lot of detail on that because signature, sometimes signature information is more important than identifying the object itself, because you can recognize performance characteristics through signature data collection that you can't necessarily get visually or optically. And so- Can you explain that a little more?

Yeah, sure. I don't look good in an orange jumpsuit, so let me explain this. I'm testing your physics here. Yeah. I was on the phone with Jack Sarfati last night. He's like, ask him some physics questions. He thinks he's a physicist. Oh, I'm not a physicist at all.

No, no. I'm definitely not a physicist. I'm not even close. So a No, no. I'm definitely not a physicist. I'm not even close. So a signature is kind of like a boat in the water, right? So we're here in your wonderful studio. You've got the water nearby and you see the boats going by. Signature data is looking at not necessarily the boat, but the type of wake the boat makes in the water, the sound the boat makes, right? The perturbance in the water. And if you look at the back of the wake, does it have two streams or one stream? I can tell you if

it has two engines or one engine, right? For example, look at a plane flying up ahead. You can tell the difference between a small jet and a big jet because usually you have more engines on the big jet, right? And you can see the contrails, the separate contrails from each engine. Also, there's an acoustic signature, right? Is it a military combat plane that's breaking the sound barrier? Because you would hear that, that's a signature, right? Or is it sounding like just a regular passenger jet at 35,000 feet? So signature data can tell you a lot about things that the... Looking at the object, it can tell you velocity and trajectory. They can tell you all sorts of extra details that the physical object itself can't tell you.

So signature data is very, very important. Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah. I can try to get another example if you need me to. No, I think that's pretty good. The thing with you is that if we get stuck on so many rabbit holes, we're going to be here for like 36 straight hours. I know.

There's so much here. Yeah. But when you – Well, you're asking me about intelligence, right. So it's, it's, it's a, it's a lifelong journey. Oh my God. Yeah. Yeah. And it's like, you know, you don't, at the beginning, you don't know the scope of it at all. You, you just realize, okay, we are all right. I'm being told that there's some real shit out there that we can't really identify. So yes yes that's a meaning of life crisis potentially but you don't know how much what the volume is how how many of these alleged sightings are even real and then you start getting pulled on or pulled into the actual intelligence and in your book the description of the calaris meeting feels like a fucking team america meetup because you get pulled into this skiff with legends of the game how put

off jacques valet eric davis i think was in well that was actually a dinner that was not in a skiff believe it or not it wasn't it was not in a skiff negative no it was actually you're just sitting in an olive garden talking about well not an olive garden but no and it was it was it was the room had been you know fairly secured okay uh But we weren't sharing US secrets. It was somebody else, a foreign national, that was sharing their experiences with us. So technically, it's not classified, right? It's just them telling us. Classification, classified information only applies to information that is US government

derived. That's classified information. Nice little loop around right here. Well, like I said, there's ways to have conversations.S. government derived. That's classified information. Nice little loop around right here. Well, you know, like I said, there's ways to have conversations, you know, and then there's right ways to have conversations and then there's definitely ways not to have conversation. But it seems like between the cadre of incredible individuals that you had in this room that you're like, whoa, in between, I think Bigelow was in there too, in between that and what

you were hearing from, in this case, Brazilian counterparts about what happened in Colares, this was a huge moment for you where you're like, whoa. So would you mind just explaining what – when this case was and what allegedly happened and what you were told in that meeting? Yeah. And let me put this out bluntly. I'm not an expert in the Colares investigation. I wasn't there for the investigation. I was there for one of the – if you will, the debriefing so to speak um from this from this general general um it's in a nutshell without going too far down the rabbit hole brazil had been experiencing some

uap issues and in some cases these uap or ufo encounters were were disruptive to the local population and so there's an area in Brazil called Colares where these incidents became so prevalent that the Brazilian government became involved. And they sent one of their top generals to go, I hate to say it, but to go knock heads, right? Because when things get really out of hand, they send in the military. They wanted to get a control of the situation, see what's really going on. Is this just BS or whatnot? So they sent in the military. They wanted to get a control of the situation, see what's really going on. Is this just BS or whatnot? So they sent in their military and their military and they sent in doctors and other investigators. And the result of which was, yeah, that these guys were actually some of the Brazilian soldiers were injured by UAP and had experienced the things themselves.

And so it wasn't just like going, sending the military to debrief a bunch of civilians. They were having experiences as well. And some of these individuals were being injured. Yeah. When you say injuries, what was the scope and what was the evidence they showed you there? Sure. Well, it seemed to be primarily the injuries

were like some sort of directed energy. Think of like a laser or perhaps a burn where you have a superficial burn. Some folks reported other issues, possibly consistent with directed energy, more internal organ damage. And then some people had some terrifying experiences as reported by them. In some cases, not just being terrified, but potentially even being pursued by these UFOs, by these UAP, which is, by the way, fundamentally different than a lot of the experiences that people may

report here in the United States. People here tend to feel they're a little bit more benign. Well, down there, they definitely had the impression these things were not benevolent, they were malevolent. Now, I also want to draw a distinction here. It is possible, it is certainly possible that some of these injuries were not deliberate, right? They're just a simple process of the technology. So what I always say is, look, when you go to an airport and you jump on a 737, there's no real threat. But if you go on the tarmac onto the runway, right, of that, and you go behind the jet engine while it's spooling up, you're now going to, yeah, there's a threat, right? It's not intentional, but you're going to get burned. You're probably

going to lose your hearing and maybe even worse. It's just a product of the technology. It's a part of the propulsion. It doesn't mean to hurt you. It's just, you got too close to it when it was spooling up. So that is also part of the calculus that we doesn't mean to hurt you. It's just you got too close to it when it was spooling up. So that is also part of the calculus that we try to look at, say, okay, was this – I know you might feel that it was intentional, but was it really intentional, right? If I can go out on the road here and I stay in the middle of the road, I'm probably going to get run over by a car, right? Is that intentional? Probably not. Yeah.

But, you know, I'm at the wrong place at the wrong time. So those are some of the other considerations as well and always try to keep an open mind um the folks at atyp always try to keep a very open mind we actually approach investigations with the exact opposite approach that people think they came in oh you guys were trying to investigate ufos now we actually worked our butts off to find prosaic explanations first because prosaic meaning um a normal explanation right so oh what you're seeing there is actually the contrail of a cruise missile that was being test fired over vandenberg at this particular date at this particular time that's not a ufo or what you're looking at is a uh those lights on the horizon are actually on the mast of

a sailboat it's over the horizon but you can see the mast because it's a little bit higher and that's a navigational light you're seeing or an anchor light or, oh, actually what you're seeing is. So we went into looking at incidents with prosaic explanations, trying to say, okay, this is more than likely something that is just being misidentified. The problem is, and this is why the five observables were so helpful, because once you lay that data over the five observables and they start fitting into those categories, now you've got something that is outside the normal parameters of something conventional. Can you define the five observables for people? Yeah, sure. The first one is, do you want me to go into a little detail of each as

well? Okay. So the first observable is instantaneous acceleration. So what is instantaneous acceleration? Well, acceleration is a change in velocity. So if I'm driving 50 miles an hour and I kick up the gas to a hundred miles an hour, I am changing my velocity. How quickly I achieve that speed, there are inertial forces, inertial forces that are experienced. And we call those forces, we equate to them on a scale called a G force. 1G is the effect of Earth's gravity on us, 9.8 meters per second per second per second squared. Because of the mass of the Earth, we all experience gravity relatively equal. And so if in comparison, if I do a high G maneuver in a combat aircraft, that's about up to a 9G, which is a lot, like nine times the force of gravity.

So now your head goes from being 14 pounds to now, you know, almost 100 pounds plus, right? So that's your whole body. So now you weigh over 1,000 pounds when you're pulling these maneuvers. So we wear G suits to negate that effect. And the human being can withstand about nine G forces for a short period of time before you start having medical consequences and ultimately death, right? You have blackouts and redouts and you die. To compare that to our technology, we have one of our most highly maneuverable manned aircraft, manned aircraft. It's an old aircraft, but it's still one of the most highly maneuverable is the general dynamics f-16 the f-16 at the unclassified level can pull about 17 g's before you start having structural failure

meaning wings begin to snap off and that's the f-16 right there right the fountain um highly maneuverable um now we have other vehicles that are unmanned that can you know perform much more than that but but that is that's pretty much the limitations of a manned vehicle. Okay. What we are seeing are objects that are performing at 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 G-forces, right? So well beyond the healthy limitations of anything biological to withstand, and certainly well, well beyond anything from a material science perspective. So that's observable one. The second observable is hypersonic velocity. Now, what is hypersonic velocity? It is technically five times the

speed of sound. So speed of sound, Mach 1, is roughly 760 some miles an hour at sea level. So you're booking, right? Multiply that by five and you're going to put that in comparison. An average commercial jet flies about 550 miles an hour, if you're lucky, with a good tailwind. Now, do we have aircraft that can do that? We do. We have, for example, the Lockheed YF-12A SR-71, aka the Blackbird. It can fly about Mach 5. Ooh.

You can, but when it wants to do a right-hand turn, it takes roughly half the state of Ohio to do it, right? These things are not flying at 3,200 X miles an hour. Some of these UAP are flying at 10,000, 13,000 miles an hour. And they're doing it in a low earth atmosphere environment where the friction coefficient is really, really high. And they're not taking a slow steady turn, they're doing instant 180s, 90 degree turns. So you have to scratch your head and say, well, who has that technology, right? So the third observable, it's a bit of an oxymoron. It's called low observability, meaning it's hard to see with a naked eye. You see something, but it doesn't look

like anything you've ever seen before. It's hard to explain. Even on radar data, it's coming back. The radar is suggesting there's some sort of jamming potentially going on or some sort of spoofing going on on the radar systems. And then the fourth, and by the way, do we have low observability? Yeah, we do. We've got aircraft that are super sleek and are hard to see. We have stealth bombers, right?

Like the B-2 bomber and the Valkyrie that we have to lower the cross section just a little bit so we can sneak in under the radar. These things are different. We're not talking about stealth technology. We're talking about something fundamentally different. And then the fourth observable is something called transmedium travel. Yes. Forgive me. So what is transmedium travel?

It is the ability to operate in multiple domains. What's a domain? It's an environment. So we are seeing these things operating in lower atmosphere, underwater, in the air. Do we have transmedium technology? We do. Look, we've had them for decades. Look at a seaplane. Perfect example. A seaplane can fly in the air and it can float on the water. But let's face it, a seaplane is neither a really good plane or a really good boat because it's a compromise. And so the more environments you want to compromise and perform in, the more of a sacrifice there is to performance and design. It's the reason why the space shuttle came in and glided down like a brick. It wasn't a very good plane because it was compromised because it spent a lot

of its time up in space. So it's hard to make a, it's just why this reason why a submarine looks like a submarine and a jet looks like a jet because they spend most of their time in that one environment. Right? If you want an object to operate in multiple environments, there's more sacrifices to your design and your performance capabilities. That's just the way it is. We're not seeing that with these UAP. They are able, without having to change their performance or their design, they can operate seemingly and seamlessly, both in air and underwater, and possibly even in outer space. So we're talking about something that's really beyond what we currently have in our inventory.

And then the last observable, which is a terrible word in the science community, which is anti-gravity. But it's not anti-gravity in the literal sense. It's simply the ability to defy the effects of Earth's gravity without the associated technologies. So we talked a bit earlier about flight, right? Yes. So there's really only three ways we know how to fly right now and how we can defy Earth's gravity. One is through flight itself. We just talked about that.

The other way is through buoyancy. So think of a hot air balloon. Think of a helium balloon where you have a cavity, and inside that cavity, it's less dense than outside. And so it will rise till it reaches its equilibrium, right? That's how hot air balloons work and mylar balloons, things like that. And then the other way is simple physics. Force equals mass times acceleration. Put enough energy behind something and it will go.

It's called ballistics, right? Think of an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile, where you put enough thrust behind it and you can have it literally counter the effects of Earth's gravity. Same thing as a baseball. Take a baseball, throw it in the air. That is ballistic, if you will, energy. You're putting energy into something. Newton's law of gravity for every action, there's an equal opposite reaction, and it goes and it moves for a little while. We're not seeing that. These things don't have any obvious signs of lift. They don't have any obvious signs of propulsion. They don't seem to have a cavity in there for buoyancy. And yet somehow they are able to defy the natural effects of Earth's gravity. So now when you have an object that you've detected on radar, that you have electro-optical data that the pilot's reporting, and they're fitting into

these categories, right? Now you realize, okay, this isn't a drone. This isn't a quadcopter. This isn't a balloon. This isn't, you know, you're dealing with a fundamentally different type of technology. And that's when ATIP really gets involved. That's when it's like, okay, we're dealing with something. And could it be a Red Force technology? It might. But if it is, we're in a lot of trouble because we've been seeing these things for a very long time over our controlled U.S. airspace, over our sensitive military installations. And so it's obviously from that perspective, it is a national security issue for sure, 100%. Yeah.

Now, we got into this tangent. That was a great explanation, by the way. But we got into this talking about it in relation to the Calaris incident. So what about that incident – and maybe some more details of exactly what happened would help here. But what about that incident made Hal put off and Jacques Vallée and these guys go, yes, matches all the observables. We think this one's real. You'd have to ask them i think it was the evidence um and the testimony if you will by by uchoa and military personnel that reported to him it was very well documented so you know you may consider

colaris as almost uh the roswell of brazil um it was they had a lot of manpower behind this. And Uchoa was a serious dude. He wasn't just some guy who'd flight to fancy. He was a four-star general. In Brazil. In Brazil, yeah. So you have to look at it from that perspective. They're not amateurs by any stretch. So I think that probably is one of the reasons why that, but you know, that's, that's just one example. That's just an incident. That's, you know, it's at the end of the day, it was very interesting to me. I don't know how valuable it was. Didn't, it didn't change anything for me. It didn't change my view or my being. I, you know, I've always told people my

background. Um, I went to college to study science. I studied microbiology, immunology, and parasitology. Not parapsychology, parasitology. I studied parasites, microorganisms. Discover the exciting action of BetMGM Casino. Check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer or enjoy over 3,000 games to choose from like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz. Make instant deposits or same-day withdrawals. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today.

Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Discover the exciting action of BetMGM Casino. Check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer

or enjoy over 3,000 games to choose from like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz. Make instant deposits or same-day withdrawals. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

Ben MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. And then later in my career, I was an investigator, special agent. So, you know, I always considered myself just the fax man kind of guy. I'm not really interested in innuendos and supposition. Just give me the data and we'll let the data speak for itself. You picked the wrong field for that. Boy, ain't that the truth, brother. Man, you ain't kidding.

Yeah, don't I know. So again, we tried to approach the UAP topic the same as we did anything else, right? Whether you're hunting terrorists or spies or you're hunting UFOs, there's an applied methodology when you're looking at these things. It's not just, you know, grandma saw some lights in the backyard. I mean, it's just, we're hunting UFOs. There's an applied methodology when you're looking at these things. It's not just, you know, grandma saw some lights in the backyard. I mean, it's just, we're well beyond that. We're using really sophisticated capabilities. You know, you've got some of the best trained individuals like on the spy one radar. People don't realize this, but the radar operator on the USS Princeton was also Top Gun trained. People

think, oh, only fighter pilots go to Top Gun. No, they don't. The radar operators can also go to Top Gun and they are there to support these guys who are flying combat missions, these guys and gals. And so I remember Kevin Day actually explaining one time that it was for days it was raining UFOs at the spy one. So what is a spy one radar? So let's say this is a radar. So radar were really invented towards the end of World War II. They were used to try to identify enemy aircraft that were coming in over the horizon. Before you could hear them, before you see them, you want to know that they're coming so you don't get surprised. But radar data back then, and radars were very primitive. They basically sent out a signal and that signal bounced off an object and returned back to the radar array.

The radars we have now, the multi-array radars, are kind of like a super type of radar where you have rather just one radar. You've got multiple radars all in different, slightly different frequencies. So you can get really good pinpoint fidelity on what you're trying to track. Okay. And also you can also send these signals way far. You can, you can adjust, you know, you got to be a little careful with this, but there it's, it's a lot more, it's a lot smarter technology. So you get a lot more fidelity. And in this case, the spy one radar, as you see, radar, as you see up here on the Princeton, this could pick up a baseball at 80,000 feet. Now think about that. 80,000 feet, right? That's, that's, look, if, if. You ain't breathing. No, you're, you're, you're talking about probably 17 miles away.

Yeah. And you're tracking with an electronic piece of equipment, a baseball. I mean, that's, and it could probably even do more than that, but that's what they claim. And then you have airborne radar, right? You have like, for example, the E2 Hawkeye, which is a radar platform, flying radar platform. If you pull a picture up of the E2 Hawkeye, I can explain that for you a little bit too, because it's important because these are the radar systems that were being used and are used even today to prosecute combat missions. So this is an E-2 Hawkeye and you can see that big, big dish on the top and that's a radar. It's a radar. All it is is a flying radar.

And you can dial in and tune into with a know, with a great deal of fidelity objects. And it gives you this air control and supremacy in the sky when you're flying combat missions. So you've got sea-based radar and airborne radar and some land-based radar all detecting the same thing while at the same time you have gun camera footage, while at the same time maybe FLIR pod footage, while at the same time you have pilots that are also actually seeing this thing. So let's count these up for a second, right? So you've got maybe five or six sources of information, different collection capabilities, all reporting the same event at the same time, at the same place, under the same circumstance, right? So if this was a court of law, as I've told people, look, we're beyond reasonable doubt. I mean, this is the same equipment we use to put warheads on foreheads and it works. So you're questioning it now when

we've been using it for decades and it works. So this is why I think, you know, if AATIP contributed anything, it contributed a level of rigor behind the UAP topic from a national security issue. And I want to be clear, because a lot of people say, you know, fear mongering is a national security threat. I never said it was a threat. I said it's an issue, because we don't know if it's a threat. In government parlance, it's a very easy, it's a very simple calculus to determine if something is a threat. There's only two pieces. It's capabilities versus intent. Now, we've seen some of the capabilities. We have no idea the intent.

So it's impossible to say it's a threat. And so one of the examples I use a lot of times, and I don't mean it to scare people, but this is kind of how I see the issue from a national security issue. You live in a beautiful area here. I won't say where. People know it's Hoboken. It's cool. Do you lock your front door at night before you go to bed? Fuck yeah. Yeah, me too. Me too. Probably most Americans, even though you don't expect anything bad to happen, probably a good idea to lock your door before you go to bed. And some folks may even go the step further and they might just check their windows to make sure they're locked, especially if they live on a lower floor. And they might even turn their alarm system

on before they go to bed. Let's say one Sunday morning you walk downstairs to have a nice hot cup of coffee or tea. And as you walk downstairs, you see size 11 muddy boot prints in your living room carpet that were not there the night before. Now, no one's been hurt. Nothing's out of place. Nothing's been stolen. But despite you locking the door that night before and checking the windows and turning on your alarm system, there are now boot prints in your living room carpet that were not there the night before My question to you is is that a threat? And so my response is it could be if it wanted to be so we should probably figure out how the hell they're getting into The house it's the same thing with this

We've got we have these these technologies that are being deployed over our controlled US airspace Over our most sensitive military installations and quite possibly that potentially interfere with our nuclear equities is that a problem well if these things had a Russian star on the tail or a North Korean tail number you're damn right you'd have you'd be on the front page of the newspaper right you were saying people inside the Pentagon though were kind of like when you could when you literally couldn't say it it had a sticker of another country on there they're like what are we worried about anyway right like so it's almost like they needed the branding to care brother that just happened in in 2022 on abc yeah secretary of the air force kendall said yeah we know they're there but you know that's not really a priority right now we don't know what we don't know where they're from that's not a priority does that drive

you nuts well let's let me ask you this if a submarine were to pop out of the potomac and it because some sort of ballistic submarine that doesn't have a flag on it, would that be concerned to you? Yeah, absolutely. Right. I mean, what,

what do you mean? It's not a concern because we don't know what, that's insane. You know how that is. That's the antithesis. That's the opposite of national security. Yes. That is most important because until you know who's that is,

it can be a problem. And so, yeah, it drives me crazy because people say, well, we have other priorities. What other priority do you have than that? There's a technology that can come in unimpeded anytime, anywhere, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. But because you can't explain it, you don't want to have the conversation. I hate to tell you this, but that's a problem. Yeah. Now you talk about there being three possibilities though with these things, that they're benevolent, benevolent, or they're neutral, right? I think one thing that's an interesting point to get into with this is the nuclear history because you just brought it up yourself. So let's go there. When I look at the different sightings that have largely happened, not just in America, but in other places around the world, where these UAP are identified at often military bases, where there are nuclear weapons, or on tankers like the USS Roosevelt or something like that, where there are nuclear weapons present. Carrier. Carrier.

Carrier. I'm sorry. So when I see that – I always say that because my Navy buddies would be telling me, why did you correct him? Yeah, listen. I'm from Jersey. Don't take it personally. But when I see these patterns and I see that despite us having this technology since the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, the fact that since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear bombs have been detonated in a war footing type scenario, meaning they've

been detonated in tests around the world and stuff. So they've been allowed to happen. When I see that and I hear stories like these things are fucking with our nuclear reactors and telling us like, no, no, no, no. Like the old Bob Salas story. It's like they're taking matches out of the hands of a baby. It almost seems like they're watching us like a god a little bit, if this is the case, to make sure we don't destroy ourselves. So I interviewed a number of eyewitnesses regarding that aspect of the phenomenon, and that is particularly during the Cold War, the height of the Cold War. They are witnessed in Russia and all scattered across the United States. And this launch control officer, Robert Salas, I'll never forget this.

He said, well, James, the message I got when they shut our nukes off, it's almost like they were taking matches out of the hands of a baby. You know, I tend to think that these, it's almost like whoever they are, we can get into this later, be they future humans, be they aliens, be they some fucking civilization or something. It's like they're telling you, no, no, no, don't do that. You guys have gotten too much power. That said, your argument is more that, yo, this looks a little more malevolent to me because they're basically – they're showing us they can take our capabilities and they're fucking with whether or not these things are actually going to go into whatever the prelaunch codes are.

Then who's to say like they wouldn't go off or something like that? My point is why would that – why would it not have happened then? Why would it be the pattern that literally none of them have gone off since 1946? Well, we made that decision. We made that. No one did that but us. We decided as a world, we're not going to drop them on each other, at least not yet. But let's look at this temporally speaking. So in 1945, we vaporized almost 800,000 souls off this planet,

dropping two bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. UAP did not stop that. They were not there when we were going from the atomic age to the nuclear age okay which is by the way it goes from kiloton yield to megaton yield right now we have the power to literally erase entire cities off the map vaporize completely there were no that there were nowhere to be found or stop us from testing these things in the Nevada desert there were nowhere to be found to stop the proliferation now of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of countries like, oh, I don't know, North Korea, right? And all these other countries.

So it went from one country, us, to now everybody's got nukes. Okay? Kevin's a great guy. I trust him. Yeah, that wonderful boyish face. So, and then you look at things like Three Mile mile island you look at uh chernobyl you look at fukushima they didn't stop those right so so there isn't any information to suggest that it's necessarily here to help and they haven't stopped you know world hunger and pandemics and things

like that so there really isn't a whole lot of information to substantiate that. People, it feels good. Oh, they're here to take matches out of the hands of children. And they always say, you know, well, look what happened up with the flight. I think it was November flight. Might be Oscar flight. Or nukes where entire flight of missiles were brought down offline, allegedly by a UFO. People are like, oh, see, they're turning them off.

Yeah, but in Russia, they turn them on, right? Because they have an opposite where we have to put our fingers on the proverbial buttons. They have like a dead man switch. Their fingers are always on the button. And when it comes off, that's when they go, proverbially speaking. So Russians are very clever. Yeah. If you think so.

Assured mutual destruction. And over there, there's reports of them turning them on. So there is nothing to suggest that they're necessarily helping us. Now, let me put on two different hats here, okay? One is a national security hat. And by the way, it's different than the way I feel. I can have two different perspectives. Unbelievable.

Absolutely. I didn't know perspectives. Unbelievable. Absolutely. I didn't know that was possible. Absolutely. Yeah, sure. So there is my national security hat, right? Okay, what do I do see? I do see these things very interested in our military equities. I see their ability to interfere with our nuclear capabilities.

And I see them particularly over our sensitive military installations. What does that look like to me? That looks like preparation of the battle space. It looks like ISR, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. It looks like an active campaign to understand our capabilities. Now, that's my national security hat, right? So if you're paying me as a three-star general to think on behalf of the American people, if there's even a 5% chance that you think you could do something bad to us, then my job is to make sure that gets down to 0%. Now, let me take that hat off for a second

and put on my Luis Elizondo hat. Okay. Do I see any evidence that they're here to harm us as a species or whatever it is? No, I don't. I don't. But let me now put on my special agent hat on, right? Third hat. Yeah, third hat.

Now, we've got a whole bunch of them on the shelf, right? So you come to me and you say, Lou, listen, I've got this problem. I went to sleep last night and I had this crazy experience. I woke up and I was being taken somewhere. Somewhere I didn't want to go, but I was being taken there. Okay, well, that's kidnapping. It's federal charge. You've been taken away against your will.

Yeah, when I was there, Lou, they were touching me. They were doing these things to me and it scared me okay well that's assault okay another another felony offense keep keep going right so that's not a nice thing and you know i've got daughters if my daughter got into an uber and she wanted to go to the mall and instead they took her somewhere else that's kidnapping yes right that's that's not a nice thing you're talking about experiencers who say they were abducted right now. Who claim that they've been abducted, right? Abduction. Think of the word, abduction.

Yeah. That's a crime. That's a felony, baby. Did you ever come across cases that you felt had a great burden of proof, evidence to prove that that had actually happened? Because you know how a lot of people are skeptical of this. Sure. And to be fair, you and I were having a great conversation before the cameras were rolling about how unfortunately in this space, so many people are like, I just want to fucking believe. And they believe everything, every single case, no matter what. It actually sets the stigma back further.

It absolutely does. And this is where we get into the conversation of true believers and true skeptics, right? They're really one in the same. I know they seem opposite sides of the spectrum, but the mentality is the same. And this is not an attack on anybody. So let me just preface that. But a true believer, no matter what information you provide them, they will always, always believe that everything they hear is correct. And then you have the professional skeptic that no matter what evidence is provided, they will never accept the fact that their narrative

could be wrong. So those two folks, those two sides of the equation are really never my focus. People will always say, well, Lou, are you trying to tell us they're real? I'm not trying to tell you anything. My job is to provide the data and the facts and allow you guys to decide what it means to you. And this is why I've always said to people, don't shoot the data and the facts and allow you guys to decide what it means to you. And this is why I've always said to people, don't shoot the messenger and don't ask me what I think, because it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what you think. There's so many people in the UFO community that want to tell you what they think because they have the answer, they have the solution. They're the only ones. They have a monopoly on thought. And unless you

agree with them, then you're crazy, right? And that's across the board. I think the approach we need to take is, look, let's put all narratives aside, whether they're from outer space, inner space, or space in between. Here are the facts. Here are the facts of what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a technology that is real. We are dealing with a technology that is interested in our equities. We are dealing with a technology that can outperform anything we have. That we do know. What do we not know? We don't know where they're from. We don't know what they want. We don't know what the intent. We don't know a whole bunch of other stuff. We don't know motivation. Maybe there is no motivation, right? We're looking at things through anthropomorphic eyes. You and me are human

beings. So we judge everything based upon it. That's why we give our dogs people names? Because we are, whether we realize it or not, we are imposing our own understanding of what it means to be a human onto everything else and presume everything else is like us. But that's not necessarily the case, especially when you're dealing with things like, let's say, oh, I don't know, artificial intelligence, where it's binary. There is no motivation intent. It just is, right? And so we have to really limit ourselves from going down that temptation of assuming everything is like us, everything has motivation, everything has the same type of desires that we have. And we do that all the time. We do it subconsciously. And let me, if I can digress here for a second. Hubris is really ultimately responsible for this because we are a species where we have pride in ego and we have a narrative in our head. rather than in the face of new data and facts, reframe our own narrative, we reject that data and hold onto our own narrative because it's,

it's, it's, this is what I believe. And therefore any new information must be wrong. Right. And let me give you some examples. I went to, like I said, university of Miami.

And I've, I've always considered myself a disciple of science. I believe in the scientific method, scientific principles. Right. I believe in physics. I believe in mathematics. It works. And when I was in college, I learned that it was the Greek. So if you look at the modern human, Homo sapiens sapien, most anthropologists agree that modern humans have been around for the last 100,000 to 200,000 years

as a modern human being. And if you look at that, it wasn't until the last 100,000 to 200,000 years, okay, as a modern human being. And if you look at that, it wasn't until the last 2000 years that we realized there's only two dominant life forms on this planet. You are either a plant or you are an animal. It was the Greeks who recognize that, and humans being an animal. If you look at a 24-hour clock, right, so 200,000 years ago and then 2000 years ago, it's really just the last 10 minutes we realize that. And that wasn't until the Renaissance 300 years ago, during the days of enlightenment, that we recognized and discovered an entirely other form of life on this planet that we've been sharing all along. That is neither plant nor animal, and that is the world of fungus. And so we tap ourselves on the shoulders and say, wow, what a great, great discovery.

And it wasn't until the last maybe five seconds of our existence as modern man on this planet, last 120 years, think about it, that we had the technology to actually discover the true dominant or alpha life form on this planet. And in fact, if you take all the biomass of every plant and all the biomass of every animal and all the biomass of every fungus and add it all up together, it still does not add up to this life, hidden life form that has been on this planet longer

than any of us. And that is the world of microorganisms. It's the things that are inside you that make you up, that live on the skin of the ISS space station and can thrive miles beneath the crushing depth of the Arctic ice. It's everywhere. And it wasn't until we could have the technology to curve glass and look through a little metal tube and famously shout the words, little beasties, little beasties, did we discover for the first time the true dominant alpha life form on this planet that's been here all along. Until we discover the next one that's been here all along and so until we discover the next one until all along 100 you're tracking right until we discover the next one and that's why it was

oh this is a greatest discovery in uap that mankind no it's not it's just just another one we're always if there's one thing mankind is right about is that we're fact that we're usually wrong a lot of times when i grew up in science i, and this is recent, all life forms are based on ultimately the building blocks of photosynthesis, all life form. Well, that's not true. In fact, if you go to the deepest parts of the ocean where there are these things called black smokers, these vents, heated vents, superheated vents underwater, volcanic vents, life is abundant down there and it thrives off of a process called chemosynthesis. There is no light down there and they're thriving because they are metabolizing and getting energy based upon chemosynthesis, the complete opposite of photosynthesis.

So we keep learning all these new fundamental realities about what life can be and what it can't be. And then you have what I call the human issue, because it is definitely a human issue. We have five fundamental senses by which we judge the universe. And if you can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, et cetera, it's very hard for us to understand anything that's beyond that. And yet the reality is most of the universe lies beyond that. So what do I mean? Take my cell phone, for example. If I had the ability to see in cell phone vision, right? I would perceive the world through wifi and through 5G and through GPS. And I would see a completely different reality. It's just like you

and me sitting here right now. I'm using my eyes. Behind you, there's a reality that you can't perceive. I can see it perfectly. And right now behind me, there's a reality that I can't perceive or interact with, but you can, right? And we're in the same place.

We're in the exact same place. And there's two completely different worlds that you and I are experiencing right now. Then you have, so where I live in Wyoming, beautiful night skies. And if you look at the skies, wonderful for stargazing. If you look at that same part of the night sky with a radio telescope, you're going to see a completely different reality. You're going to see nebula and you're going to see things, gas clouds there in different frequencies that we can't perceive. And that's realities where most of the universe lies in the ultraviolet and the infrared spectrum, the x-ray spectrums.

And that's the real universe. We perceive a tiny, tiny, tiny little sliver of what really is there. And we pretend, oh, well, therefore, that's the universe. No, that's actually 0.02% of the universe. And then you've got a scalability issue. What do I mean by scalability? If you look in any direction around you in space, the scientists say that the universal horizon of light, the farthest we can see into the depths of our universe is roughly 13.6 to 13.9 billion, billion with a B, billion light years in any direction, right?

And we are this infinitesimally speck in the middle. What is a light year? It is the speed, the distance that light can travel in one year. So let's do the calculation here real quick for your audience. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, okay? Seven and a half times around our planet in one second. Imagine how far you can go in a year and now multiply that by 13.9 billion. So if we are in the middle, I can see that way, 13.9 billion, that way, 13.9 billion, that's roughly 27 billion light years across. And that's just the visible universe. Scientists actually believe that that's only 10% of the actual universe. And in just our universe, we can see more stars in our visible universe than there are grains of sand in all the beaches in all the world. Yeah.

Right? And so if the universe is actually 100 billion light years across and possibly bigger compared to us, that is enormously huge. But then look at Avogadro's number real quick. And this is important because I'm about to make my point here. If you compare one hydrogen atom, okay? Yeah, we got it on the screen. Yeah. Okay, good. So that is to the power of 23, 1 times 10 to the negative 23. That is roughly, one hydrogen atom is roughly the same scale and size as to us as we are to the universe. Meaning we have that infinite amount of space and scale inside every single human being. But as humans, we can only interact with maybe one or two orders of magnitude up or down because this is our size, right?

We kind of smack right in the middle of the universal scale if you were to have a scale. Most of the universe is either too big or too small for us to even interact with. That's reality. That is the realness of the human experience. But because we live in this little narrowly defined where we can only perceive a little bit and our scale is either too, most of the universe is too big or too small,

therein lies most of reality. That's where the universe is. And so for us to say that, oh, well, you know, the only thing out here and there's a bunch of nonsense and hooey, man, I mean, that's math. That's reality. That's real, right? That's not Lou Alessandro telling you.

That's real. And so hubris is something that we have to be careful of because we're always trying to squeeze Mother Nature into a little box that we have invented. We've created, but mother nature doesn't operate that way. She, she, she doesn't need to be confined to a box. We're the ones living in a box. We just don't realize we do it to ourselves. Which means that things that we may put outside of our box through Hollywood or stories that we tell such as like alien abductions may actually be something that we need to consider because there are things that don't have an explanation in our current physical world.

As we know it, there was, there was a great quote in your book. You talked about the former director of something, something at skunk works who said impossible is impossible until we fucking done it. That's right. I put the fucking in there.

That's right. Well, you're right. You understand what I'm saying? So these things, you had to open yourself up to the stuff that you would have previously said was crazy. Today's technology is yesterday's magic. Yeah. And that is fact.

You know, everything that we do, time and time and time again, we put these limitations. There was a time we said, well, Earth is the only thing, object that's made of rock and the heavens are up there and there's nothing else out there. And yet this is all the while that we knew meteors existed. They were rocked for falling to earth all the time. How do you explain that? They were coming from somewhere. There was times where we would always presume certain things. We'd never break the sound barrier until we did it. There's all these things that scientists said, well, we can never do until we do. And then it becomes routine. And it's not science's fault. It's our fault because we make these presumptions and assumptions of what life should and could be, not realizing that we are overlaying our own

human experience onto the data. So we are by necessity, the fact that we're humans, we're already polluting the data because we have a hard time looking through any other lens than a human lens. And so we tend to ascribe human emotion, human intent, human motivation to things that may not be. And so back to where we were talking about the science, and this is why I bring up this long drawn out story about size and perception and things like that. People say, well, are they from outer space? They could be. But I've always said it could be from outer space, inner space, or frankly, the space in between. As you said, are these things interdimensional? Could be.

Are they aliens from outer space? Could be. Are they as natural to this planet as we are? Absolutely. Is it to the point where now technologically we're at a point where we're now beginning to interact with them, just like the little beasties, little beasties? Could be.

Are these things maybe from underwater? Because look, we've only mapped less than 10% of the ocean floor. Or all the above. Or all the above, right? We know more about the surface of the moon than the depths of our own oceans. I had a submarine commander once tell me, and he was dead serious. It's a little funny. I'll share it with your audience.

But it's both disturbing and funny. They were tracking an object. These submarines are huge. I mean, some of these are, imagine the Empire State Building sideways underwater, right? These are big, big submarines, some of these 500 feet long, right? Big boys. And you're traveling underwater and you pick up something on sonar that's traveling roughly between 400 to 500 miles an hour underwater and it's bigger than you right oh yeah and so i asked a commander i mean honest question i was kind of shocked i'm like well in those cases what do you do and he looked at me no he looked at me straight face he said

we go around like you know a dumb question makes sense yeah i guess i would too you know just like that totally like yeah we go around. Yeah, I'm not messing with that either. Cool. So there's a lot to this conversation. And the problem is that we're always going back to the original conversation we were having about people on both sides of the spectrum, skeptics and believers. Both of them are stuck to their own narrative. Both of them in the face of new information, even though that we live in a world that's dynamic, they are very hesitant to change their opinion

because they're stuck in a static mindset. But the universe isn't static. The universe is dynamic. So we have to recalibrate the way we think. We can't think in a static way. We have to be dynamic with the universe if we want to understand the universe. And so that's kind of my philosophical perspective on the topic.

That's great philosophy. I appreciate all the depths of that. I was riveted by some of that. As you're snoozing, taking a nap. I haven't been snoozing one second. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm already extremely pissed off that we only have three hours though, because like, holy shit, is there so much here?

Like you're saying something every two seconds. I'm like, Oh, we could go there. We could go there. We could go there. We could go there. I can come back anytime you want, brother.

All right. We are. Well, we're definitely doing that, but we'll see. We'll see about you. What people say online. I'm sure.

Well, listen, listen, just don't look at the comment section, okay? Just don't do that, because people are going to say what they're going to say in there. But going back to the abduction stuff, because we keep getting off it, did you come across cases that you, again, it's not like you were there, so you can't say a thousand percent this happened, but did you come across one out of the billion people who were like, yeah, I was abducted and fucked by an alien,

where you're actually like, oh might happen so for me the most compelling remember we go back to data right data data data let the facts be for themselves um there was some situations where an individual had claimed to come up close and personal with a uap and they sustained a medical consequence now i'm not a trained medical surgeon right right? I'm not. But we had people that were medical professionals that were supporting us. And they were working with individuals who could quantify and qualify. They could quantify and qualify medically changes in the person's physical health. They actually sustained injury. So there are several doctors, I want to be very careful because I don't want to mention their names until I'm publicly allowed to say

their names because for privacy reasons, I don't want them getting slammed and harassed. But there is enough information to substantiate from a medical perspective that we've had military service members and intelligence officials, intelligence individuals harmed by these things. Yeah, Rendlesham 1980. I had Nick Pope in here to break down that whole thing. Brother, those two guys are on full 100% medical disability. I saw the paperwork from the U.S. government, and it says the reason why the medical disability by the U.S. government,

your tax dollars are paying for it because of their involvement in Rendlesham. And that's just one example. And thank God it was for Senator John, late Senator John McCain, because if it wasn't for him, these guys would have been totally toast. He was the one who got their medical records that were classified by the Air Force, right? Classifying your medical records, who the hell do you think you are that you can do that anyways? It's my medical records. They classified him. And if it wasn't for John McCain getting declassified, these guys would be suffering today, probably dead. And that's just one example. I mean, there are other individuals, I can tell you right now,

a very senior, former senior CIA official, very, very senior, like one of the top guys. I do not have permission to talk about his story, but him and his spouse came up close, had a very terrifying experience. And actually a foreign object was removed from from removed from his body from her from her so there was it was a husband and wife team okay without saying your name like what was the uh what was the nature uh you know it i want to be really careful there's hippa and patient confidentiality so i i'm sure that person is going to probably at some point come out this is why Congress is now taking this topic seriously because there are people like, hey, yeah, guess what? That senior dude who I know is now coming and telling me about their experience. People are feeling that it's a little bit more safer now to come out

and have this conversation with the right people. We are trying very hard to create an environment where people feel safe. They can come out and talk about their experiences, whether they work on legacy programs or that they were somebody under medical care by the US government. These are all little factoids that most people have no idea even exist. Well, you talk about your own experiences too, and it hasn't affected you health-wise like some of these other ones, but you no you talked about how you know

i guess like shortly after being assigned to this test for the first time you started to notice orbs in your house and in in kent and your wife did too can you can you tell me yeah and let me be clear because i don't i can't tell you with a straight face that they're ufo related or they're ufos i can't all i can't good so you're you're open-minded on that. Oh, 100%, brother. Yeah. Yeah. Let me tell you again. Let's go to the facts, right?

I get into this program, A-Tip, and here's the facts. We start seeing these green luminous balls of light diffuse, some the size of maybe a volleyball, some the size of a little baseball. And they're witnessed not only by me, otherwise I wouldn't have said anything. They're witnessed by my spouse and they're also witnessed by my kids. And even some of our neighbors are seeing these balls of light. Outside your house? Inside the house. Inside the house.

Inside, down the hallway, just going by almost like a really bizarre. Volleyball up to that side. Yeah. Like, well, but remember diffuse, right? So it's not like it's just, it's the globe pattern comes up to about here. And then so these are being witnessed. And at the same time, other individuals that were part of AATIP are also having a similar experience. So what we do know is that other people in the AATIP program were also experiencing this. Now, could it be? Could it be ball lightning?

Sure. Could it be St. Elmo's fire? Sure. Could it be faulty wiring? And now it's ionizing the air local around it, and it's creating these luminous plasma balls? 100%. What makes it interesting is it wasn't just us. It was other people in AATIP who were also experiencing it while they were working in AATIP. Before AATIP didn't have the problem and after AATIP didn't have the problem, only during AATIP. So that's the fact. But whether they were actually UAP or related to UAP, I can't tell you that.

I don't know. Approximately how many times did this happen and over what type of time period are we talking about? So 2010 to probably 2017, 16, probably – so I say like once every couple months. People are like, oh, then every two months. No, because sometimes you'd see it back to back in a couple of days. And then it might be two, three, four months. And then all of a sudden, three more days go by and you're seeing these green balls of light in the house, even in outside as well. So there wasn't any pattern.

That's one thing, obviously trying to find a pattern to this. It's coming every Tuesday. It's random. Yeah, random. And of course, we're asleep at night and I'm not at home during the day. So I'm only seeing them while I'm at home. And same with my family. My kids are at school.

My wife is working, too. So it could have been much more frequent, but we just weren't there to see it. Did you report this to Putoff or Davis or people on the ATIP team? Yeah. They had a term for it. They called it high strangeness. High strangeness high strength what do you mean i don't know i don't know what the hell it means they call a high frame okay yeah strange you're right did they come in and investigate it though like did they try to set up anything no they they had no issue with it at all they said it's very

very normal for that it was normal so someone on the ATIP team, a counterintel guy is now seeing- Not counterintel. Oh yeah, I was counterintel. That's what I'm saying. Is now seeing orbs in his house while you're working on this project about these UAPs. And the team that's in charge of UAPs doesn't want to go investigate that. No, they're saying that they're having the same issue too. They're like, well, what do you want to do about it? I don't know.'t know set up a camera ghostbusters get bill murray in there do something right yeah well unfortunately once every few months you'd have a lot of cameras i don't have a setup like this i can't afford anything that's fancy listen i'll donate these

we're gonna find man bear pig in there baby let's get al gore on the line there are uh there are other individuals that are i think going to be be coming out of the shadows here soon that will probably also expound upon their experiences. This is really just kind of the tip of the iceberg. Fortunately for us, it was just orbs for other people that had other experiences. Not my story to tell. I did not experience it with them, but, you know, it was peculiar. It was peculiar. All right.

Real quick, I just got to go to the bathroom. We'll be right back. Well, that's because I have the mentality of a first grader. I mean, I've got to keep shit simple because I am – I'm with you. I tell people all the time when I walk into a room, the IQ drops about 20 points automatically. So I got to keep – I got to, I got to color by the numbers, man. Otherwise I, I, I can't keep up. All right. Well, let's get back on. We're good

over here. All right. All right. We're back. Lou, one of the things that, that you laid out throughout your book, just for like context, I thought was really good was a lot of the alleged. And I would say even like known history involving UAP that have been witnessed or incidents that have occurred. And what you explained is that once you were first brought into this, you started going through whatever government documents you could, which includes stuff that we could all get through FOIA and then also included some things that would be like classified that you couldn't take out. Yeah. There was actually a lot of classified. You'd be surprised. There's actually a lot. Now, they have since, I think, tightened the range on

it and probably put some restrictions. But in the early days, on the classified system, on the high side, we'll call high side the top secret system, you could just do a word search and just avoid some of what we call the dirty words that get you system, you could just do a word search and just avoid some of what we call the dirty words that get you in trouble. Yeah, hot words. But man, you could find all sorts of great intelligence out there, man, about these things. And it was really, really helpful. It was really helpful.

How did you know? Yeah, you talked about these hot words terms like, oh, if you do that, you're going to get flagged and called in somewhere and maybe be pulled from the program. How did you even know what those words were? Did you ask like how put off about that? So where I was, we knew what some of those hot words would be, especially if there were people in a legacy capacity that didn't want you to know. So certainly like, you know, UFO, right? Unidentified Flying Object. No surprise there. But you could look at things like anomalous.

Another would be unidentified aircraft, because a lot of time people would write a report saying we have an unidentified aircraft doing Mach 22, which there's no aircraft that does Mach 22. Or you could also write in, for example, luminous as a word, which is bright. So when you talk about a luminous object in the sky, well, you would type luminous and then type in sky, and then all the reports about something that was luminous in the sky, right? So there's ways to do it. Now, it could be a rocket, test rocket, right, where now you could say, well, the rocket that was ascending up to 25,000 feet

created a luminous halo up in the atmosphere that was observed for the last, you know, for 120 miles. And so that's a rocket test, obviously. But then when you have others where they're talking about luminous balls of light doing other things and you're like, okay, well, that's, that's not a test rocket. Rockets go in a very specific trajectory, right? And they don't change directions very often. So when you're seeing reports of these things maneuvering in a certain way over a certain

country, the problem is it gets kind of gets kind of difficult because a lot of the information is classified because of under the circumstances in which it was collected, right? So we classify information in this country sole purpose of trying to hide information that's of either illegal activity or malfeasance or even embarrassing to the U.S. government. You can actually look at it. There's a DOD directive I can show you at some point if you're interested. But the problem is that the government was doing that. They were classifying information simply because they didn't want to tell people the truth about UAP. And that's a problem. And so you have this data that's out there. And let's say we get this information from a human source we're trying to protect, or we have some information from signals intercept over a

particular country. You don't want to broadcast that, right? You don't want your enemy to know what you're doing and where you're doing it. So you that information but what you can't do is classify information that doesn't relate to the protection of sources of method right how does it not relate to it though if it's involved with uip which is like the ultimate like now there's no source of the perfect example um the fact that north korea has um a nuclear capability that's not classified now how those things work and what are they aimed at and how that's classified, that's sources and methods. But the mere fact that country X has nukes, that's not a classifiable fact. The mere fact that we're not alone in the universe, that's not a classifiable fact. It's like Galileo when he first proposed that the

earth was not the center of the solar system. What happened well she burned him on the stake right so he had to recant um that's not a classifiable fact you can't you can't restrict the citizens of a country from knowing forgive the pun and an alienable right this is this is this is facts of life of truth so you're telling me that all of our adversaries or countries out there that may not be necessarily benevolent if you so you're telling me that all of our adversaries or countries out there that may not be necessarily benevolent if you will you're telling me that any weaponry they may have including things that are beyond our imagination right now let me just throw an example out there some sort of biological warfare weapon that's not sarin gas or something more basic that we at least understand you're telling me that all that right now brother look it's not declassified

should be here's the reality right yes it should be look the fact that russian has hypersonic weapons that's not they we've admitted that they know it we know it everybody said it that we have news reports on all the time now how they work and how are they deployed and where are they deployed and what other capabilities are absolutely keep that classified because we don't want the bad guys to know that we know all that but. But the mere fact that they exist, that's not a classifiable fact. The fact that something exists. Now, you can classify a US capability that exists

because we don't want to let the bad guys know. So what is the difference in the gray area with this and that? If we think, I'm just playing a hypothetical here because I want to know all of it, by the way. But if we have data on UAP that we think no one else may have or don't know if other people have. That would keep classified because that's capabilities. Remember? So we're talking about sources and methods.

And some of the methods by which we collect information is very classified. Where we're doing it, how we're doing it. You don't want the bad guys to know that. So you would classify certain things regarding capabilities, right? Again, North Korea has nuclear warheads. We know that. How they work and how they're used and the technology behind it, yeah, you protect that, of course.

Okay. So there is some gray area. Excuse me. And there is also some – there are some incidents where the mere fact of something existing can be classified. So for example, the fact that a US government is involved in a particular mission under certain authorities like covert action, that is kept classified. We don't admit that we're involved in that effort. Okay. So you can, under certain legal circumstances, classify information and protect that information. Okay. So you can, under certain legal circumstances,

classify information and protect that information. But what you can't do is classify information that's not really related to source of methods or covert action. And that is trying to hide a fact about something that is not a classifiable fact. It would be like when the church tried to classify the fact that the earth wasn't the center of the solar system. Well, that's reality. That's our current paradigm. And so from my perspective, what drives me every single day isn't the UAP topic. People think, oh, UAP. It's not. It's ultimately – I took an oath to defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. And I've never been relieved of that oath.

And it turns out that in this particular case, it was the bureaucracy that we had some trouble with. The government, the US government is really good at a lot of stuff. I mean it's fantastic. Best country in the world, bar none. And this country afforded my family opportunities no other country could or would. So I am extremely loyal to my country. I'm extremely loyal to my government. I'm extremely loyal to the citizens of this country.

The problem is that there were people in government making decisions on behalf of the American people that they had no business making those decisions. They did not have the authority to do. And so for me, transparency and accountability, if you want a government to be accountable, you first have to be transparent. That's the only way you're going to get accountability. I had a conversation I'll share with you. I've started sharing. It was very personal to me. So in the book, I talk about my mother passing away. My father recently passed away a couple years ago sorry no no it's okay and it's it's life you know he literally died with his boots on uh old revolutionary from your dad was a savage dude dude he was yeah he was something else that's

uh tell people who your dad was come on so my dad was a uh. He fought with Castro against Batista in Cuba. And then when Castro went communist, he joined the CIA program, trained in Guatemala and was part of the Bay of Pigs invasion. He was a member of the Brigade 2506, served several years in prisons and Castro's jails and came back to the United States. And, you know, he was a wounded soul. Um, he experienced things there that I'm sure probably made him do certain things later in life. Um,

incredible human being, very hardworking came to this country with not a dime in his pocket and, and was self-made, uh, and all legitimate. Um, and he instilled in me the sense of patriotism that I have. And he always told me things, you know, about what it is to serve and why it's important to serve and sacrifice. But my father was also very intelligent. He was a, you know, I don't know what happened because I didn't get his brains, but my dad was intellectual as well. And I remember, so my dad died two Father's Days ago. So Father's Day a couple years ago. And towards the end, he never told me he was dying,

but I could tell. I could tell he was sick. He had cancer, but he didn't tell me. But towards the end, he stopped eating. And you can see when that starts to take its toll.

So about a month before he died, I had an opportunity to go on a road trip with him. So we went from Wyoming. A month before he died? a month before he died, I had an opportunity to go on a road trip with him. So we went from Wyoming. A month before he died? A month before he died. So we drove to, my dad was- Guy has cancer.

A month before he died- Dying from cancer. Taking a road trip. Yeah. And he's going road trip. So we went from Wyoming all the way down. Yeah. For me, I'd be laying in bed and eating Cheetos and all the crap I'm not supposed to eat and

doing all the stuff I'm not supposed to do. He goes on a road trip with his son and we go from Wyoming down to, I know, Miami, right? Where all of us Cubans live. Shoot me in that way. Right. So we're going to Miami to see the family. And about halfway through, I think we're probably in Kansas somewhere. And I asked my dad, and I feel guilty about this because I asked him almost fl almost flippantly like just to fill in you know

what do you think so i said dad what do you think is the greatest threat to humanity now i'm thinking to myself is it a you know pandemic is it a disease is it is it warfare is it terrorism my father sat for a moment moment and he looked at me and he said corruption and i said corruption like what financial and he said, corruption. And I said, corruption? Like what, financial corruption? He said, no, no, no. Corruption. Corruption is the act of sacrificing or giving away a core value you have in exchange for something else. So whether it's financial corruption, religious corruption, governmental corruption, moral corruption, you are trading away a core value in exchange for something. And so in government, when you do that, no matter where

it is, if you are corrupt in government, you start chipping away at the very foundation of what democracy is. And my father warned me, he says, son, it's a very slippery slope from that to tyranny. It happens fast. Believe me, it happens fast. So we have an obligation in this country. This is a country where we have a government for the people and by the people. This is a government where if you're working in government, your job is to serve the interests of the American people, not the other way around. But people forget that in government. They start to think, no, actually, this is my job and I can start making decisions. And when they start making decisions on behalf of the American people that they're not allowed to, for example, in this particular topic, UAP, where you have people not informing members of Congress who have a need to know, who are supposed to know, they're not informing the chain of command and they're not informing the president of the United States, that's a problem. That's illegal. You cannot do that, right? And either this country, either the constitution and these rules mean something or they don't. And my response to them, look, if the rules don't apply

anymore, that's fine. Just tell the American people because we know how to fix that shit. Trust me. We're pretty good at that. So, you know, but don't these rules apply to thee and not to me, especially in government. You have a moral responsibility. You work for the people. And if you forget that, then you got to get the hell out of government. That is not – that is – and this is for me – this is part of transparency and accountability. It's not just the UAP issue. People say, oh, you're the UFO guy.

No, I'm not. That's one thing. I am for government accountability and transparency because that's the only reason why this government works. That is the only reason we have faith and our – faith and confidence in this government. That is the only reason why we have it because it is supposed to be working the right way. And when it doesn't because a few people make a unilateral decision that they don't want to, that's a problem. Okay. I appreciate that. And it's interesting though to hear the depth of that explanation though.

And before I go into what I'm going to go into, I do want to say you allegedly left the Pentagon in 2017. Do you guys ever really leave? Come on. You did say you haven't given up that oath. Didn't you say that like 10 minutes ago, Les? He's like, I still have never given up that oath. Look, I've said this before. I still maintain my security clearance.

And I do consult with the U.S. government on an as-needed basis. I've always made that very clear. I've never hid that fact. He has never hidden that. But what I'm going to say is that you have any disclosure that you've done, including this book and everything since 2017, you've been very careful to do everything in a legal manner. Your colleague, Chris Mellon, when he walked the paperwork into the New York Times in 27 was able to do that because of, I forget the name of the law and the stipulation, but because of a recent stipulation had been passed in Congress that

allowed him to do that. Obviously this is something you were involved with. So you guys have done it by the letter of the law. I do need to say that. However, you talk about a government for the people and by the people and that you have – I believe you phrased it something like a moral responsibility to report to people if something has been done that is compromising that. And yet you are also a guy who has strong criticism of edward snowden now let me be very frank on how i look at edward snowden i look at him as being stuck between a shit and a fart okay slippery slopes on both ends on one end he sees the united states constitution being trampled on by the government through some weird legal maneuvers that basically obfuscated what they were really doing from the courts and when he did try to take that up the chain of command, they told him, fuck off, get out of here.

So that's one problem. On the other hand, though, the minute he goes and reports something and breaks his oath, right? He had an oath that said, I swear to secrecy anything that I'm told to keep secret in the government. He is now like, maybe his situation is good enough to do that, but he now sets a precedent where the next person can say, oh, I reported what I reported because Snowden did it. And maybe theirs is 99.9% the importance of his and so on down. Eventually, you're down at 1% and people are reporting everything that happens in government. So either way, it's a problem. However, if you have that moral obligation, like you said, could you not see how someone like Snowden felt the way he did?

Totally different scenario from UIP to be very fair here, but felt the way he did from a constitutional perspective to come out and make that type of disclosure. I have no problem with the way Snowden felt. I have a problem with what Snowden did. He took his information and gave it to the Russians. That's the problem. He gave it to the Russians? Yes. That's the problem. he didn't come out and whistle blow he came out and spy he leaked information classified information I've never done that I've never purported to do it I don't support it what do you mean he leaked it to the Russians brother that's why he went to

Russia for to well his plane got down by at the time Vice President Joe Biden he was flying brother he's living in Russia I know but he was was flying protection i know but he was flying from hong kong to ecuador and his plane got downed in russia you know what he had with him right he he gave up that it wasn't just a julian assange this is not like like uh private manning did where you know they were just trying to expose some things which by the way was still wrong there's a right way and wrong way different situation yeah he actually compromised people who died And that is a problem. There are people who are no longer alive right now. So that's been disputed though. There's people that say that there's no one who died as a result

of it, though he may have risked it. No, there are. I can't go into details. There are sources who died. And so from my perspective, I never took this information and ran to the hills. First of all, everything I've discussed has always been unclassified. And if I wasn't sure, I went to the Pentagon and I asked. So there is a big difference between going and running from your country and taking a bunch of classified information with you and releasing that. I never did that. And I never will do that. And I never have done that. And I think anybody who does that should go to jail. What I've done is to have the conversation. I've used the system to my advantage and to all of our advantage, I believe,

I hope. And if you look at the track record, I think it's fair to say that we have, by doing it the right way, look, no one's gone to jail and look how far we are. We now have Congress involved. We now have an arrow established. We now have rules and laws on the books, right? We have whistleblower protection. We have right now new legislation that's being proposed right now as part of the new NDAA. That's in the last seven years, brother. Think about it. We have gone further in disclosure in seven years than in the last 70. And we didn't have to break any rules. We did it the right way. No one's gone to jail and we can still have this conversation. So, you know, I've always said there's a difference between doing things right and doing them right now.

And I think if you have only one chance to do it right, then we need to do it that way. Now, could I be wrong? Sure. Are there other people that would have a difference of opinion and think it should be done the other way? Sure. And my response is be my guest. Do what you want to do. Yeah, like I said, it does need to be said that if you're looking at the record of what we know publicly about you and about the people involved, the things have been done more by the book.

And there's something to be said for that for sure. And I also think this is also – I don't want to delegitimize it or anything by any means. But it's also such a pop culture phenomenon too because people are like, oh, I want to know, right? So you can kind of develop, and this doesn't always go the right way, but you can develop like a fanboy syndrome where people want to know more, they want to know more, and you're going to give it to them. Oh, a hundred percent. And that's why- No, that's a problem, brother. And this is, you're hitting the nail on the head for me, if I can just jump in here. You know, people confuse a messenger with a message all the time. And this is, this is one of my personal struggles with people because people will see someone in a, and I'm sure this happens with you too, right?

You have this persona that they have in their mind of you of what you're, what you're doing. And then all of a sudden, you know, you become the more important thing than what it is you're trying to communicate. And from my perspective, I try to remind people, look, I'm just like you. I have the same issues as you. I pay my bills like you. I have the same bias as you. I'm just a normal schmo. The only difference is I was in a position where I felt I needed to do something about it. I'm not a hero. I tell people that all the time. I have this horrible imposter syndrome that I have because people say, oh, you're a hero. No, I'm not a hero because I serve with heroes and a lot of them didn't come back.

So I know what a real hero is and I'm not a hero. I'm just a guy finishing the job that he was given to begin with. And frankly, there's probably, I've always told people this before, anybody else in my situation, including you or anybody else who took the same oath I did and was in my job would have probably done exactly the same thing I did. And arguably, you might've even done a better job than me. So I just happened to be the guy in the, in the chamber at the time. And, you know, okay, guys, here's the reality of things. But by no means, you know, I, people say, well, you're, you're leading this disclosure effort. I sure hope not.

I really do because I'm not the guy for that. This is a relay race. And my job is just to carry the baton as far as I can. Here you go. I'm not the guy who's going to win the race. I'm just one of the guys in the long chain to get us where we are. Look, you are just as part of this chain as I am. You're having this conversation with people right now in your audience. You have a global reach. Now think

about that for a second. Think about that responsibility. You, today's day and age, right now have a larger global audience than many of the world leaders just 10 years ago. You have that, right? So you are very much this, this effort as well. So I'm just one dude, just like you're just one dude. But we also all, and this includes you too. We also don't, we don't want to be a useful idiot in that as well. You know what I mean? You can only know what you know. I mean, really from my seat, cause I literally sit in an armchair here. You've at least been on the inside, but have you ever thought about that too? Because it's not like you were head of the CIA or something. You were high up or whatever,

but have you thought about the idea that maybe you were given access to things like, and I'm not delegitimizing you as a person. I'm saying like, oh, ooh, like let's drop some nuts and let's get the best squirrel that we know. Yeah, to manipulate. Yeah, then we can manipulate them to go ahead and put a message.

That's always a possibility. But then you're talking about a conspiracy on a level that would be so cost prohibitive and the coordination so tight because most of these people like me had access to just about, I mean, almost everything. So you would have to keep a long running secret and you'd have to backstop it for years beforehand, like decades. Yes. If you wanted to execute this. And then you have to ask the reason why. Why? There's so much easier ways to do it.

If you want more funding for space technology, all you got to say is, look, this is what the Russians are doing. Okay, here's your money. You don't got to go through this elaborate dance and hire a bunch of people to pretend that they saw something and make fake radar footage and make fake FLIR videos and make fake, you know, gun camera footage. I mean, that's why. There's so much simpler ways to do it,

you know, and more effective ways. You would spend more money creating this illusion than you would ever get as an end result trying to fund some sort of program. It doesn't make financial sense. You're going to spend a billion dollars

to make a million? Just tell them the UFOs are eating the dogs. They're eating the cats. You can go get all the funding you want. Yikes. Yikes. I'm not going there with a 10-foot pole. That's okay. I had to throw that one in there. I see what you're saying, though. I think that's a fair point. It's like, why would you go away from what works just for the sake of doing it? It's been proven over and over again. It's not like the military industrial complex has a problem saying yes to a bill if it's a threat from another country. That's right. I mean, that's what funds the war machine.

Why would you come up with some cockamamie elaborate? I mean, first of all, anyone who would approve that would be a moron. I mean, I'm like, I'm sorry. That's a big no. And oh, by the way, if it ever comes out, because eventually it will, if that was a case, then we're all going to jail. Yeah. But you also, with this topic, because of the nature of its relation to meaning of life, if you will, you ran into a problem in the Pentagon that, I mean, you described it as like mind blowing to you that this would ever happen. And it's mind blowing to me too, which is like with the quote unquote

Collins elite. So you, at some point within ATIP growing as a hub within there, you started to run into people where you, you didn't, the way you described in your book is that you didn't necessarily know who they were. They almost operated silently where there was a large people where you you didn't the way you described in your book is that you you didn't necessarily know who they were they almost operated silently where there was a large contingent in this 22,000 person fucking place the pentagon that had their biblical beliefs dictate how they wanted to handle something like this which was really in a lot of ways to say don't handle it and i believe there was there was one guy who you had previously respected who at some point and still respect by the way i still respect that okay so he pulled

you aside at one point and said lou you're getting into demonic shit here have you read your bible lately and you're looking at him as an intel guy whose job is national security going i'm sorry my bible right like do you understand why at home this seems wild to someone like me or a lot of people listening that like a religious belief is brother don't look now but when's the last time you pulled a dollar out of your pocket what's it saying there in god we trust yeah i mean look i hate to break it to you but you know a lot of a lot of our country was based on certain moral principles and and even religious values. That's a fact. There's a reason why we have a national cathedral, right, and things like that.

That's not a bad thing. This country is – it's okay to have faith in this country. In fact, I am a man of faith. I don't wear my religion on my sleeve and I'm very personal about it. People know when you read my book, I was raised Jewish. That's the way I was raised. I went to Hebrew school and war yarmulke. And on my father's side, they were Catholic.

So my mother's side, she chose to raise me Jewish. I don't have a problem with faith. In fact, I think faith is important. It gets people through a lot of things. What I have a problem with is when people overlay their faith on a national level security issue. Now, is it that strange that that happens? No, we have national prayers all the time that our presidents lead, right? So faith is important in our country. And I'm not blaming anybody if they believe that these things are demonic or they're anti-Christian. And by the way, I don't want to villainize the Christians either because it's's not a christian issue yeah neither am i by the way

yeah yeah no i got it but i guess i want to make clear that look extremism by any other word is still extremism whether it's muslim extremism christian extremism judaism extremism extremism is extremism we can all agree on that my and that's my concern It's when people that are in the government are exercising their views in a way that's unilateral without allowing other people to be part of that conversation. That is a problem for me. Now, I believe faith is great to have, and if impose our religious views in a decision process over other people who may not share that. Look, there's two – this is – I often try to explain to people there's really two types of truths in the world. Because people say, oh, there's only one truth. No, that's not true. There's actually two types of truths in the world. There is a universal truth like gravity, right?

It affects us all the same. And there's a personal truth. The personal truth is like religion or politics right it can be just as truthful to you as gravity but it might not be to him it's a personal truth and it may not be backed by the evidence and it might not might or might not be backed by the evidence and so we have to understand what we can't do is apply a personal truth in a universal decision a universal truth like gravity, yes. But you cannot, this is why, whether it's political or religious or anything else, a personal truth should never be

be used in a decision that affects more than yourself. And this, it's hard to do. It's hard to do because you think you're doing the right thing. You think everybody feels that way and everybody's like you, but they're not. And that's what we have to avoid. This is part of that human experience again, right? Yes. We're looking through a lens that say, well, this is my personal truth and it's a universal truth. Is it really though?

It's a personal truth, but is it really a universal truth? And if it's not, then maybe you should try to remove that personal truth out of the equation and just stick to the universal truths. But that's hard to do because a lot of people don't even know the difference. Look, I don't care if you're liberal or conservative or anywhere in between. People have their opinions. And man, there are people that really believe in their opinions. They're willing to do extreme stuff because their personal truth they think is a universal truth. Man, and they do things that don't think for one second somebody who hate to be crude here but burns himself alive in protest that's that's a universal truth for them even though for us it may be a personal truth i mean they are willing to give their

lives for it right right um so we have to understand that um and in in governments so different religions are different you know a personal truth becomes a universal truth. There's a reason why ISIS felt the way they did because, you know, they think, well, the whole world needs to be the way this is universal truth. And I'm not bashing on anybody who's Muslim. Most of my friends were Muslim in college. But extremism, again, is extremism. Whether it's Muslim extremism, Christian extremism, Judaism, you know. Doesn't matter what it is.

Extremism, that's right. It doesn't matter what it is. And then you have governmental extremism whether it's muslim extremism christian extremism judas you know extremism that's right it doesn't matter what it is and then you have governmental extremism and that's also a problem how much did they impact how much was that a constant thorn in your side with as it pertains to actions that could or could not be taken by a tip you know what there was some people i won't say the person's name there was another individual that was part of the uh under secretary of defense for intelligence who's very well known very vocal about his personal views religious views and he made decisions based off of it um you know i again it's one of those things it didn't it didn't affect us other than maybe for funding um but i did not feel day-to-day that there was this pressure by them.

It was, we got up to a certain point, they kind of said, stop here. I'm like, whoa, okay. And we didn't, we didn't stop. So, you know, other than a curiosity of saying, wow, that's interesting. I actually came face-to-face with one of these guys. It did not, I don't think it really impacted.

Uh, now there's other people they said that will probably violently disagree. Like, oh man, these are the ones, these are the guys that created such a headache for us. And they did, they did. They, I mean, I think that story will probably come out at some point. They, they did make our life hell for a while,

ironically enough. Right. But, um, it, uh, it, it didn't, it didn't affect me that much personally well one of the arguments a lot of people who may be purely on the religious side make is that you know they'll point to the fact that we have no physical evidence of this stuff it just leaves a mark so it's a demonic creature and you know look a little bit of kiss 10 15 it'll tell you that's why that hole's right there in in the wheat field or whatever but you but isn't religion itself what what facts are they basing it in other than scripture i mean religion self-taught faith exactly right religion itself is belief in the supernatural whether you like it or not yes and it's not a bad thing it's just

it is and so there's no evidence that you have right now. It's a story that someone written down and you decide to accept it as truth. But, and by the way, that's a personal truth, right? That you feel is a universal truth. But at the end of the day, you don't have evidence. You weren't there. You didn't see the parting of the waters. You didn't see the miracles and the water into wine. You weren't there.

Agreed entirely. And to your point that you brought up early in the conversation, it can exist the other side of this with a religion and ufos or something saying like oh were you there in virginia in 96 that's right you know what i mean that's right so which by the way can i could you make a really good point here which is i think is something i've never really addressed if we're not careful with this uap topic if it hasn't already started to it could become a religion and we need to avoid that. Oh, it has started. I hope not. Because that is not the intent of these conversations and it should not be. It should not be a religion. And I am concerned that in 20, 30, 40 years,

100 years, 200 years from now, it could very well be a religion and it should not be a religion. Yeah, Lou, I think it already has become that way. And I think you're actually a, I guess, like unwitting guinea pig with that, unfortunately. Because again, you talked about being the messenger with, you know, just delivering a message here. And there's people who view that as prophetic. On the other end of it, there's people that also view that as whatever the opposite is, like the devil. So when I look at you, this is a good time to go into this to really address like head on where you're coming from. In the past, episode 151, I had Ron James in here who's talked with you before for his documentary.

And then episode 179, I had a Nick Pope. I think like three hours into Nick Pope's, we talked about yours. Nick is another guy who comes from government or whatever. And in these conversations and in some others, a point where I've been critical of you is based on the words that you've said yourself in the past and actually said to me before we were on air today, which is that this is a fact. Like you are an intel guy. So I always joke and go, all right. I am. I'm like, all right, Fed. Like what do we got right here?

But online, you see two things you either see people who are like no he's been sent by god you know not literally god himself to deliver the great word of uap and then you have people on the other side who are going who are like you know abolish every three-letter agency this is our scumbag fed coming out here and doing whatever i was more in the middle in the sense that i'm like okay maybe he just really is a part of an op and he's read in on things that i'm not so maybe there's a good reason for that but i don't fucking know so my job is not to sit here therefore and believe what he says because again he's worked in the government and you know it could be like if this is a topic i'm interested in like i am in UFOs, UAPs, he may be saying things that are not true maybe for a good reason, maybe for a bad reason too.

Maybe you're a bad guy, Lou, but like I don't know this. Now, I see three doors with you. I'm going to – maybe there's like five, but we're going to put it down to three. Number one is let's call it like the Stephen Green Street door. He's completely full of shit. He's making it all up. There's no record of anything. And I disagree with Stephen on some of the evidence that he's on, that he's uncovered there, but he's like kind of the heel to it, right? He's the opposite. The second door is you're either mostly telling the truth or like almost all the

truth. Maybe there's some things that, you know, you reviewed the evidence and you got it wrong, but like you're out here and you're actually giving all the information and it's in a purely kind of benevolent way, like you've said, where you feel like you have a moral duty to tell people things that they have a right to know, that humanity has a right to know to say nothing of the United States of America's citizens. The third door is it's a mix. And the third door could be that it's like, you know, and this is a strong word to use but it could be like some sort of psyop where let me just paint a picture here you guys on the back end you know a 22 year intelligence veteran if you're still in a 29 year intelligence veteran

you have access to such crazy information that you have been able to simulate how society may handle this information if it was given to them to the point that you are been able to simulate how society may handle this information if it was given to them to the point that you are able to see using all your great tools back there that like, oh, this could cause ontological shock or an existential crisis if we just dump this on people. Therefore, someone like a Lou Elizondo, someone like a Chris Mellon, someone like a David Grush could be sent out there to reveal some truths in the midst of other stuff that might not be true or more more likely revealing truths to make it sound really important when when in reality the crazier shit is over here and you want to i don't know limited hangout get people away to

focus on this so when you look at these three doors obviously the first one you're going to disagree with which is that you know oh lose full full of his career wasn't real but when you look at the other two doors could you see why people might make the argument on door three there i can see why people see all three doors that's that's and there's more doors than that i mean i can i can tell you the door that i that i but i think i'm in okay you know let's hear that but it's it's it's a little different um first of all let me put cards on the table. If you ask me to choose between national security and disclosure, like real national security, I will always choose national security. I've never made any bones about it.

I love my country and I will protect and defend this country. Period. Full stop. Secondly, I want government accountability. That's what I want government accountability. That's what I want, whether it's with this topic or another topic. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. I am very concerned, and it's probably because of my old generation, based upon the previous studies,

that some people can find this information disruptive. What we call catastrophic disclosure. I don't want that. I want constructive disclosure. I want to tell the American people, let them have whatever they can have legally up to that point that they can't have it anymore. But that's not my decision to make. All I can do is continue to try to push for it. Ultimately, it's the government's decision to do that. And I won't override the government. I won't do it. I've made it very, very clear. I am not trying to hurt or disrupt our government. I'm trying to help it. It's backed itself into a corner for 70 years plus, potentially for decades.

And now we're at a point that people have the lowest level of faith and confidence in our government and our institutions. Why? Because we haven't been honest with the American people. Oh, the Pentagon never lies, right? Unless you talk about the Pentagon papers, unless you talk about,

you know, Iran Contra, unless you talk about the Afghanistan withdrawal. I mean, we, we haven't been, and our government has done some terrible things to people in the past. Look,

look at the syphilis experiments. I mean, we let people die, man. I mean, that's – die. Government killing people? It would never happen. But this is a topic, I think, where I always believe that America can handle the truth. I think America deserves the truth. And I think there's a right and wrong way to have the conversation. And I want us to have a conversation, like I said, both from a national security perspective. But then there's the other part of the conversation that affects everybody differently and yet equally, right? Whether it's philosophically or psychologically or sociologically or even theologically. My hope is that the American people

can have the conversation for themselves and at that point, make the decision what it means to you. And if at the end of the day, you guys say, yeah, great, meh, we'll get a Big Mac. Fine, but at least you had the opportunity to have that conversation, right? Then you make that decision for yourself.

And at that day, I will work at Walmart. I'm cool. No sweat. Done. But at least be able to have the conversation. That's what I want to see happen. That is the door I am in. And yes, I am still very loyal. Yes, I will still defend my country and work for my government if asked to and when asked to. But's not either or it's like oh well since he does that he must be not for the people that's bullshit man that's that's that's that's a that is a that is a you we are creating a a fake narrative we're creating a binary solution that's this is not a binary thing it's not either or either you you're loyal to the government or you're loyal to the American people. It shouldn't be that way.

You should be able to be loyal to both. That's what you should be. And it can be that way. And that's what it used to be. And that's what it should be again. Because remember, government for the people by the people. It's not this big monolithic thing there that, oh, there's government and then there's a people.

Because if that's the case, I mean, we're lost. We're done. This is then, you know what? Forget society. We'll go move to Canada or something because that's not the way our government was supposed to be people died in wars we fought revolutions so we could have that power so the people made the decisions and you have a representative government that are interested in in the in the interest in the will of the people. This is my, we are going to lose the whole thing if we don't recognize that.

It'll be gone. And then everything that everybody's doing is going to be a waste. This is my concern. And I know what revolution is because my family came from it. And people don't realize that. And all these little nitnoids out there

in the Twitter sphere who, armchair quarterbacks who've never served their country, never served a day in their life doing anything other than being selfish and doing something for themselves, have no freaking clue what's actually going on. And they create drama. They're not interested in the drama. They manufacture the drama. They're actually out there wanting the drama. And then they watch how it goes down. Oh, look, look, I made an impact. made a comment you know that is that is not my focus that's why i don't deal with it i don't care about it my focus is on this type of conversation this is a national level conversation by the way it's not just with uap you can see it right now

look at the two people we have that are that are that are vying for president okay yeah now i'm not gonna say bad or good about either one but let me ask you this is there anybody else probably maybe kind of sort of literally everybody qualified yeah right is that really really really america's best no you know or are we just uh well you know what i'll go ahead and ahead and compromise with that person because that one over there I hate just a little bit more. Right. And so – and we see this all the time. And then we see the act of pitting against each other.

There are people out there that are these agent provocateurs that thrive off of it. Wouldn't it be great – Like online you're saying? Everywhere, even the media, mainstream media. Wouldn't it be great if a president candidate came out and said, you know what? I'm not going to say anything bad about my my uh opponent in fact my opponent probably make a damn good president but let me tell you where we differ this is my perspective on how we should fix things and then the other person well this is how i think we should fix it imagine that that'd be nice

instead of just throwing and he said she said he said she said which is all it is which is all it is that's all it is and it's to the point where we think it's normal now. It's like a Super Bowl. My team versus your team. It's not a Super Bowl, man. This is life. This is our country. It's not us versus you.

We're all in this shit together, man. And so forgive me for being emotional about this, but this is what drives me. And when people try to put in a false narrative or try to you know well luth must think this or lou must think that you know what think for yourself don't don't worry about what lou thinks it doesn't matter what lou thinks what matters is the facts and the details and then make your decision for yourself don't be lazy do your research right understand what's actually happening here and and don't expect some person to give you a sound bite because now we watch the media not only do we want to know the news but we want to know we want to

know even what to feel about it right so what do we do we turn into our little echo chamber depending on what side of the aisle we're on politically and we watch our shows and we're not willing to watch oh i don't like them they're biased hey don't look now dummy so are you you know how about expand your horizons and look at other sources of information and start thinking for yourself that is what this country used to be there used to be a point where you could get on the news you had no idea the political affiliation of any of the reporters because it was just the facts that was a nicer world i got walter cronkite up in the corner up there because that was a better world to live in. Well, that was an honest world to live in, even when we were doing dishonest things,

right? And this is my concern. This is my concern with where we are now as a country. Hey guys, if you haven't already, please be sure to share around this episode on social media and with your friends, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit. It's all a huge help. And I appreciate all of you who have been doing that each week. And this is why it frustrates me so bad because ultimately at the end of the day, my focus is not the UFO community. It never has been. It's on the other 99.9% of the population that's never even considered this topic seriously. That's my focus. And through this, maybe we can have a bigger conversation about what? Accountability, transparency, and anti-corruption. That's really what I'm hoping to pursue here.

This is why this topic – this is just one example. It's a big one, a really big one. But this is just one example of things, that we're living in a country now where people – it's devolved to such a point of he said, she said, and shit that these are the presidential candidates we have to choose from and it's a giant reality show. Just at a high level, one example right there to say sitting in serious rooms like skiffs that have seen all the worst shit that this world has to offer and know things through the literal job description of your jobs that we'll never know or maybe we'll find out 100 years from now when it gets declassified i can see how psychologically there's this boundary that forms where suddenly you guys in your group think in this scenario are like look we actually know what's going on here and we're going to save the people from themselves because they have no idea 100 there are people and this is this is one of the things i explored because there are people this is why people i'm so glad you brought this up.

You could not be more accurate. There are people now who want disclosure and they want their pound of flesh. All these people that are part of legacy efforts, put them in front of a court and put them all in jail for lying to the American people. I don't think that's the way to do it. I think what we do is we incentivize them. We give them an award, give them a promotion, say, hey, listen, great. Thank you for your interest in national security. Good job. Now's the time to have a conversation. I think that most of these people that kept this so secret for so long actually believed in their heart they were doing it for the right reason.

I think there were people out there who actually felt, look, we already had studies done. We know that the American population can't take this right now. They cannot process this information. They're too worried about Russians and nukes and all this other stuff. We're not going to put that as a priority right now. And by the way, no use having this conversation with the American people because we still have no idea where they're from or what they want or how it works or anything like that. Right. We're just now scratching the surface.

So it's just like when we were flying the U-2 over Russia and Russia never, ever, ever made an issue. We flew it in contravention of an actual treaty with them that we would not fly manned reconnaissance missions over mainland Russia. And what do we do? We built the U-2 with the CIA and Lockheed Martin Skunk Works and we start flying them and the Russians never reacted. So we thought, hey, the plane flies too high and too fast, they can't detect it. The Russians were tracking every single flight from day one. The only reason why they didn't make an issue of it is why? Because they didn't have a capability to neutralize it. And it wasn't until they were able to actually successfully shoot one down with an SA-2

surface-to-air missile did they tell the world the reality, hey, look what America is doing, right? So why admit a problem for which there is no solution? I can understand from a national security perspective, people in our own government having that same mindset. Why are we going to acknowledge a problem which we don't even understand yet? I get that. I don't agree with it, but I can respect that understanding.

I can respect that mindset. And in their hearts, they feel like they really are doing their patriotic duty. So from that perspective, I get it. And back to what you just said to me a bunch of guys sitting around and skiffing saying hey you know these morons can't handle it i'm not saying that's their attitude i'm saying it comes it like it's like a passive feeling that comes in like oh my god if only these people knew you know what i mean but that's every day in the

intelligence world brother i mean that's listen there's i don't sleep all at night because of crap i've learned and it has nothing to do with the uap community i mean i, listen, there's, I don't sleep all at night because of crap I've learned. And it has nothing to do with the UAP community. I mean, I'm telling you, there's, that's the cost of information. People say, well, I want to know. But, you know, you go to the doctor and doctor says, hey, listen, before we talk, you want me to be truthful with you, everything,

right, on your, yeah, I want my, tell me about my medical regime. You sure you want me to be truthful with you? Yeah, I want you to be truthful with me. You have stage four cancer. Oh, shit. I wish I want you to be truthful with me. You have stage four cancer. Oh, shit. I wish you wouldn't have been truthful with me. You know?

I mean, I would have been better off not knowing that. Or going to a friend and saying, hey, listen, this fiance you have, yeah, yeah, great guy, great gal. Do you want to, I've got some information. Do you want me to share it with you? Yeah, yeah, let me know. You sure? Yeah, of course I want to know.'ve got some information. You want me to share with you? Yeah. Yeah. Let me know. You sure?

Yeah. Of course I want to know. They've been cheating on you the entire time. Oh, I didn't want to know. Right. So in intelligence is like that. You learn things all the time that, that, you know, probably would be better off not knowing, but it's your job.

And so that's not just with the UFO stuff. That's with a lot of things national security. There's a lot of things that would keep people up at night. Fortunately, we have really good people in the intelligence community that are professionals, and they can do their job, and their job is to stop the worst thing from happening. And most of the time, they're very successful with that. So if there was any type of consolation prize in this is that there are very very good

people very patriotic people who are who lose sleep every night so we don't have to yeah and that's why it's important that we don't villainize everybody in the government you know the moment so I worked into oh you're one of those all right look it was a job okay but we didn't do it to deceive anybody else. We were deceiving the enemy, not you, not the American people. We weren't the enemy, you know? Denial and deception and information operations and all those things. You know, you do it to fight and win wars.

You don't do it because you're bored. You don't do it because, you know, you're just, oh, let's go figure something out to go and be disruptive. That's not the way it works. And I think that's part of the problem we have in this conversation because, not our conversation, but in the bigger conversation, because there's such a lack of trust in the government now. This is why it's important now more than ever. We need to show good faith in the government. We have to do it.

Because right now- No, I thought you said, okay, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So you see in the context I'm trying to say here, right? So this is, again, why this accountability and transparency is so important. Now, at the end of the day, is there a better way to do it? Could be. Could be.

Could I be wrong in this approach? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. Yeah, I think people are always going to be skeptical because of the fact that we've seen such – as you laid out yourself with some examples – we've seen such a breakdown in the trust of institutions through some things that they have done wrong, which again, and this is unfortunate, but my friend Jared Dillian, who I had on the podcast for episode 182 or 183, he is a former Lehman Brothers guy. And he had this line in a memoir he wrote about Lehman Brothers is that,

he put it like this. He said, there were approximately 20,000 people who worked at Lehman Brothers. And I can tell you, 19,995 of them were really good at their jobs and tried very hard. That's right. Now, I always amend it to probably 19,970, but you get the point. It takes a very small turd in the punch bowl to ruin that punch bowl. Right. And that's why in government, especially, it's so important. This is my anti-corruption issue here because it just takes a few people in government to do bad things and the entire government looks like crap. And this is another concern because it's easy to blame the government. Oh, this government is big, you know, huge, monolithic.

No. Government's just made of people. And there are some good people, really good people in government, and there's a couple that are not so good. Not so good, right? And unfortunately, it kind of paints with a broad stroke the entire government. And so it's important we don't villainize the government. It's like a police officer. Yeah, there's a couple of dirty cops out there, but most of them are putting their life on the line to save your ass. And they're good people. They go home. They pay their bills. And they're putting their life on the line every day for you.

Same with our military. Same with our intelligence professionals. But it just takes one or two, and now you've got a corrupt police department. That's right. Now, look, if we're going to be fair and we're going to be assessing the morality and the actions of the government, we also have to look at the other side of this, which is something you outline in your book pretty well which is the the contract side the the private side so you learned through this program that companies i'm just going to name a couple here like lockheed and northrup had been in i'll just use my own term like in lockstepstep with previous UFO related things with the government to the point that you allege you saw evidence through the files you had access to, to show that companies

like a Lockheed, like a Northrop had been in charge of UFO crash retrievals and given so much authority by the government in this case as like a hand-in-hand military industrial complex, I guess, in a way such that the evidence recovered from these were in places that you had no idea about in the government and couldn't ever access yourself. Therefore, it's pretty much all on the private side for them to potentially reverse engineer things that you, the government, wouldn't even know about. That was kind of an issue, no? Yeah, it was. Let's look at a real case scenario here.

Let's look at the Apollo missions, okay, and the early days of the U.S. government's space race and race to the moon. It was about 10 years. It's when Kennedy said, we're going to put a person on the moon and not because it's easy, but because it's hard, et cetera, et cetera. And that was in 1969. We successfully landed somebody on the moon and not because it's easy because it's hard etc etc and that was in 1969 we successfully landed somebody on the moon that was a 10-year endeavor now we had to invent everything from scratch to do that no one had been to really space before no one ever been certainly to another celestial body and nobody knew what it was even like and how to do it and how to get there and what was involved with technologies. And so we had about nine to 10 years to figure it out, maybe a little less.

As a result of that, over, and think about this, 6,200 industries and products were invented and created to do that. So for example, things like the LED light bulb, Velcro, right? The CAT scan. These are technologies, in some cases, that have changed humanity forever, have benefited our well-being, all because of a space race and a competition for a little less than a decade with a foreign adversary, right? These technologies have long outlived the initial purpose for which they were created, right? Imagine a company that has access to material or technology

and without fair competition, able to do things and make money based upon that. Now, I'm not against capitalism at all. Capitalism works. It's fantastic. As long as we all play by the same rules, right? Capitalism doesn't work when one company gets an unfair advantage over another. And therein lies part of the problem. Because if you have material that was in the possession of the government and says, okay, you can use this to analyze it for us, that doesn't mean you can just turn around and start making profit off of it and creating stuff that we don't agree for you to make. That property belongs to the American people. It belongs to the government, not you. Let's make that clear up front. You don't own that property unless we sell it to you, right?

And so therein lies part of the problem. Also, you have legal consequences. So let's, for example, say, here we go. Company. Oh, that's a little full. I won't do that. There we go. We got this and we got this. Company A and Company B on the government, right? And I find something interesting in the desert.

And I say, hey, uh, Company A, I want you to go ahead and analyze that for me. Okay. Company B, don't worry about that. You just, just go over here and do your thing. 10 years later, what happens? Company A, don't worry about that. You just go over here and do your thing. Ten years later, what happens? Company A becomes a multi-billion dollar

aerospace company. Company B, what happens? Well, they went bankrupt. 200 jobs were lost and the investors who had that money in there,

gone, right? What just happened? Well, the U.S. government gave an unfair advantage to company A instead of company B. Right.

They make the money. They make the profit. Now, there are actual rules and laws and regulations like SEC violations that if I do that and this company goes bankrupt, now there's a real legal liability on my part because I broke the law. I did something that I wasn't allowed to do. As the government? As the government, yeah, because I gave an unfair advantage to one company over another.

Right? There's rules and mechanisms to do gave an unfair advantage to one company over another, right? There's rules and mechanisms to do stuff. I want to give company A material. There's rules and procedures to do that. I can't just go and give it to them. There are, unless they are a prime contractor and they have these avenues that are taken care of and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. There are laws against being able to give these unfair advantages. Because why? There is money behind it.

We're in a capitalist world. People invested in company B because they thought they were going to be a company that has the same type of potential as company A. But we didn't know that there was an unfair relationship between a couple of people in the government and company A. So here, we're going to slide that to you, right? It's like all these sweetheart deals where you're paying $22,000 for a toilet seat for an airplane.

Yeah. Right? I mean, what? Well, how does that happen? Well, it happens because someone in the government has a sweetheart deal with somebody here and they get away with it. Right? So we gave, are you saying, and maybe I'm taking this a little too far, but are you

saying we gave sweetheart deals to certain companies as it pertains to say UFO crash retrievals and we had now created a beast that we cannot tame? It appears that may very well be the case. That may be one of the issues that we're dealing with. And if that's the case, okay, well, there's real legal consequences. How do we fix this without, you know, do you give them amnesty? I think you do. People are going to say, oh, you can't do that.

Well, listen, do you want the truth or not? What's the cost of it? You know, there's examples where we do this truth and reconciliation. We did it in Rwanda. We've done it with other countries where we, we say, look, a lot of bad things were done on both sides. We're willing to forgive all of it. If we can, if we can reconcile and if we can, we can move forward together towards the truth. And I think that's the way we do it. This is why I said, we don't villainize those who are part of these efforts. I know it's easy. People want to do that and they want their pound of flesh. And I say, no. Yeah. But, but, but the company on that

end, I want to stick with your example here, company a, if they became a multi-billion dollar, whatever the government making that mistake is not their fault. They just reap the benefit of it. So what incentive do they have to come to the table? Like what can the government legally say to them? You, you allowed them to do it. Well, this is part of the eminent domain conversation isn't it yeah it is which is by the way i'm not going to get into this very controversial but look the government has the right through eminent domain to do whatever the hell it wants if you got some and it's better and it's in in the interest of national security or national interest we'll buy your house we'll put a highway right through it we'll do whatever we need to do. Make no mistake. We will absolutely do it, right? The same holds true with this.

The problem is the government's been saying no for so long. It doesn't exist. They don't want it back. They're like, no, I don't want it. You keep it. You figure out. I don't want nothing to do with that. So it's a double-edged sword. This is a very, it's actually a great conversation because it kind of highlights some of the complexities we're dealing with. You know, people just say, well, I just want the truth. Well, but it's not that simple. It's not just, okay, here's the truth because the consequences of that, how you get the truth can make or break something. And there are people there that don't want that to happen. Well, a huge problem with the truth that people have with anything involving

the phenomenon is that, as Michio Kaku says, we have no physical evidence, you know, steal a pen, for God's sake, steal something. Do you believe in God? Well, I believe in the God of Einstein. He believed in God, but not the God that intervenes in human affairs. It was the god of order, the god of simplicity and elegance. Einstein was asked the question, did the universe have a choice? Is it unique? So universes, you can create universes in an afternoon, but most of them are unstable. Most of them fall apart. Most of them don't work. Our universe is stable. It works. Everything fits together. And then the question is what set off the bang that's what we do for a living we have the big bang theory up to the point where the

universe is going to explode why did it explode we think it was a quantum event and we are here because we are in the universe which decided to explode so einstein said was it all an accident and he thought no it could not have been an accident you know and like i hear him because you know like i i had jesse i just recorded with jesse michaels that's gonna be coming out one or two episodes after you but like he talked about like the bovine that he saw and showed it with gary nolan the jock filet had brought to him so like maybe there's something physical there but like it's not like we have when David Grush

came out who was able to like remove the curtains and say here's the UFO we recovered in 1933 and it's the same thing with you you're out here saying I've seen the evidence written up in papers and I think you're also saying like maybe you've seen some physical

evidence too but like can you understand why skeptics out there are saying well this is religious as well yeah if we don't have physical evidence yeah am I responsible first of all we do have physical evidence it's just you don't see it because with the government and it's or with the private companies with the private or the private companies right who work for the government by the way right so allegedly yeah or should anyway right uh and uh and you're right you should don't i'm not asking you to believe me your government's already told you that you had a former director of national intelligence radcliffe former director of the cia brennan you had a former president united states you had a president just now a week and a half ago

the former president said hey if i get elected i'm going to release the ufo files because the guy asked him what you're doing he said yeah i'll do it and by the way i tried to do it before but i got a lot of flack for doing it i mean do it did well nobody did you hear that what he says he says i tried to do it before but i got a lot of resistance wait a minute do you know what that means that's acknowledged that's saying yes i've been briefed to it. I want to do it. But someone is telling me no. So, you know, don't believe Lou Elizondo. Don't listen to Lou Elizondo. I don't give a shit.

Do your research, man. Don't be lazy. Get out there and be proactive. Read what's out there. Read what people are saying. People in authority who are telling you this. Forget Lou Elizondo. You know, it's there yeah it's there you don't you don't you don't need it from me all you need from me is maybe a little bit of my

background and you know xyz but there's already data there there's already data there you've already had an acknowledgement by the u.s government in many ways of the reality of this topic you've already had these reports to conjure they said look every time we go and try to figure these things out we have more not less right government said oh we have complete air domain awareness over our country what happens we start recalibrating our radars to look for UAP boom surveillance satellite from China I'm just wafting over northern continental United States right right? So if you look at the data, what the data is suggesting, that is all I'm asking people to do.

I'm not, and this is why I don't give my opinion. But what do you think, Lou? It doesn't matter what Lou thinks. What matters is what you think. Stop asking me that. Don't make me think for you because that is a, your ability to look at information objectively is sacred.

No one should be thinking for you. You should be thinking for you. And so my job is easy. Here's the facts and the data. You decide what you want to do with it. That is, that is really what this boils down to. Have you stood in front of a recovered UFO? I am, boy, I can talk about what's in the book because I got cleared for it so let me say this

I have had in my possession material that was allegedly recovered from a UFO who gave it to you I cannot say okay it was but I don't I have been told I was warned very very clearly this I'll share with you I was told several years ago that i could never talk about crash retrievals or material ever and i signed a paperwork for it right so that in itself is should be evidence for you but more importantly than that it's only been recently i'm allowed to talk about the one piece of material because it's in my book and it got cleared for okay so that's i have to be i have to honor that so so you understand, I'm not trying to be evasive. I just – I don't want to go to jail.

I hear you. So there is material that I've had access to that was clearly engineered. It was – we had one of the very best – I can't say which one. One of the very best aerospace companies and government contractors. Okay, so you can try to figure out who that was. Lockheed. Try to replicate. Try to replicate.

Sorry, I got something stuck in my throat. I'm not saying one way or the other. Tried to replicate that material. And at a cost of a million dollars, and it broke the machine, they were able to create this material at a macro level, a sandwich between one piece and another piece. This material, up to three years ago, I don't know about now, but three years ago, we could not replicate. We could not. We did not have the technology to manufacture it. When you look at this material and you found that, when we know for sure we've found it and where it was found.

Temporally, there's a problem because this material has obviously been engineered with a technology that at least we're pretty sure we don't have. Maybe the Russians, maybe the Chinese, sure. Back in the 1990s, 1940s, definitely not. That is equivalent to us as if you have a piece of material that says, hey, that's from 1940, whatever. And you look at it and you say, oh, wow, that's pretty interesting because we didn't have that technology. That's like going into, as I've said before, going into King Tut's tomb for the very first time as we've discovered it. And as you chisel away the plaster wall and you peek inside, you see a fully assembled 747 jet. It doesn't make sense.

They did not have the technology to do that back then. I don't care what you think, but there it is, right? So how to get in there. It's the same thing. It's the same issue we have here. If we don't even have the technology now, someone did. I mean, it's him from somewhere and when you look at the atomic so we go there's there's three levels of of of analysis and maybe that might be helpful if i explain it real good so um i find this okay um that makes noise by the way if you want to do

it and don't on the bottom on the bottom see the one but. See the one button? Ah. Now hit it. Okay. What the F? You've got to be kidding. Okay. Little known trick. So imagine being Da Vinci and walking in a desert in the 1600s and finding this, right? Yeah, it'd be trippy. Yeah. So it made of plastic and it talks.

It's magic, right? It's magic. So my point being, it's kind of in the same way. DaVinci would never expect something like this and would have no idea its use, right? And understand what a battery is and how this speaker works and the – it's magic. There are three types of analysis you would do. First of all, if I find this in the desert and I was – let's say I was DaVinci and I had the technology. First thing I'm going to do is I'm probably going to weigh it and I'm going to do a physical

analysis. I'm going to say, okay, it's hard. It's solid. It's made of some sort of plastic material. It weighs half a kilogram, roughly this dimension. It's not electric. It doesn't conduct electricity, but something inside does, blah, blah, blah, blah. If that's interesting enough, that'll warrant a chemical molecular analysis.

Now I want to see it. I know it's some chemical molecular analysis. Now I want to see, I know it's some hard solid surface, but I want to see the relationship between the molecules themselves. How are they arranged? What is their relationship with the other molecules in there? Well, I analyze this. It's got some copper in it. It's got some lithium. It's got some plastic polymer. It's got some aluminum in it, it right and if that's interesting enough then i say okay i'm going to spend the extra money i'm going to do a i'm going to do a atomic analysis at the nano level i want to see how the not the molecules but how the atoms are actually arranged because within the natural environment there's a variation of isotopes that we find here on this

planet and it turns out that they're natural. There are some that are not natural. And that's the reason why, speaking of King Tut's tomb, this is why it's kind of important. Because for decades, there was a little dagger that we found in King Tut's tomb that we just thought was a neat little dagger. It wasn't until we did the analysis on it that we realized it wasn't from Earth. The metal came from a meteorite and we know that and that's when all of a sudden became important like oh my gosh this is why they buried him with the dagger because this is made from meteorite it's not from earth right it's magical or whatever there's significance behind it you know that by doing looking at isotopic ratios at the atomic level

and how they are arranged and when you find that atoms are arranged with such a level of precision, that takes a lot of technology. It's really, really expensive, right? And the uses for that are fairly finite, at least from our own technological perspective. There's only so many reasons you would want to invest in making something with that level of accuracy. Remember, at a cost of a million bucks we were able to put two pieces together this is much much more complicated than that so that is why material analysis is so important that's why when you come across a piece of material that's been engineered and then you find out when it was recovered right that kind of changes you know you could say that

yeah maybe russia china has that ability now or has in the last five or ten years not decades ago and so that is part of the compelling evidence and now i'm not a material scientist but we had people that looked at it right there's people that that even to this day and age in the government are analyzing stuff i can't say who can't say where but they're interested in in analyzing this type of material and it's happening so i know i'm not i'm not scratching your itch specifically but i'm trying to have a conversation while getting around any issues that might get me in trouble because i can't be specific but i'm giving you an example of how you do analysis why it's important and what makes a piece of material so compelling that's what makes that material compelling. Yeah. It always fucks with my head thinking about this because you're assuming you have some,

whether it be a crazy advanced civilization or future humans, whatever it is, it's like these beings would have so much more understanding of whatever the physical world is than we do to the point that I've always said, like, wouldn't they be able to simulate everything ahead of time like wouldn't they be able to simulate a crash happening or something like that so that it wouldn't happen i mean you talk in your book about your conversations with hal putoff for example on roswell where he's he's got some fascinating thoughts there but he's like hey it was probably some sort of emp interference from our universe that fucked with the craft falling to earth and boom. Well, there were two of them and one of them we were then able to recover and then that fuck up these civilizations so much that we're able to even get evidence like that allegedly yeah so your argument is that you

know we're the monkeys on the ground it couldn't be things if they're those so advanced how are they allowed to be so vulnerable and susceptible right yeah okay so uh we are in a beautiful place here in hoboken and again i'll be respectful privacy, but I noticed this morning when I was getting up and walking outside the hotel, you had this beautiful view of the, of the Hudson. I mean, it's just gorgeous, just beautiful, beautiful. And, um, you know, it was only a few years ago that, um, you had a, uh, you had a, uh, what some call a miracle here. You had a commercial jet.

Yep. Sully. S jet. Yep, Sully. Sully, and crashed. You want to remind your audience what happened? So this was, it was a Tom Hanks movie later, but they took off from LaGuardia, went up into the sky as they were coming up. Sully Sullenberger, the captain, realized there were birds.

The birds came into the engine. Suddenly the plane failed, and Sully used unbelievable skills that he had acquired over 40-some years or something of flying. Was able to pull it back around right out here correctly as you point out on the Hudson in between Manhattan and Hoboken and basically land the plane perfectly such that it didn't crash on impact and split apart and saved everyone on the plane. Yeah, amazing. perfectly such that it didn't crash on impact and split apart and saved everyone on the plane yeah yeah amazing huh if you're a bird wouldn't you be asking the same question these humans are so advanced how can a dumb bird bring down a jet full of people and almost kill every single human being a bird that's a good parallel you just gave don't forget to tip your bartenders in your waitresses so so you think that that some of this is just straight up a mistake that because again maybe

we but let me counter argue that maybe we we are the separation and advancement of us to birds, which is quite large. Let's be honest. Maybe it's not nearly as large as it is with these civilizations. How can we even know that? Like you talk about in your book not knowing whether or not this is a threat but treating it as it could be and like maybe they're on the on the battlefield getting ready for battle right here and they've just been doing it for the last i don't know 80 years specifically or something like that because time is you know one second to them what is 80 80 years to us like you see where it gets a little convoluted and it gets beyond

what we can even like have a scope of intelligence well i do and this is why i think this type of conversation is so important because we you know we we are always we're putting ourselves always in that box of well you know anthropomorphic if there's so much advantage and i was a mistake remember we may be dealing something that is uniquely potentially not human at all right so um, and it's hard. It's hard to do that because we are innately human. How do you not think like a human if that's all we do, right? So it is. I can see how it gets fuzzy.

I can see how people get frustrated and they kind of go through these mental gymnastics of, okay, well, you know, there are millions of years ahead of us. Well, maybe not. Maybe they're not 10 years, 50 years ahead of us. You know, we have evolved more in the last 100 years technologically than we have in the last 100,000. So it's a logarithmic curve. That's right. And so is it possible that 100 years from now that we're going to have the exact same ability that they have? Maybe. Possible. Possible. They may not be millions. They may just be 100 years ahead of us. Or they could be from right here.

They're just, like I said, little beasties. We're at the point now where we're beginning to interact with them. They've been here all along, baby. We don't know. So we have to keep, and this is why I always tell people, in my opinion, which I don't like to do very often, we should keep all options on the table until they're not on the table. And are there people out there in the government that know more? Probably. Probably. Yeah. And they should come out there in the government that know more? Probably, probably.

And that's, they should come out. They should be able to talk to Congress. You know, that's what I'm trying to do is create an environment where ultimately the conversation can be had and people have the truth, whatever that truth is. Whatever that truth looks like, give the people the opportunity to have the truth

and have the conversation for themselves. And then I'm done, I'm out. Well, you're a veteran of this game having been in it for the last 16, 17 years, Give the people the opportunity to have the truth and have the conversation for themselves. And then I'm done. I'm out. Well, you're a veteran of this game having been in it for the last 16, 17 years, whatever it is, when you were first read in. And yet when you come into it, you're joining a guy like Hal Puthoff who's been read in at that point like 45 years. Oh, brother, don't think that that fact didn't weigh on me. Every single person there had more experience than me by a lot um but you're also you're you're there with like michael jordan like how do you even concept or conceive like you don't you don't compete with michael jordan you help michael

jordan when you're on the team and you come into the new team and you're with michael jordan scotty pippen you don't compete with them you support them that's That's what you do. You're Steve Kerr. I'm not even that. I'm the guy who's in the sidelines, you know, giving them towels. I'm the towel boy and the water boy. No, you don't. You know, and everybody has, I think, and I don't want to say everybody's a tool because people, you're a tool. But the reality is that I look at all of us as tools in toolbox.

And some of us are hammers. Some of us are wrenches. Some of us are screwdrivers. And you don't use a hammer to do a screwdriver's work. And you don't use a screwdriver to do a hammer's work, right? So we all have our own skills, just like you have yours. With your audience, I could never do your job. I'd fail miserably.

There are people in the government that have very specific niche capabilities. And when you can bring them all together, that's what makes a successful team. That's why you're a great producer. You're doing what you're doing here. And you've got the right people and the right audience. And it's a team effort. It's the same thing with AATIP. It's the same thing with anything in the government, whether it's special operations or anything else.

It is a team effort. It's a same thing with AATIP. It's the same thing with anything in the government, whether it's special operations or anything else. It is a team effort. It's a team that succeeds. And there is no I in team. In fact, I used to make a point when I talked to people about leadership because everybody in government for some reason thinks they're a leader and they think rank means something. No. I would never believe that. It's insane. Yeah.

And, you know, I usually tell people anybody who says that they're a leader probably isn't um because a real leader never says that they're what's understood doesn't need to be explained hundred percent and you know i i in government leaders should never say the words me mine or i it's always us we and ours right this is this is our team and we succeed together and this is my staff you know get the hell out of here it ain't your staff government It's always us, we, and ours, right? This is our team and we succeed together. And this is my staff, you know, get the hell out of here. It ain't your staff. Government people are paying for it, moron.

You know, you're a manager. You're not a leader. Big difference. You manage people. And by the way, there was a saying by somebody, a quote that I used to like where they say a manager will always say go. A leader says, let's go. And I would take that even a step further. A great leader says, I'll go first.

I'm through the door first. And those are the signs of leadership. And that is how you succeed, whether it's chasing UFOs or it's chasing bad guys or being a politician. You know, we are just so used to people in these positions of authority saying, me, mine, and I. You know? Yeah. And I'm the director and my staff and my administration. Well, hold on there, cowboy.

It ain't your administration. It's my administration. It's our administration. We're paying for it, right? You're just doing the job we asked you to do. That ain't your administration. That's the people's administration. But we're so accustomed to it.

We're so used to it that we just accept it now. And I reject it, man. I think this is part of our problem. And it's not just in the Department of Defense. It's not just in the CIA or in the intelligence community. It's the whole government now, man. And we are okay with it. Why? Why have we got so used to, so accustomed to that mindset that we just, not only do we not do anything about it, we agree with it?

Well, yeah, and I understand what you're saying. And also, like, you're a humble guy, but I don't think there's, from the outside, based on the story we've been given, which is what we can go off of. I don't think there's any evidence to not say you haven't had a clear leadership role, whether you like it or not in, in whatever this is, the disclosure movement or something like that. I mean, you're, you're one of the guys, this was a little hazy for me just to, so correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to be a leader in this, in this, in this conversation. conversation i wish i shouldn't be there should be no one more important than anybody else but you're one of the guys that's responsible or i think the leader that's responsible for like releasing the gimbal video getting getting getting those things sure i was one of the first guys out of the plane door

but you know i'm not i'm not the invasion force brother i'm I'm not. Who is? It shouldn't be anybody. It shouldn't be a who. That's my point to all this. There shouldn't be any one person in charge. And I think that's part of why we're succeeding now because this has been such a grassroots movement. It has really been something amazing. This is global, man. There are people all over the world, man, that are rallying for full disclosure.

And that's not because of me. I mean, they see, you know, me on a TV show or something like that. But I didn't make this happen. This is, I think this is a coalescing of people. Really, if I had to really give anybody credit, it's you guys. It's your generation. My generation spent the last 70 years screwing this topic up. You know, it's your generation that are saying you know what we want the truth you know what we got the internet you know so i think i think you guys you know my generation has done a good job of blaming you guys like it's oh you can't even social media why don't you know he's unstuck in social media and youtube look we my generation invented it right so who are we who's at fault here ain't't you. Us. I think we are where we are today in this conversation because your generation has decided not to allow the stigma and taboo that my generation imposed on this conversation. And you're just having a dialogue.

And that's really why we're having the conversation now. the tools that are at our disposal to be able to spread things around the internet such that when we get evidence like the 2004 Fravor videos, the Fleur video, or the 2009 Gimbal video, which involves some of our carrier ships and everything, like we can at least look at something physical on the screen and say, oh shit. Now you saw the 2004 video for the first time in 2009, I believe, right? Yeah, that was actually by Chad Underwood. It wasn't by Fravor. Fravor was there as an eyewitness, but the video was actually taken by that was actually by Chad Underwood. It wasn't by Fravor. Fravor was there as an eyewitness, but the video was actually taken by another aircraft afterward by Chad Underwood. Okay. And that one, again, showed the Tic Tac that was moving in ways that would match some of

the five observables. Correct. Wait a minute. What was the first time you saw that? Did you, I mean, you talk about being one of these gradual guys, like where you gradually start to- Oh, but I saw other videos. That's just one.

I mean, that's – there were some that were – I mean, there's one I really wish I could talk about. It was a 4K ultra high definition video. Anybody sees that video. And there's people in the Intel community that have seen it and they're just like, OK, yeah, that's a game changer. I mean, there's no doubt we're looking at that at that point. That is not ours. That's what frustrates me because the videos are there. There are people that are aware of it, a lot of people.

It's kind of a bad kept secret at this point. The problem is how that video was taken, where it was taken, under the circumstances is very classified. So it probably won't ever see the light of day convenient yeah no i'll tell you look honestly where it was i mean i looking at it i can say yeah that probably shouldn't come out um you know as compelling as it is because it is there's reasons to keep that that type that those there's a couple videos there well more than a couple that that really are sensitive um because of the circumstances of of the collection uh that we were doing um but there's

other videos that i think should come out i think you can scrub the metadata out of it so you don't have locational data um you know there's ways where you can um de-pixelate if you need to to allow something to be released and i'm for that As long as we don't give away sources and methods, I think we should be as open as possible. The more videos we can release, the better. And look, some of them might have prosaic explanations, which would be great, right? Okay. Case closed on that one. What about these other 10? What about these other 50? What about these other 100, right? Every time Arrow comes out with a report and they try to, and good on them, at least they're being honest with that they're like yeah we had 144 incidents that we couldn't figure out and then it became 300 then it became 600 then it became 800 right and the numbers keep going up why because the more we

look the more we realize they're out there man there's there's things that are going on that yeah that's that's not our technology we know that because we had no assets in the area at the time and you know if that's adversarial technology then we got a real problem because god forbid god forbid that this turns out to be adversarial technology because what would that mean that would mean for the last 70 plus years some foreign adversary has managed to engineer and deploy this capability over our sensitive military installations, over controlled airspace,

and has done so with complete anonymity. Now, where was China back in the 1950s? In the middle of a famine. Yeah. Where was Russia? I mean, yeah, right? There's no way. And so this goes back to that question,

what would that mean? Well, this would be the greatest intelligence failure this country has ever experienced, eclipsing that of even 9-11. Because despite the billions of dollars that we spend trying to keep a competitive technological advantage over our adversaries has been eclipsed by, again, order of magnitude by some sort of adversary. So that in itself is a problem people bring up as a counter-argument well what if it's for an adversary okay well if it is now we're in big trouble if it's from back then we're even bigger trouble but there's a third door here and i gotta play devil's

advocate on this and it doesn't by the way i know what you're saying i don't i don't think it there's so many different possible sightings of ufos and. I don't think this can explain everything to be clear. And I think mathematically – just to put my opinion out there so people know where I stand. I think mathematically from what we even know about the galaxy, there has to be intelligent life out there somewhere. Whether or not it's been here, we can have that debate. But I agree with you. I don't think it could be an adversary because they would have already fucking taken us at this point. That said, just in your program in the Pentagon, you had a situation where guys like you were on such a small team that people above you and below you didn't even know it existed. That's correct.

Okay. So who's to say that the same thing doesn't exist with, oh, I don't know, DARPA, where there's such a limited number of people who are read in on the fact that that physical world that we have as our current laws of physics, yeah, we had that figured out after we paper clipped everyone in 45. You know what I mean? Well, let me just say, I hope that's the case. I would love that to be the case because then I can sleep a lot better at night. Lou sleeps better at night.

The Nazis helped us. Well, my point being is that we have the technological advantage right i that that this would be some sort of blue force technology um unfortunately i would not be able to discuss at all what capabilities we might or might not have uh regarding any type of exotic technologies look we got a lot of cool toys if you even knew about it though even if i if whether i knew about or not, I cannot confirm or deny anything regarding any type of blue force capability. What I can simply say is what we don't have. But I can't say what we have.

I mean let me see if I can be more explicit with this. I cannot tell you what we might have. And again, and I'll take that a step farther for you i'll say probably mathematically statistically you also as much as you may know there's a lot of stuff that you and anyone else on your team and on other secret teams in the government don't know about each other too absolutely we we ran into that all the time yeah absolutely absolutely but the problem is someone needs to be the belly button that's why what 9-11 happened. Remember? Because the CIA had information. FBI had information.

DOD had information. Well, it's useless if you don't have somebody coordinating it. That's right. That's a problem. So, yes, if these other organizations existed, which looks like some did, then there needed to be a single belly button, and there wasn't. And what does that mean? That means that leads to waste of money, an uncoordinated effort, which is, again, what is it? That's a dysfunction of the government.

So that needs to be fixed. That's the bureaucracy I was telling you about, the issue with the bureaucracy. And also, therefore, if the bureaucracy is set up so that everything's in cells, it makes it even more difficult to get through the various chains of commands, the need or the urgency to do certain things where you know the information and yet people above you who are assigned to make the decision don't. So I don't think there's any better example of this than what you allege in the book, which is that you had this thing called Operation Interloper, where you wanted to basically set up a fucking, you know, master honey trap on involving one of your carriers out in the sea where a lot of transmedium UFOs are allegedly spotted. To basically set up this enormous nuclear situation to try to draw into the mother load, if you will, whoever these beings are, to come to the ship.

And you were going to use some sort of impetus to like clap them and collect the evidence. And in the end, the government, you know, through the chain of command, they said, you can't do this. Yeah. So you're referring to the issue of compartmentalization and you compartmentalize information because it's so sensitive. You want to risk any type of compromise to it, right? So you say, this is really, really so XYZ XYZ the problem is if it's overly compartmentalize the information that ever gets to the person needs to get to in the first place and I'd like to quote real quick for an Olaipa you're talking about it by the way Jay was very helpful with that he was really one of his master right yeah he was one of his his masterminds him

and we put this together but he really he did a good job it's a shame it didn't it didn't get approved because it was really it was phenomenal he really did most of the heavy lifting on that um so i'd like to quote from my my friend chris mellon um chris mellon is a from the melon family the famous melon family so i think carnegie mell. So I think Carnegie Mellon, uh, yeah. Think of a Mellon bank, Mellon university, right? Gulf oil. Uh, he's an incredible human being though. And he was, uh, he was a senior staffer for, uh, Bill Cohen, Senator Bill Cohen. And then later when Bill Cohen became the secretary of defense, he brought him with him to the Pentagon and became the,

one of the senior most intelligence officials in, in the department of defense. And Chris always reminds me, even when I don't want to be reminded because he's absolutely right. He says, we didn't win the Cold War because we kept better secrets. The Russians did. We won the Cold War because we knew how to move information more efficiently than the Russians. And he's absolutely correct. what does he mean by that well classified information if i collect information on xyz and you're the guy who needs that information to do something with it i have a way to get that information to you very quickly and if you've got a colleague over there that needs that information

maybe parts x and z you know then how to get that information to him very quickly right so we start moving information very fast to actually do something with it. Actionable, right? You don't just keep a secret for the sake of keeping a secret because if it doesn't get to who it needs to get to, then it's useless. You're wasting your time and your money. Secret information is only valuable because you can do something with it when you need to, right? And this goes kind of through the conversation I've always said about secrets. Secrets, a lot of people think are like a fine wine where the longer you keep a cork on it, the better it gets. And I disagree. I've always told people, I think secrets have a shelf life. They're perishable. They're like vegetables in the refrigerator. And the longer

you leave them in the refrigerator, at some point they're going to start to rot and they're going to stink. And then you're going to have a bigger mess on your hands to clean up and so secrets are only as good um for the time that you need them and to get them to the people who need it the information otherwise you're wasting your time and your money there's no there's no reason to have classified information or collect intelligence if you're not gonna do anything with it so that is part of my with this with the ATIP conversation, you need to have a single belly button. And this is why Arrow was such a I think such a pivotal moment for us for disclosure, because now the government's recognizing, yes, we need a single belly button. Now, can they do a better job? I think we all agree they can do a lot of their job, but they're getting there.

I think I think hopefully with this new director, we might start seeing some new focus. So I'm very optimistic about that. But with something like Interloper, it was not in a place it needed to be, obviously. Correct. Because you couldn't do it. Correct. The right people in the chain of command didn't know what was going on. And you can't talk about –

You couldn't say UFOs. Yeah, but I'm saying for the actual planned event you were doing, correct me if I'm wrong here, it's classified information exactly how you were going to. I can't discuss exactly. Correct. I can't discuss the methodology. I could probably go back to the Pentagon and request permission. Maybe I should. Yeah, let's do that.

Let's get them on the phone. Yeah. Dial them up. You got to go through DOPSR. It's a little more complicated. It took my book almost a year to get through that process. Let's get them on the phone. Dial them up, man. You got to go through a DOPSER. It's a little more complicated. It took my book almost a year to get through that process. It was like birthing an elephant. And still then, they still redacted information, believe it or not.

Yeah, a little bit. I tried like hell, man, to keep that. I wanted the whole thing to go through. It wasn't much, though. Yeah, I know. A couple of names. Well, no, there was a significant – And then there were a couple of pages.

Yeah, exactly, which is a shame. Wait, did they shorten that that meaning like was it way more like it would black out like 15 lines but was it really like you know 1500 no it was 15 lines I made it exactly I wanted everybody to see exactly the portion they didn't want you to see I did that on purpose all right I want that's full transparency right I can't sit here and scream about what government transparency if I'm not gonna be transparent right so what you see is what you get that book was put in and what you see in those black lines is exactly the paragraph or the line or the names he did not want released and i said okay you know i'm not gonna i'm not gonna leak information yeah it wasn't it wasn't in my opinion

as someone has just like a person reading i didn't i didn't think it was like that much there was there was one there i really wish they would have left in because it would have been an eye-opener. But I can't. Yeah. It was really – You're going to blue ball me like that? I'm sorry, man. It's not remote viewing stuff, is it? No, no, no.

It's a particular UAP incident that really was – would have definitely been another gold standard. But they didn't want me talking about it. All right. Let's see if we can get it later. But the remote viewing thing is actually on that note interesting because you're making a big claim in there. You are also explaining within your book that you did some remote viewing yourself. Like when you found out this was a thing with Project Stargate, which allegedly had been shut down and all that with guys like joe mcmonacle and for people out there obviously remote viewing is the ability to be able to see things that are happening in another place at another time because you access what is that thing called again the pc in your brain the oh that's yeah

the the quadrate putamen no but that's uh yeah am i mixing up gary nolan's yeah yeah yeah okay that's okay okay but either way like you're able to do some wild shit and there's also something about a lot of the people who are able to do this have some sort of blood that ties back to cherokee nation yeah that was some of the the analysis that was done by by the medical professionals and let me also state for the record i never thought i was really good at remote viewing i think remote viewing is frankly it's a vestigial capability i think most human beings can do it actually quite easily um i always say look you know you're out of town. You call your significant other because you have this urge to call them. And they're like, oh, my God, I was just thinking of you, right? I am – my own – which I don't like to do, but my own personal belief is that this is – it's nothing, anything woo-woo.

It's just based in science, probably quantum mechanics. A lot of scientists now, neurosurgeons and neuroscientists believe that human consciousness when they say consciousness i don't mean like the weird you know world is about the blossom i'm talking about the the cognitive ability of the human being outside of necessarily intelligence what what makes you you right not your body and not even your intelligence it's there's something else that's uniquely you and that's what we're calling consciousness that some neuroscientists are speculating it may be actually a form of quantum entanglement that occurs in the brain

and that is what is that is where that that lies that that that self-identity that that sentience if you will um it's possible that if that's a case, that remote viewing is something we've always had for a very long time. Before we had the language skills that we have now and the ability to verbally communicate simultaneously in a language all around the world, we didn't have that before. We were living in tiny little villages and caves and whatnot. So when you came across another human being, there probably wasn't much of a spoken language and there probably wasn't much ability to communicate. So you had to be able to identify if something is a threatening or not. It's kind of like when two dogs walk into a room, when they first walk into a room, there's some sort of nonverbal communication that is

occurring. And it's quite possible that this is nothing more than a vestigial capability left over when humans were much more basic and maybe relied upon it for survival you know this was a a survival mechanism you know is that friend or foe you know am i going to be eaten or is he going to help me catch a tiger so um the problem is that you know we always like to put labels on things you know and i used to give a a little presentation where i would i would kind of highlight that i'd say look, look, what is your definition of when I say parachute, for example, and I'd show a picture of a parachute. And I'd say, para comes from the truncated Latin prefix, meaning above or beside. And so when you say parachute, you think of a thing that shoots over your head

and helps you hit the ground with hopefully a thump and not a thud. And then I say, what does the word paramedic mean to you and then you know people say what first responders and a medic you know that's helping you and then i usually ask people what about paranormal and then people will see you just did it right there right some people will smile kind of look at you kind of crazy you know why you did that because there is a stigma associated with the word paranormal now I would submit to you the word paranormal is no different than parachute or paramedic. In fact, it just means something that is outside of our current understanding of what normal is. Current understanding. normal till it becomes normal. My cell phone 40 years ago, absolutely paranormal, right? The electromagnetic spectrum, absolutely paranormal 150 years ago. Now it's routine, right? So we have created these artificial barriers in our understanding of what could just frankly just

be advanced science. But because we don't understand it, we stigmatize it with terms like paranormal, right? And then we have think of tinfoil hats and ghostbusters and things like that when in reality it may not be it just may just be new science and so we have to kind of limit them when you talk about remote viewing people kind of put that into the paranormal category i don't think it's paranormal at all i think it's probably just some sort of quantum process in the brain yeah i actually think your explanation here this is one place where it was way better than in the book because in the book i think maybe it's just how it gets written on the page sometimes it made it seem like you had this superpower or something in in some ways and i think that's

where people criticize you yeah no i don't think so not at all no i think it's it's it's it's probably rudimentary i think most everybody has it to some degree. And I wasn't even particularly good at it. So I think once you understand how it works, then it gets a little easier. Were you able to recover? I forget. Were you able to recover like some sort of data? Wasn't there something involving like a terrorist that you were able to remote view into?

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, we got some guys. There was an ambush that was set up. I had some, you know, I don't want to get into it. But there's some people, colleagues of mine that were there for it and witnessed it. How did you see that? You know, that's a whole other conversation.

We could sit here for two hours and talk about it. There's other people that are way more qualified like Joe McMoneagle and some of these – Ingo Swann and some other folks that are – You know who you should have is probably Hal Pudoff because he was the godfather of remote viewing program. I will be very excited to get Hal Pudoff. He's the guy to have. He is the godfather. He actually.

I'll drive him here myself. Created it for the CIA. And then later on, when it was called Grill Flame and some other names before that, before it became Stargate. You know, I would often ask him later on in my career, we would, he would ask me, I would tell him things that we would do and, you know, uh, ask him to tell you about the, uh, about the Metro DC Metro incident. Okay. Uh, I'll let him tell you that. Say, Hey, Hal, Lou told me to ask you about when he told you about the 90 days and the, and the DC Metro issue. And then see if he remembers that.

Yeah. 90 days and the DC metro issue. And then see if he remembers that. Now, Lou, I'd say I have one more question for you, but that's a lie. But I only have one more question for you strictly because I have to get you the hell out of here in a couple. I'm a Gemini, I like long walks on the beach and pina coladas. That's what you're going to ask, isn't it? No. But I want to, if we can, I'll talk to you off camera afterwards. I want to get you back here in November because there's a lot, including that last topic right there, that we got to go deeper into.

And of course, I'd love to talk without put off. That'd be incredible. But, you know, you talk about still being religious yourself and being the word you use in your book is spiritual. And now you've had access to so many things that relate directly to the meaning of life. So through it all, do you, as it currently stands, do you believe in God? Absolutely. I think knowledge reinforces religion. It might modify a little bit of our interpretation.

Look, information doesn't threaten God. All it does is threaten our understanding of God. And there's a difference, right? There's a big difference here. It's like when the church with Galileo, oh, you're going to be, the fact that you're saying that the earth is not the center of the solar system,

you're going to be going against religion. No, actually what you're doing is you're reinforcing the notion of the preeminence of something bigger and greater and that the universe is much more complex than we could ever possibly comprehend. Um, and that's been my experience.

This hasn't threatened my, my spirituality at all. In fact, it's reinforced it significantly. Wow. Yeah. All right. We're gonna have to dig into that next time.

Thank you so much for doing this. I, I really appreciate the fact that, you know, you have answered a lot of tough questions today as well. Nope. My honor and privilege. I really appreciate the fact that, you know, you have answered a lot of tough questions today as well. Nope. My honor and privilege. I'm still, I'm still going to keep some of my skepticism, but there's other things that I think you have really good arguments for. Hey, healthy skepticism is important. I'm not asking you not to be skeptical about things.

I'm asking you not to be a skeptic. It's a big difference. Healthy skepticism is important because it takes, it takes all sides to have the conversation. Agreed. And I think the fact that we can do this here in a civil way, respectful of each other, is proof that some of the folks in the community can do the same thing and stop throwing arrows at each other and being petty. Let's work together as much as we possibly can. Let's focus on the 80% of the stuff that we agree on and maybe table the 20% that we don't. Fair enough. Well, Lou, thank you so much. My honor and privilege, brother. I'll see you again soon. Congratulations on the book and all the success. Well-deserved. Everybody else,

you know what it is. Give it a thought. Get back to me. Peace and please subscribe. Thank you guys for watching the episode. Before you leave, please be sure to hit that subscribe button and smash that like button on the video. It's a huge help. And also, if you're over on Instagram, be sure to follow the show at Julian Dory Podcast, or also on my personal page at Julian D. Dory. Both links are in the description below. Finally, if you'd like to catch up on our latest episodes, use the Julian Dory Podcast playlist link in the description below. Thank you.