Luis Elizondo

and successfully shot one of our planes down and paraded the Captain Powers and the wreckage of the aircraft in front of the world and the United Nations. Yeah, I remember that. Did they admit that they were tracking every single one of the flights from the beginning? They didn't even want to admit to their own people that we had a technology that they had no way of defending themselves against.

and successfully shot one of our planes down and paraded the Captain Powers and the wreckage of the aircraft in front of the world and the United Nations. Yeah, I remember that. Did they admit that they were tracking every single one of the flights from the beginning? They didn't even want to admit to their own people that we had a technology that they had no way of defending themselves against.

It wasn't until they had a solution did they admit that they had a problem. And look, A lot of governments are that way, guys. It's not just the United States. It's not just Russia. It's not just China.

It wasn't until they had a solution did they admit that they had a problem. And look, A lot of governments are that way, guys. It's not just the United States. It's not just Russia. It's not just China.

Yeah, so now it's Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon. It used to be called Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. One of the issues we had actually with UFO, we talk about stigma and taboo, but the reality is it's not even accurate because a lot of times we're seeing these things not necessarily even in our atmosphere, we're seeing them underwater, in low earth orbit where there isn't.

Yeah, so now it's Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon. It used to be called Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. One of the issues we had actually with UFO, we talk about stigma and taboo, but the reality is it's not even accurate because a lot of times we're seeing these things not necessarily even in our atmosphere, we're seeing them underwater, in low earth orbit where there isn't.

Yeah, so there's not, when we talk about it. Yeah, didn't you see the thing?

Yeah, so there's not, when we talk about it. Yeah, didn't you see the thing?

Well, we do say that behind closed doors.

Well, we do say that behind closed doors.

What? So we have a lot of that footage. And, you know, when you talk about flying, there's really, when you understand what flying is, there's four fundamental forces. You have thrust, lift, drag, and weight. And when you understand that, you create wings and you create lift and you fly. These things don't have wings. They don't have any obvious signs of propulsion.

What? So we have a lot of that footage. And, you know, when you talk about flying, there's really, when you understand what flying is, there's four fundamental forces. You have thrust, lift, drag, and weight. And when you understand that, you create wings and you create lift and you fly. These things don't have wings. They don't have any obvious signs of propulsion.

They don't have rudders and elevators and ailerons. Anything that we would normally ascribe to, let's say, an airplane or some sort of aircraft or even missile, these things have none of that. And yet somehow they are able to defy the natural effects of Earth's gravity. So to say that they're flying, that's not even really accurate. We don't know how they're able to.

They don't have rudders and elevators and ailerons. Anything that we would normally ascribe to, let's say, an airplane or some sort of aircraft or even missile, these things have none of that. And yet somehow they are able to defy the natural effects of Earth's gravity. So to say that they're flying, that's not even really accurate. We don't know how they're able to.

We kind of see.

We kind of see.

And it's not just me. Look, you've already had, I don't know how close you've been tracking this topic, but we've already had a former director of national intelligence, a former director of CIA. We also had two former presidents of the United States all come out and say, yes, this is real. This is something to this. There are these objects that are able to perform.

And it's not just me. Look, you've already had, I don't know how close you've been tracking this topic, but we've already had a former director of national intelligence, a former director of CIA. We also had two former presidents of the United States all come out and say, yes, this is real. This is something to this. There are these objects that are able to perform.

In fact, the director of, so when I left my program, AATIP, There were several iterations afterwards. The current iteration is called AARO, A-A-R-O, All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. And they are under the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. And they just said last week, they said, look, we are seeing things that defy our understanding of physics. It is a fact.

In fact, the director of, so when I left my program, AATIP, There were several iterations afterwards. The current iteration is called AARO, A-A-R-O, All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. And they are under the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. And they just said last week, they said, look, we are seeing things that defy our understanding of physics. It is a fact.

We know they are there. We know it is real, whatever it is. And it's something that we need to figure out.

We know they are there. We know it is real, whatever it is. And it's something that we need to figure out.

Well, or they can take it there.

Well, or they can take it there.

Well, I'll tell you, that's an excellent point. I'll offer a counterpoint to that as well. When I was growing up, if I wanted to learn anything in school, I had to go to the library, take out an encyclopedia that's probably 10 years old by then, and thumb through it. Maybe I'd find one or two paragraphs on something I was interested in.

Well, I'll tell you, that's an excellent point. I'll offer a counterpoint to that as well. When I was growing up, if I wanted to learn anything in school, I had to go to the library, take out an encyclopedia that's probably 10 years old by then, and thumb through it. Maybe I'd find one or two paragraphs on something I was interested in.

Now, kids, the new generation, have in the palm of their hands more technology, more capability, and the ability to access the globe virtually instantaneously. And I think they may, to some degree, even be more prepared. Look, when I was in the government, we knew about several studies that your taxpayer dollars paid for. And the conversation went something like this.

Now, kids, the new generation, have in the palm of their hands more technology, more capability, and the ability to access the globe virtually instantaneously. And I think they may, to some degree, even be more prepared. Look, when I was in the government, we knew about several studies that your taxpayer dollars paid for. And the conversation went something like this.

Are the American people ready to know the truth about UAP, about the reality of UFOs? And time and time again, these studies came back and they said, absolutely not. It'll cause some sort of social discord and it will create havoc and it'll be a destabilizing type conversation. Now, here we are seven years into the conversation. And last I checked, nobody's made a run on the banks.

Are the American people ready to know the truth about UAP, about the reality of UFOs? And time and time again, these studies came back and they said, absolutely not. It'll cause some sort of social discord and it will create havoc and it'll be a destabilizing type conversation. Now, here we are seven years into the conversation. And last I checked, nobody's made a run on the banks.

Everybody's paying their mortgages. Everybody's still going to PTA meetings. So I think this generation, actually the younger generation, may be better equipped to have this conversation to some degree because when we were growing up, we had a lot of Judeo-Christian influence and a lot of basically people saying, look, these are accepted norms, accepted conversations to have, and these are not.

Everybody's paying their mortgages. Everybody's still going to PTA meetings. So I think this generation, actually the younger generation, may be better equipped to have this conversation to some degree because when we were growing up, we had a lot of Judeo-Christian influence and a lot of basically people saying, look, these are accepted norms, accepted conversations to have, and these are not.

Keeping in mind that we, our government, placed about 70 years— worth of artificial taboo and stigma on this topic. Most of the time, like I said, when you hear the word UFO, you hear about Elvis on the mothership and silly things like that. And that's not really what we're talking about.

Keeping in mind that we, our government, placed about 70 years— worth of artificial taboo and stigma on this topic. Most of the time, like I said, when you hear the word UFO, you hear about Elvis on the mothership and silly things like that. And that's not really what we're talking about.

What we're talking about are things that have the capability to outperform anything we have in our inventory and have been able to do so for decades.

What we're talking about are things that have the capability to outperform anything we have in our inventory and have been able to do so for decades.

Jason, can I offer something? Because you said something very, very interesting. When I was at ATIP— Fuck, let's write it down. Hang on. When I was a senior guy— It was – I was told a lot that people really can't handle the truth and whatnot. I think we can. I think we are in a situation now that is different than when I was growing up. I think –

Jason, can I offer something? Because you said something very, very interesting. When I was at ATIP— Fuck, let's write it down. Hang on. When I was a senior guy— It was – I was told a lot that people really can't handle the truth and whatnot. I think we can. I think we are in a situation now that is different than when I was growing up. I think –

You mentioned about these things being from outer space. And when I'm asked, are they from outer space? I say, well, they can be from outer space, inner space, or the space in between. So what do I mean by that? I went to school, by the way, I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. I went to school to study medicine. So I graduated as a microbiologist and immunologist and studied parasitology.

You mentioned about these things being from outer space. And when I'm asked, are they from outer space? I say, well, they can be from outer space, inner space, or the space in between. So what do I mean by that? I went to school, by the way, I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. I went to school to study medicine. So I graduated as a microbiologist and immunologist and studied parasitology.

Not parapsychology, the study of parasites, microorganisms. And I was told it was, if you were to look at modern humans, about the last two to 400,000 years, Homo sapiens sapien, we've been around what we think is a long time, but in reality, in the grand scheme of things, it's not really that long at all.

Not parapsychology, the study of parasites, microorganisms. And I was told it was, if you were to look at modern humans, about the last two to 400,000 years, Homo sapiens sapien, we've been around what we think is a long time, but in reality, in the grand scheme of things, it's not really that long at all.

So if you look at a 24-hour clock, and let's say the beginning of that being when we first became modern humans, It was only in about the last 15 minutes, the last 2000 years, that we realized the two primary forms of life on this planet. And it was the Greeks that suggested you are either a plant or you are an animal.

So if you look at a 24-hour clock, and let's say the beginning of that being when we first became modern humans, It was only in about the last 15 minutes, the last 2000 years, that we realized the two primary forms of life on this planet. And it was the Greeks that suggested you are either a plant or you are an animal.

And it wasn't until the last 10 seconds of our existence, right before it strikes midnight, the last hundred, sorry, the last 300 years ago during the Renaissance or the days of enlightenment, that we discovered an entirely new form of life on this planet that is neither plant nor animal. And it was the world of fungus.

And it wasn't until the last 10 seconds of our existence, right before it strikes midnight, the last hundred, sorry, the last 300 years ago during the Renaissance or the days of enlightenment, that we discovered an entirely new form of life on this planet that is neither plant nor animal. And it was the world of fungus.

And so we tap ourselves on the shoulder and say, you know, clever little monkey, And it wasn't for the last five seconds of our existence, think about that, the last 120 years that we actually discovered the true alpha life form on this planet that's been here all along.

And so we tap ourselves on the shoulder and say, you know, clever little monkey, And it wasn't for the last five seconds of our existence, think about that, the last 120 years that we actually discovered the true alpha life form on this planet that's been here all along.

In fact, if you take all the biomass of every plant, all the biomass of every animal and all the biomass of every fungus and add it up together, it still does not add up to the biomass of this hidden life form that's been here all along. And it wasn't until we could curve glass and put in a little metal tube

In fact, if you take all the biomass of every plant, all the biomass of every animal and all the biomass of every fungus and add it up together, it still does not add up to the biomass of this hidden life form that's been here all along. And it wasn't until we could curve glass and put in a little metal tube

and famously shout the words, little beasties, little beasties, did we discover the world of microorganisms? And so, is it possible that these things we're dealing with are just as natural to Earth as we are? Well, it's certainly a possibility. Could these things be from underwater? Well, it's certainly a possibility. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do our own oceans.

and famously shout the words, little beasties, little beasties, did we discover the world of microorganisms? And so, is it possible that these things we're dealing with are just as natural to Earth as we are? Well, it's certainly a possibility. Could these things be from underwater? Well, it's certainly a possibility. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do our own oceans.

We have mapped less than 10% of the ocean floor. Are these things, could they be from outer space? Sure. Could they be interdimensional? And I don't mean interdimensional in kind of a woo-woo sort of way. I mean from a quantum physics sort of way, where a lot of our reality actually lies. So, you know, it's a great question to suggest.

We have mapped less than 10% of the ocean floor. Are these things, could they be from outer space? Sure. Could they be interdimensional? And I don't mean interdimensional in kind of a woo-woo sort of way. I mean from a quantum physics sort of way, where a lot of our reality actually lies. So, you know, it's a great question to suggest.

Like traveling through black holes that we might not even see yet. Absolutely, quite possible, right. We are learning more about space and time and the relationship that space and time is flexible. It's compressible, it's stretchable.

Like traveling through black holes that we might not even see yet. Absolutely, quite possible, right. We are learning more about space and time and the relationship that space and time is flexible. It's compressible, it's stretchable.

So it is, but here's the problem. Let's say this is a Russian, for example, Russian technology. That would mean that despite all the billions of dollars that we invest into our intelligence community, someone somewhere has developed this technology in secret, has been able to deploy it over our controlled U.S. airspace, and there's not a darn thing we can do about it.

So it is, but here's the problem. Let's say this is a Russian, for example, Russian technology. That would mean that despite all the billions of dollars that we invest into our intelligence community, someone somewhere has developed this technology in secret, has been able to deploy it over our controlled U.S. airspace, and there's not a darn thing we can do about it.

So that would be equivalent to the greatest intelligence failure this country has ever endured, eclipsing that of even 9-11 by an order of magnitude. Right.

So that would be equivalent to the greatest intelligence failure this country has ever endured, eclipsing that of even 9-11 by an order of magnitude. Right.

Will, let's look at it temporally, right? So let's 1950s. There's documentation right now that anybody can go out and look at from the U.S. government from 1950s, early 50s that we've been dealing with this. Now, where were we? We had just entered the atomic age. We had barely broken the sound barrier, and we hadn't yet been into space. Where were the Chinese?

Will, let's look at it temporally, right? So let's 1950s. There's documentation right now that anybody can go out and look at from the U.S. government from 1950s, early 50s that we've been dealing with this. Now, where were we? We had just entered the atomic age. We had barely broken the sound barrier, and we hadn't yet been into space. Where were the Chinese?

Well, they're in the middle of a famine. And where was Russia? They were just developing the atomic bomb for themselves, still using, you know, proverbially horse-drawn buggies to deliver it. So that would be like walking into King Tut's tomb for the very first time in the 1920s. and discovering a fully assembled 747 jet plane sitting inside the tomb. It doesn't make sense.

Well, they're in the middle of a famine. And where was Russia? They were just developing the atomic bomb for themselves, still using, you know, proverbially horse-drawn buggies to deliver it. So that would be like walking into King Tut's tomb for the very first time in the 1920s. and discovering a fully assembled 747 jet plane sitting inside the tomb. It doesn't make sense.

soon well i i think we are well down that path um i think we are having that conversation now within the legislative branch and the executive branch of our government uh politics aside you know whether you're liberal or conservative doesn't matter this is a truly a bipartisan issue and i have seen both the democrats and republicans who would never ever ever even exchange glances with each other are literally sitting side by side having lunch talking about this topic that

soon well i i think we are well down that path um i think we are having that conversation now within the legislative branch and the executive branch of our government uh politics aside you know whether you're liberal or conservative doesn't matter this is a truly a bipartisan issue and i have seen both the democrats and republicans who would never ever ever even exchange glances with each other are literally sitting side by side having lunch talking about this topic that

Yeah, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Yeah, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Absolutely. Oh, I testified before the American people and so did others.

Absolutely. Oh, I testified before the American people and so did others.

Well, people have, and unfortunately, there have been very serious repercussions for doing it. There have been attacks on their credibility, attacks on their reputation. Some of us have been physically threatened, unfortunately. Really? Oh, absolutely. One of my colleagues, Dave Grush, who testified last year, was ripped to pieces, unfortunately.

Well, people have, and unfortunately, there have been very serious repercussions for doing it. There have been attacks on their credibility, attacks on their reputation. Some of us have been physically threatened, unfortunately. Really? Oh, absolutely. One of my colleagues, Dave Grush, who testified last year, was ripped to pieces, unfortunately.

Some people in the CIA had leaked some dossier of his and they made it within 24 hours of him testifying. It was headline news that he sought some psychological counseling for PTSD. The attempt was trying to smear his credibility when in reality he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do as a combat veteran. But they tried to use it against him. Reprehensible.

Some people in the CIA had leaked some dossier of his and they made it within 24 hours of him testifying. It was headline news that he sought some psychological counseling for PTSD. The attempt was trying to smear his credibility when in reality he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do as a combat veteran. But they tried to use it against him. Reprehensible.

Well, I am, you know, cautiously optimistic. You could do that for America right now. I think there's a lot of, you know, the truth shall set you free is an old slogan from one of the agencies I used to work with. And, you know, I believe that truth Truth is, and transparency is the best, you know, sunlight, right, is the best disinfectant. I think America can handle the truth on this topic.

Well, I am, you know, cautiously optimistic. You could do that for America right now. I think there's a lot of, you know, the truth shall set you free is an old slogan from one of the agencies I used to work with. And, you know, I believe that truth Truth is, and transparency is the best, you know, sunlight, right, is the best disinfectant. I think America can handle the truth on this topic.

But I will tell you, there is some parts of this conversation that are very uncomfortable for some people because it may challenge some people's preconceived notions of, for example, their religion or the notion of certain governments' preeminence, right? When people realize that maybe we're not the alpha life form necessarily. Yeah. that could create a lot of anxiety for some people. God forbid.

But I will tell you, there is some parts of this conversation that are very uncomfortable for some people because it may challenge some people's preconceived notions of, for example, their religion or the notion of certain governments' preeminence, right? When people realize that maybe we're not the alpha life form necessarily. Yeah. that could create a lot of anxiety for some people. God forbid.

Right. So now they have to reconcile, well, you know, maybe we aren't the top of the food chain per se. What does that mean for us?

Right. So now they have to reconcile, well, you know, maybe we aren't the top of the food chain per se. What does that mean for us?

Right.

Right.

Right. You know? You know, from a national security perspective, I had—this is a—let me see if I can give you an example of some of the conversations I had with some of the generals in the Pentagon about this topic. Because the first thing to ask me is, Lou, is it a threat?

Right. You know? You know, from a national security perspective, I had—this is a—let me see if I can give you an example of some of the conversations I had with some of the generals in the Pentagon about this topic. Because the first thing to ask me is, Lou, is it a threat?

Yeah, so my response is— We don't know. But here's the bottom line. In order to determine if something is a threat, it's a very simple calculus from a national security perspective. It's capabilities versus intent. Now, we've seen some of the capabilities. We have no idea the intent. So let me give you a little analogy here. And I'll just start with you, Will. Let me ask you a quick question.

Yeah, so my response is— We don't know. But here's the bottom line. In order to determine if something is a threat, it's a very simple calculus from a national security perspective. It's capabilities versus intent. Now, we've seen some of the capabilities. We have no idea the intent. So let me give you a little analogy here. And I'll just start with you, Will. Let me ask you a quick question.

I'm sure you live in a beautiful neighborhood, wonderful house. Doors, right. Do you lock your front door at night before you go to bed? No. I do. Oh, yeah. I do too. And you know what? I would submit to you that probably most people do even though you don't expect anything bad to happen.

I'm sure you live in a beautiful neighborhood, wonderful house. Doors, right. Do you lock your front door at night before you go to bed? No. I do. Oh, yeah. I do too. And you know what? I would submit to you that probably most people do even though you don't expect anything bad to happen.

Let's say one night you go ahead and you lock your front door and you even take the extra step to make sure your windows are locked and you punch in the code, security code to your keypad for your alarm system and you go to bed. And now you wake up one Sunday morning, come downstairs and have a nice hot cup of coffee or tea.

Let's say one night you go ahead and you lock your front door and you even take the extra step to make sure your windows are locked and you punch in the code, security code to your keypad for your alarm system and you go to bed. And now you wake up one Sunday morning, come downstairs and have a nice hot cup of coffee or tea.

And as you walk downstairs, you notice size 11 muddy boot prints in your living room carpet that were not there the night before. Wow. Now, right, so no one's been hurt, nothing's been taken, but despite you locking the doors and the windows and turning on the alarm, there are now muddy boot prints in your living room that were not there the night before.

And as you walk downstairs, you notice size 11 muddy boot prints in your living room carpet that were not there the night before. Wow. Now, right, so no one's been hurt, nothing's been taken, but despite you locking the doors and the windows and turning on the alarm, there are now muddy boot prints in your living room that were not there the night before.

So my question to you is, is that a threat? So my response is, it could be if it wanted to be, so we better figure out how it's getting into the house. This is the same rationale from a national security perspective that We see these things coming into our airspace. There's not a darn thing we can do about it.

So my question to you is, is that a threat? So my response is, it could be if it wanted to be, so we better figure out how it's getting into the house. This is the same rationale from a national security perspective that We see these things coming into our airspace. There's not a darn thing we can do about it.

They seem to be able to interfere with our nuclear equities, and they are very interested in our military capabilities. Is that a threat? Well, it could be if it wanted to be, so we've got to figure it out. Right, we don't know until... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

They seem to be able to interfere with our nuclear equities, and they are very interested in our military capabilities. Is that a threat? Well, it could be if it wanted to be, so we've got to figure it out. Right, we don't know until... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

There are, you know, we do a lot of war planning in the Pentagon for contingency planning.

There are, you know, we do a lot of war planning in the Pentagon for contingency planning.

But it's, look, let me give you another example, Will, what you just said. it could be just like us flying in a helicopter over the Serengeti looking at the wildebeest, right? And let's say we go a step further and we decide to dart one and we tranquilize it and we land the helicopter and we pull blood from it and we're looking at its migratory patterns and its health and whatnot.

But it's, look, let me give you another example, Will, what you just said. it could be just like us flying in a helicopter over the Serengeti looking at the wildebeest, right? And let's say we go a step further and we decide to dart one and we tranquilize it and we land the helicopter and we pull blood from it and we're looking at its migratory patterns and its health and whatnot.

Can you imagine from the perspective of that wildebeest, now all of a sudden it wakes up, it kind of waddles over to the watering hole and it's like, Bill, you're not going to believe this man.

Can you imagine from the perspective of that wildebeest, now all of a sudden it wakes up, it kind of waddles over to the watering hole and it's like, Bill, you're not going to believe this man.

Yeah, so I actually had the privilege of speaking to an individual in Montana. He works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is one of the senior bovine veterinarians there. And he is particularly concerned of what you refer to as cattle mutilations.

Yeah, so I actually had the privilege of speaking to an individual in Montana. He works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is one of the senior bovine veterinarians there. And he is particularly concerned of what you refer to as cattle mutilations.

It's been going on for decades where farmers here in the United States and around the world have been having some of their livestock completely and totally mutilated. It's gutted and disemboweled without any blood loss. In some cases, it looks like the wounds have been cauterized instantly by some sort of laser. No blood loss. In other cases, very perplexing.

It's been going on for decades where farmers here in the United States and around the world have been having some of their livestock completely and totally mutilated. It's gutted and disemboweled without any blood loss. In some cases, it looks like the wounds have been cauterized instantly by some sort of laser. No blood loss. In other cases, very perplexing.

One in particular I heard about up in Montana where the only thing that was missing from the animal was the tiniest little bone from inside the ear. So when you look at natural predation in nature, you can expect, you just talked about a coyote, for example, you can see puncture wounds in animal flesh. You can see how the canines and the incisors will tear away flesh. That's not the case here.

One in particular I heard about up in Montana where the only thing that was missing from the animal was the tiniest little bone from inside the ear. So when you look at natural predation in nature, you can expect, you just talked about a coyote, for example, you can see puncture wounds in animal flesh. You can see how the canines and the incisors will tear away flesh. That's not the case here.

These animals, in some cases with surgical precision and a knowledge of anatomy, Their sexual organs have been removed. In some cases, their brains have been removed. Again, no sign of predation, no blood loss. It's as if someone came in with a laser scalpel and just decided to remove certain portions of the animal while leaving the rest behind.

These animals, in some cases with surgical precision and a knowledge of anatomy, Their sexual organs have been removed. In some cases, their brains have been removed. Again, no sign of predation, no blood loss. It's as if someone came in with a laser scalpel and just decided to remove certain portions of the animal while leaving the rest behind.

So historically, the CIA and the Air Force had managed this effort for the U.S. government. And then you had some special operations units like Joint Special Operations Command, JSOC, who also appeared to have had a piece of it in the Department of Energy. To say that there's one particular group that had all-knowing or all-encompassing insights into this, I don't think so.

So historically, the CIA and the Air Force had managed this effort for the U.S. government. And then you had some special operations units like Joint Special Operations Command, JSOC, who also appeared to have had a piece of it in the Department of Energy. To say that there's one particular group that had all-knowing or all-encompassing insights into this, I don't think so.

I know that there were, when I had our program, ATIP, there was discussions in the hallways of a much older program, a legacy program. that was involved for many, many years in this topic and really was involved in what we call now crash retrievals and trying to exploit that technology. But again, we get back to intent, don't we, right?

I know that there were, when I had our program, ATIP, there was discussions in the hallways of a much older program, a legacy program. that was involved for many, many years in this topic and really was involved in what we call now crash retrievals and trying to exploit that technology. But again, we get back to intent, don't we, right?

We can look at something all day long from a nuts and bolts perspective and still not have any idea it's intent.

We can look at something all day long from a nuts and bolts perspective and still not have any idea it's intent.

you know one one one way to look at this too people say well is it possible there is no intent like artificial intelligence it's just binary it's just doing what it does yeah that's absolutely a possibility as well you know intent seems to be a very human thing and when i say intent i don't mean motivation you know when a shark bites a surfer its intent isn't to hurt the surfer the motivation is that it's hungry and it wants to eat right humans

you know one one one way to look at this too people say well is it possible there is no intent like artificial intelligence it's just binary it's just doing what it does yeah that's absolutely a possibility as well you know intent seems to be a very human thing and when i say intent i don't mean motivation you know when a shark bites a surfer its intent isn't to hurt the surfer the motivation is that it's hungry and it wants to eat right humans

are really some of the and and some some advanced primates are really the only animals on this planet that have true intent where we we can manipulate things in order to achieve whatever our our intention is um are we dealing with something that is not only very very smart very intelligent but also has intent or is that more of a uniquely human thing right so these are all questions that are that are being asked philosophically from some of the scientists that are that are still part of this effort by the way

are really some of the and and some some advanced primates are really the only animals on this planet that have true intent where we we can manipulate things in order to achieve whatever our our intention is um are we dealing with something that is not only very very smart very intelligent but also has intent or is that more of a uniquely human thing right so these are all questions that are that are being asked philosophically from some of the scientists that are that are still part of this effort by the way

We had some of the best theoretical physicists and astrophysicists and mathematicians and scientists in our program.

We had some of the best theoretical physicists and astrophysicists and mathematicians and scientists in our program.

Absolutely. No, I think within the next three to five years, you're going to have a heck of a lot more clarity on this.

Absolutely. No, I think within the next three to five years, you're going to have a heck of a lot more clarity on this.

It is already. We're using it to actually look at deepfake videos to determine if a UFO video is real or faked. And that's important when you're briefing members of Congress, right? You've got to be 100% accurate. And if not, it could blow up.

It is already. We're using it to actually look at deepfake videos to determine if a UFO video is real or faked. And that's important when you're briefing members of Congress, right? You've got to be 100% accurate. And if not, it could blow up.

Yeah, so artificial intelligence, unfortunately, its limitations are it's only as good as its teacher, right? And its teacher tends to be humans. What you prompt it, yeah. Right.

Yeah, so artificial intelligence, unfortunately, its limitations are it's only as good as its teacher, right? And its teacher tends to be humans. What you prompt it, yeah. Right.

Unfortunately, no. With all due respect, when we actually started calibrating our radar systems to look for UAP, something very interesting happened about a year and a half ago. We started tracking Chinese balloons that were wafting over the northern hemisphere and continental United States. If you remember the stories about these surveillance balloons, they've been there a long time.

Unfortunately, no. With all due respect, when we actually started calibrating our radar systems to look for UAP, something very interesting happened about a year and a half ago. We started tracking Chinese balloons that were wafting over the northern hemisphere and continental United States. If you remember the stories about these surveillance balloons, they've been there a long time.

The bottom line is we really don't have a very good handle on what we call U.S. air domain awareness. We're supposed to, but the sad truth is we don't. There's a lot of things in our skies that we do not have any visibility into. And that's part of the problem with UAP because UAPs, you know, potentially you could have a near air collision.

The bottom line is we really don't have a very good handle on what we call U.S. air domain awareness. We're supposed to, but the sad truth is we don't. There's a lot of things in our skies that we do not have any visibility into. And that's part of the problem with UAP because UAPs, you know, potentially you could have a near air collision.

And we've had this before with both private pilots and also in some of our military pilots. Right.

And we've had this before with both private pilots and also in some of our military pilots. Right.

It's a little more complicated than that. Let me see if I can break this down for you just from some of the performance parameters. There's five fundamental observables that we have noticed from an intelligence perspective that puts this technology leaps and bounds beyond anything we have. So the first observable is instantaneous acceleration.

It's a little more complicated than that. Let me see if I can break this down for you just from some of the performance parameters. There's five fundamental observables that we have noticed from an intelligence perspective that puts this technology leaps and bounds beyond anything we have. So the first observable is instantaneous acceleration.

That's the ability to move from point A to point B very rapidly. Now, a human being like me We can withstand about nine G-forces wearing a G-suit for a short period of time before you start suffering medical consequences like blackouts, redouts, and ultimately death. So if you compare that to, let's say, the General Dynamics F-16, right?

That's the ability to move from point A to point B very rapidly. Now, a human being like me We can withstand about nine G-forces wearing a G-suit for a short period of time before you start suffering medical consequences like blackouts, redouts, and ultimately death. So if you compare that to, let's say, the General Dynamics F-16, right?

The F-16 can pull about 16 to 17 Gs before you start having structural failure, meaning the airframe starts to disintegrate around you. What we are seeing are things that are doing 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 G-forces. Well beyond anything that we have. And then you have the other observable, which is hypersonic velocity.

The F-16 can pull about 16 to 17 Gs before you start having structural failure, meaning the airframe starts to disintegrate around you. What we are seeing are things that are doing 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 G-forces. Well beyond anything that we have. And then you have the other observable, which is hypersonic velocity.

That's five times the speed of sound, or roughly five times 763 miles an hour at sea level, roughly. So you're looking at about 3,200 miles an hour. Now, do we have technology that can go that fast? Yes, we do. The Lockheed YF-12A SR-71, the Blackbird, for example, can do about 3,200 miles an hour at the unclassified level.

That's five times the speed of sound, or roughly five times 763 miles an hour at sea level, roughly. So you're looking at about 3,200 miles an hour. Now, do we have technology that can go that fast? Yes, we do. The Lockheed YF-12A SR-71, the Blackbird, for example, can do about 3,200 miles an hour at the unclassified level.

But when it wants to take a right-hand turn, it takes roughly half the state of Ohio to do it. And yet what we are seeing... are things that are not doing 3,000 miles an hour. They're doing 10,000, 13,000 miles an hour, and they can execute immediate right-angle turns in 180s, right? So these are some of the things that when you see them, you realize, okay, this is not our technology.

But when it wants to take a right-hand turn, it takes roughly half the state of Ohio to do it. And yet what we are seeing... are things that are not doing 3,000 miles an hour. They're doing 10,000, 13,000 miles an hour, and they can execute immediate right-angle turns in 180s, right? So these are some of the things that when you see them, you realize, okay, this is not our technology.

This isn't Russian. This isn't Chinese. This is something completely different.

This isn't Russian. This isn't Chinese. This is something completely different.

Well, you know, you don't want to share technology and insight into breakaway technologies. Knowing that there are rogue nations out there and non-state actors that would love to take that technology and do something bad with it. So that's terrifying. Imagine being able to fly over the White House completely anonymously and instantly and do whatever you want and then leave.

Well, you know, you don't want to share technology and insight into breakaway technologies. Knowing that there are rogue nations out there and non-state actors that would love to take that technology and do something bad with it. So that's terrifying. Imagine being able to fly over the White House completely anonymously and instantly and do whatever you want and then leave.

That's not exactly a good news situation for our national security. And so that's priority number one, right? How do you have this conversation while keeping it out of the hands of people who don't want to do good things with it? Then you have other issues. How long have we known about this and how long have we kept it from the American people? There's liability there.

That's not exactly a good news situation for our national security. And so that's priority number one, right? How do you have this conversation while keeping it out of the hands of people who don't want to do good things with it? Then you have other issues. How long have we known about this and how long have we kept it from the American people? There's liability there.

There's a very significant problem. For example, look at this from a business perspective. You have company A, aerospace company A, and aerospace company B. Someone in the government decides to take a very interesting piece of material that was found during a crash and gives it to company A. Meanwhile, 10 years later, company A becomes a multi-billion dollar aerospace corporation.

There's a very significant problem. For example, look at this from a business perspective. You have company A, aerospace company A, and aerospace company B. Someone in the government decides to take a very interesting piece of material that was found during a crash and gives it to company A. Meanwhile, 10 years later, company A becomes a multi-billion dollar aerospace corporation.

Company B goes bankrupt and now 200 jobs are lost and people, investors now lose their money on the stock market because the company goes belly up. There's like – there's security exchange – there's SEC violations on doing that. You have to – in the government, you have to give everybody a fair chance to compete. And when you give an unfair advantage to company A over company B –

Company B goes bankrupt and now 200 jobs are lost and people, investors now lose their money on the stock market because the company goes belly up. There's like – there's security exchange – there's SEC violations on doing that. You have to – in the government, you have to give everybody a fair chance to compete. And when you give an unfair advantage to company A over company B –

there could be billions of dollars worth of liability in that alone, right? And then you have the problem where people in government were telling people, members of Congress, nothing to see here, folks. Meanwhile, all along, there was a lot to see here. We were actually investigating this and we learned a lot about it.

there could be billions of dollars worth of liability in that alone, right? And then you have the problem where people in government were telling people, members of Congress, nothing to see here, folks. Meanwhile, all along, there was a lot to see here. We were actually investigating this and we learned a lot about it.

Yeah, yeah. Sure, absolutely there is. But let me just give this in a term that everybody will understand here. We live in an incomprehensibly complex universe. And in fact, we judge our universe by the five fundamental senses which we have, which is if you can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, etc., we can't interact with it.

Yeah, yeah. Sure, absolutely there is. But let me just give this in a term that everybody will understand here. We live in an incomprehensibly complex universe. And in fact, we judge our universe by the five fundamental senses which we have, which is if you can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, etc., we can't interact with it.

And yet, if you have the ability to look at this world around you through something as simple as cell phone vision— And now you could see in 5G and in Wi-Fi and GPS, you would see an entirely different reality around you. For example, I live here in Wyoming. Beautiful, unoccluded night skies. But if you look at that same portion of the night sky through, let's say, infrared, you will see nebula.

And yet, if you have the ability to look at this world around you through something as simple as cell phone vision— And now you could see in 5G and in Wi-Fi and GPS, you would see an entirely different reality around you. For example, I live here in Wyoming. Beautiful, unoccluded night skies. But if you look at that same portion of the night sky through, let's say, infrared, you will see nebula.

You'll see a whole different reality in front of you that's just as real as the reality you live in now. In fact, maybe even more real. The problem is we can't interact with it. The way we look at the universe through vision alone is only 0.0035% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Meaning, most of the universe remains hidden because it lies within a frequency beyond what we can perceive.

You'll see a whole different reality in front of you that's just as real as the reality you live in now. In fact, maybe even more real. The problem is we can't interact with it. The way we look at the universe through vision alone is only 0.0035% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Meaning, most of the universe remains hidden because it lies within a frequency beyond what we can perceive.

And then you've got the other challenge of size. So, as...

And then you've got the other challenge of size. So, as...

I won't comment.

I won't comment.

Yeah, let's just say my involvement in the UFO program went over like a lead balloon. Mrs. Elizondo was not very happy about that.

Yeah, let's just say my involvement in the UFO program went over like a lead balloon. Mrs. Elizondo was not very happy about that.

Yeah, in essence, you know, look, today's technology was yesterday's magic. That's just the fact, right? And what we consider paranormal, by the definition of science, everything in science is paranormal until it becomes normal. That's just the world we live in. And so we have to recalibrate a little bit how we think about things and how we look at ourselves and our place in the universe.

Yeah, in essence, you know, look, today's technology was yesterday's magic. That's just the fact, right? And what we consider paranormal, by the definition of science, everything in science is paranormal until it becomes normal. That's just the world we live in. And so we have to recalibrate a little bit how we think about things and how we look at ourselves and our place in the universe.

Like I said, you know, imagine this universe being 100 billion light years across, and we're this tiny little speck, you know, in the middle. And as big as that seems, if you look at one hydrogen molecule, Avogadro's number, one times six-something times 10 to the negative 23rd, that's roughly the same order of scale, guys. Meaning...

Like I said, you know, imagine this universe being 100 billion light years across, and we're this tiny little speck, you know, in the middle. And as big as that seems, if you look at one hydrogen molecule, Avogadro's number, one times six-something times 10 to the negative 23rd, that's roughly the same order of scale, guys. Meaning...

As small as we are to the universe, if you compare an atom to our body, that's roughly the same order of magnitude. That's right. We, as a species, can only interact with one or two degrees order of magnitude up or down. Otherwise, the universe is simply too big or too small. And we'll never be able to interact with it.

As small as we are to the universe, if you compare an atom to our body, that's roughly the same order of magnitude. That's right. We, as a species, can only interact with one or two degrees order of magnitude up or down. Otherwise, the universe is simply too big or too small. And we'll never be able to interact with it.

And that's where most of reality lives.

And that's where most of reality lives.

Yeah, you have any theater stories? Ever forget your line on stage? Okay, so there's three things that... So despite looking like I'm from Iowa, I'm actually Cuban. So I speak Spanish and I'm Hispanic. Okay. We do three things coming out of the womb quite well. One is we smoke cigars quite well. It's genetic for us, I guess. Two, we can dance salsa and merengue pretty well.

Yeah, you have any theater stories? Ever forget your line on stage? Okay, so there's three things that... So despite looking like I'm from Iowa, I'm actually Cuban. So I speak Spanish and I'm Hispanic. Okay. We do three things coming out of the womb quite well. One is we smoke cigars quite well. It's genetic for us, I guess. Two, we can dance salsa and merengue pretty well.

And the third thing I probably can't discuss over the airwaves is probably not appropriate. But those are kind of the three things that as Latinos we do well. Nice. Very nice.

And the third thing I probably can't discuss over the airwaves is probably not appropriate. But those are kind of the three things that as Latinos we do well. Nice. Very nice.

Yeah. No, I know, I know. Of course you were. For sure, for sure. Good for you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just want to make sure I clarify that.

Yeah. No, I know, I know. Of course you were. For sure, for sure. Good for you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just want to make sure I clarify that.

I plead the fifth.

I plead the fifth.

What a pleasure.

What a pleasure.

Yeah, keep it going, please.

Yeah, keep it going, please.

Gentlemen, it's always a team effort. Thank you very much. By the way, my two daughters, who also work for the government, are huge fans of you guys. Oh, tell them hello. Oh, I absolutely will. When I told them I was going to do your show, I think both of them were about to jump out the window. They were so excited.

Gentlemen, it's always a team effort. Thank you very much. By the way, my two daughters, who also work for the government, are huge fans of you guys. Oh, tell them hello. Oh, I absolutely will. When I told them I was going to do your show, I think both of them were about to jump out the window. They were so excited.

We love breaking news on this show. You have my word.

We love breaking news on this show. You have my word.

And thank you for spending some time with us. Thanks, Luke. Guys, I appreciate it. Look, I didn't come on here to plug a book. Just wanted to have a conversation with you guys. No, of course. I love it. Appreciate it.

And thank you for spending some time with us. Thanks, Luke. Guys, I appreciate it. Look, I didn't come on here to plug a book. Just wanted to have a conversation with you guys. No, of course. I love it. Appreciate it.

But if there's anything you guys ever have any questions, let me know. Thank you, sir. Okay, thanks, buddy. We got a lot.

But if there's anything you guys ever have any questions, let me know. Thank you, sir. Okay, thanks, buddy. We got a lot.

Hi, gentlemen. Good morning. It is my honor and privilege to be with you, gents.

Hi, gentlemen. Good morning. It is my honor and privilege to be with you, gents.

I might have heard of his name a few times.

I might have heard of his name a few times.

Listen, I got to apologize, guys, for, you know, wearing a hat. I know, unfortunately, I'm one of those guys who has short hair and has to wear a hat because I have an unusually hemispherically round head. Yeah. And so my wife forces me to wear a hat. She's like, otherwise I look like a bowling ball, so...

Listen, I got to apologize, guys, for, you know, wearing a hat. I know, unfortunately, I'm one of those guys who has short hair and has to wear a hat because I have an unusually hemispherically round head. Yeah. And so my wife forces me to wear a hat. She's like, otherwise I look like a bowling ball, so...

Well, yeah, I've said that a few times. Unfortunately, after 30 years of marriage, I've learned early on that happy wife, happy life. So when she says wear a hat, I wear a hat.

Well, yeah, I've said that a few times. Unfortunately, after 30 years of marriage, I've learned early on that happy wife, happy life. So when she says wear a hat, I wear a hat.

My wife made it very clear to me that if for whatever reason we were ever to have a divorce, I'd have to buy back my own underwear from her. Wow. Okay. Wow. I prefer to stay in the current relationship I have right now.

My wife made it very clear to me that if for whatever reason we were ever to have a divorce, I'd have to buy back my own underwear from her. Wow. Okay. Wow. I prefer to stay in the current relationship I have right now.

Yeah, so great question. And again, thank you very much for having me on this wonderful program of yours. You know, when you're testifying before Congress and the American people, it's under oath.

Yeah, so great question. And again, thank you very much for having me on this wonderful program of yours. You know, when you're testifying before Congress and the American people, it's under oath.

So you definitely need to keep your facts straight and remember that everything you're saying is for the record and it's indelible, meaning those words will be there forever, long after I'm gone and whatnot. So... It's important that we communicate clearly. But at the same time, you're right. I have a security clearance, and I cannot violate that security clearance.

So you definitely need to keep your facts straight and remember that everything you're saying is for the record and it's indelible, meaning those words will be there forever, long after I'm gone and whatnot. So... It's important that we communicate clearly. But at the same time, you're right. I have a security clearance, and I cannot violate that security clearance.

The Pentagon was very, very specific with me on what I can and cannot say in an open hearing. And so that's why you saw me a few times when I said, look, I prefer to have that discussion in a closed session. Because then we can start talking about some of the classified nuances of what they're asking me.

The Pentagon was very, very specific with me on what I can and cannot say in an open hearing. And so that's why you saw me a few times when I said, look, I prefer to have that discussion in a closed session. Because then we can start talking about some of the classified nuances of what they're asking me.

And by the way, it's a bit of a precarious situation because, you know, if you don't say enough, then Congress feels that it's kind of like fast food, right? You feel full, but you're not really satisfied. You get some information, but you're not really getting what you're asking for. But at the same time— If I'm overly specific, then I can get in trouble with the U.S. government.

And by the way, it's a bit of a precarious situation because, you know, if you don't say enough, then Congress feels that it's kind of like fast food, right? You feel full, but you're not really satisfied. You get some information, but you're not really getting what you're asking for. But at the same time— If I'm overly specific, then I can get in trouble with the U.S. government.

I can actually find myself in very significant legal trouble. And for the record, I do not look good in an orange jumpsuit. So try to avoid that as much as possible.

I can actually find myself in very significant legal trouble. And for the record, I do not look good in an orange jumpsuit. So try to avoid that as much as possible.

Yeah, unfortunately, that's not the case. The public's never happy with half information. And I understand that. You know, frankly, I would get frustrated too. But if you look at this conversation as it's kind of evolved over the last, let's say, seven years, I think we've come further in this conversation in the last seven than perhaps over the last 70 years.

Yeah, unfortunately, that's not the case. The public's never happy with half information. And I understand that. You know, frankly, I would get frustrated too. But if you look at this conversation as it's kind of evolved over the last, let's say, seven years, I think we've come further in this conversation in the last seven than perhaps over the last 70 years.

And none of us had to violate our security oaths. More and more information is coming out every single day. More and more whistleblowers are ready to come out and testify in front of Congress and the American people to let them know what they know about legacy programs and the UAP topic. You asked me to define, by the way, what UAP is.

And none of us had to violate our security oaths. More and more information is coming out every single day. More and more whistleblowers are ready to come out and testify in front of Congress and the American people to let them know what they know about legacy programs and the UAP topic. You asked me to define, by the way, what UAP is.

UAP is basically the new word for the old term UFO or unidentified flying object. It was changed to UAP some time ago. One was because of the stigma, the taboo and stigma surrounding UFO. Look, anytime you say UFO, people think tinfoil hats and Elvis on the mothership. And that's what we're talking about.

UAP is basically the new word for the old term UFO or unidentified flying object. It was changed to UAP some time ago. One was because of the stigma, the taboo and stigma surrounding UFO. Look, anytime you say UFO, people think tinfoil hats and Elvis on the mothership. And that's what we're talking about.

What we're talking about are things that are being intelligently controlled that can fly over controlled U.S. airspace with complete anonymity And potentially over our sensitive military installations and have the ability to even interfere with our nuclear equities. So from a national security perspective, this is a very serious topic. It is a national security concern.

What we're talking about are things that are being intelligently controlled that can fly over controlled U.S. airspace with complete anonymity And potentially over our sensitive military installations and have the ability to even interfere with our nuclear equities. So from a national security perspective, this is a very serious topic. It is a national security concern.

But there's other aspects to this conversation that if you were to ask me, I would submit to you the government has no business being involved in. So what do I mean? To make a long story short, if I was talking to a three-star or four-star general about potentially our vulnerabilities regarding UAP and our nuclear equities, great conversation to have with a three-star general.

But there's other aspects to this conversation that if you were to ask me, I would submit to you the government has no business being involved in. So what do I mean? To make a long story short, if I was talking to a three-star or four-star general about potentially our vulnerabilities regarding UAP and our nuclear equities, great conversation to have with a three-star general.

But this is a conversation that affects everybody individually.

But this is a conversation that affects everybody individually.

both equally and a little bit differently meaning depending how you were raised and your cultural background your religious background this is a topic that affects us from a psychological perspective a theological perspective a sociological perspective even a philosophical perspective and and in that instance i i'm not really comfortable with with a three-star general necessarily dictating to to me

both equally and a little bit differently meaning depending how you were raised and your cultural background your religious background this is a topic that affects us from a psychological perspective a theological perspective a sociological perspective even a philosophical perspective and and in that instance i i'm not really comfortable with with a three-star general necessarily dictating to to me

how I should feel about this topic. I was a product of the government. And, you know, there's a lot of things we do right, and then there's some things that we don't do very well.

how I should feel about this topic. I was a product of the government. And, you know, there's a lot of things we do right, and then there's some things that we don't do very well.

That may be some of it. I mean, let's face it. Governments are designed to be solution-oriented. What do I mean? We pay a lot of money with our tax dollars to make sure that our government has all the information it needs, all the intelligence it needs, in order to make an informed decision to protect us. Now, when you have an issue like this,

That may be some of it. I mean, let's face it. Governments are designed to be solution-oriented. What do I mean? We pay a lot of money with our tax dollars to make sure that our government has all the information it needs, all the intelligence it needs, in order to make an informed decision to protect us. Now, when you have an issue like this,

where you can see some of the capabilities, but you have no idea the intent behind these things, it leaves people scratching their head. And that's not a really convenient conversation to have with the American people, especially if you are part of the national security apparatus like the Department of Defense, like the CIA, right? I'll give you case in point.

where you can see some of the capabilities, but you have no idea the intent behind these things, it leaves people scratching their head. And that's not a really convenient conversation to have with the American people, especially if you are part of the national security apparatus like the Department of Defense, like the CIA, right? I'll give you case in point.

Back in the 1950s, when the CIA first commissioned the U-2 spy plane with Lockheed Skunk Works, we wanted to build a plane that could fly higher and faster than anybody else in the world so we could fly manned reconnaissance missions over mainland Russia. By the way, in contravention to an existing treaty we had with Russia at the time. So the first few missions went off great.

Back in the 1950s, when the CIA first commissioned the U-2 spy plane with Lockheed Skunk Works, we wanted to build a plane that could fly higher and faster than anybody else in the world so we could fly manned reconnaissance missions over mainland Russia. By the way, in contravention to an existing treaty we had with Russia at the time. So the first few missions went off great.

We flew the aircraft and you know what? The Russians didn't respond. And so we really thought our plane was invisible. It was flying faster and higher and we achieved mission success. It wasn't until the Russians developed the SA-2 surface-to-air missile

We flew the aircraft and you know what? The Russians didn't respond. And so we really thought our plane was invisible. It was flying faster and higher and we achieved mission success. It wasn't until the Russians developed the SA-2 surface-to-air missile

and successfully shot one of our planes down and paraded the Captain Powers and the wreckage of the aircraft in front of the world and the United Nations. Yeah, I remember that. Did they admit that they were tracking every single one of the flights from the beginning? They didn't even want to admit to their own people that we had a technology that they had no way of defending themselves against.

It wasn't until they had a solution did they admit that they had a problem. And look, A lot of governments are that way, guys. It's not just the United States. It's not just Russia. It's not just China.

Yeah, so now it's Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon. It used to be called Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. One of the issues we had actually with UFO, we talk about stigma and taboo, but the reality is it's not even accurate because a lot of times we're seeing these things not necessarily even in our atmosphere, we're seeing them underwater, in low earth orbit where there isn't.

Yeah, so there's not, when we talk about it. Yeah, didn't you see the thing?

Well, we do say that behind closed doors.

What? So we have a lot of that footage. And, you know, when you talk about flying, there's really, when you understand what flying is, there's four fundamental forces. You have thrust, lift, drag, and weight. And when you understand that, you create wings and you create lift and you fly. These things don't have wings. They don't have any obvious signs of propulsion.

They don't have rudders and elevators and ailerons. Anything that we would normally ascribe to, let's say, an airplane or some sort of aircraft or even missile, these things have none of that. And yet somehow they are able to defy the natural effects of Earth's gravity. So to say that they're flying, that's not even really accurate. We don't know how they're able to.

We kind of see.

And it's not just me. Look, you've already had, I don't know how close you've been tracking this topic, but we've already had a former director of national intelligence, a former director of CIA. We also had two former presidents of the United States all come out and say, yes, this is real. This is something to this. There are these objects that are able to perform.

In fact, the director of, so when I left my program, AATIP, There were several iterations afterwards. The current iteration is called AARO, A-A-R-O, All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. And they are under the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. And they just said last week, they said, look, we are seeing things that defy our understanding of physics. It is a fact.

We know they are there. We know it is real, whatever it is. And it's something that we need to figure out.

Well, or they can take it there.

Well, I'll tell you, that's an excellent point. I'll offer a counterpoint to that as well. When I was growing up, if I wanted to learn anything in school, I had to go to the library, take out an encyclopedia that's probably 10 years old by then, and thumb through it. Maybe I'd find one or two paragraphs on something I was interested in.

Now, kids, the new generation, have in the palm of their hands more technology, more capability, and the ability to access the globe virtually instantaneously. And I think they may, to some degree, even be more prepared. Look, when I was in the government, we knew about several studies that your taxpayer dollars paid for. And the conversation went something like this.

Are the American people ready to know the truth about UAP, about the reality of UFOs? And time and time again, these studies came back and they said, absolutely not. It'll cause some sort of social discord and it will create havoc and it'll be a destabilizing type conversation. Now, here we are seven years into the conversation. And last I checked, nobody's made a run on the banks.

Everybody's paying their mortgages. Everybody's still going to PTA meetings. So I think this generation, actually the younger generation, may be better equipped to have this conversation to some degree because when we were growing up, we had a lot of Judeo-Christian influence and a lot of basically people saying, look, these are accepted norms, accepted conversations to have, and these are not.

Keeping in mind that we, our government, placed about 70 years— worth of artificial taboo and stigma on this topic. Most of the time, like I said, when you hear the word UFO, you hear about Elvis on the mothership and silly things like that. And that's not really what we're talking about.

What we're talking about are things that have the capability to outperform anything we have in our inventory and have been able to do so for decades.

Jason, can I offer something? Because you said something very, very interesting. When I was at ATIP— Fuck, let's write it down. Hang on. When I was a senior guy— It was – I was told a lot that people really can't handle the truth and whatnot. I think we can. I think we are in a situation now that is different than when I was growing up. I think –

You mentioned about these things being from outer space. And when I'm asked, are they from outer space? I say, well, they can be from outer space, inner space, or the space in between. So what do I mean by that? I went to school, by the way, I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. I went to school to study medicine. So I graduated as a microbiologist and immunologist and studied parasitology.

Not parapsychology, the study of parasites, microorganisms. And I was told it was, if you were to look at modern humans, about the last two to 400,000 years, Homo sapiens sapien, we've been around what we think is a long time, but in reality, in the grand scheme of things, it's not really that long at all.

So if you look at a 24-hour clock, and let's say the beginning of that being when we first became modern humans, It was only in about the last 15 minutes, the last 2000 years, that we realized the two primary forms of life on this planet. And it was the Greeks that suggested you are either a plant or you are an animal.

And it wasn't until the last 10 seconds of our existence, right before it strikes midnight, the last hundred, sorry, the last 300 years ago during the Renaissance or the days of enlightenment, that we discovered an entirely new form of life on this planet that is neither plant nor animal. And it was the world of fungus.

And so we tap ourselves on the shoulder and say, you know, clever little monkey, And it wasn't for the last five seconds of our existence, think about that, the last 120 years that we actually discovered the true alpha life form on this planet that's been here all along.

In fact, if you take all the biomass of every plant, all the biomass of every animal and all the biomass of every fungus and add it up together, it still does not add up to the biomass of this hidden life form that's been here all along. And it wasn't until we could curve glass and put in a little metal tube

and famously shout the words, little beasties, little beasties, did we discover the world of microorganisms? And so, is it possible that these things we're dealing with are just as natural to Earth as we are? Well, it's certainly a possibility. Could these things be from underwater? Well, it's certainly a possibility. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do our own oceans.

We have mapped less than 10% of the ocean floor. Are these things, could they be from outer space? Sure. Could they be interdimensional? And I don't mean interdimensional in kind of a woo-woo sort of way. I mean from a quantum physics sort of way, where a lot of our reality actually lies. So, you know, it's a great question to suggest.

Like traveling through black holes that we might not even see yet. Absolutely, quite possible, right. We are learning more about space and time and the relationship that space and time is flexible. It's compressible, it's stretchable.

So it is, but here's the problem. Let's say this is a Russian, for example, Russian technology. That would mean that despite all the billions of dollars that we invest into our intelligence community, someone somewhere has developed this technology in secret, has been able to deploy it over our controlled U.S. airspace, and there's not a darn thing we can do about it.

So that would be equivalent to the greatest intelligence failure this country has ever endured, eclipsing that of even 9-11 by an order of magnitude. Right.

Will, let's look at it temporally, right? So let's 1950s. There's documentation right now that anybody can go out and look at from the U.S. government from 1950s, early 50s that we've been dealing with this. Now, where were we? We had just entered the atomic age. We had barely broken the sound barrier, and we hadn't yet been into space. Where were the Chinese?

Well, they're in the middle of a famine. And where was Russia? They were just developing the atomic bomb for themselves, still using, you know, proverbially horse-drawn buggies to deliver it. So that would be like walking into King Tut's tomb for the very first time in the 1920s. and discovering a fully assembled 747 jet plane sitting inside the tomb. It doesn't make sense.

soon well i i think we are well down that path um i think we are having that conversation now within the legislative branch and the executive branch of our government uh politics aside you know whether you're liberal or conservative doesn't matter this is a truly a bipartisan issue and i have seen both the democrats and republicans who would never ever ever even exchange glances with each other are literally sitting side by side having lunch talking about this topic that

Yeah, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Absolutely. Oh, I testified before the American people and so did others.

Well, people have, and unfortunately, there have been very serious repercussions for doing it. There have been attacks on their credibility, attacks on their reputation. Some of us have been physically threatened, unfortunately. Really? Oh, absolutely. One of my colleagues, Dave Grush, who testified last year, was ripped to pieces, unfortunately.

Some people in the CIA had leaked some dossier of his and they made it within 24 hours of him testifying. It was headline news that he sought some psychological counseling for PTSD. The attempt was trying to smear his credibility when in reality he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do as a combat veteran. But they tried to use it against him. Reprehensible.

Well, I am, you know, cautiously optimistic. You could do that for America right now. I think there's a lot of, you know, the truth shall set you free is an old slogan from one of the agencies I used to work with. And, you know, I believe that truth Truth is, and transparency is the best, you know, sunlight, right, is the best disinfectant. I think America can handle the truth on this topic.

But I will tell you, there is some parts of this conversation that are very uncomfortable for some people because it may challenge some people's preconceived notions of, for example, their religion or the notion of certain governments' preeminence, right? When people realize that maybe we're not the alpha life form necessarily. Yeah. that could create a lot of anxiety for some people. God forbid.

Right. So now they have to reconcile, well, you know, maybe we aren't the top of the food chain per se. What does that mean for us?

Right.

Right. You know? You know, from a national security perspective, I had—this is a—let me see if I can give you an example of some of the conversations I had with some of the generals in the Pentagon about this topic. Because the first thing to ask me is, Lou, is it a threat?

Yeah, so my response is— We don't know. But here's the bottom line. In order to determine if something is a threat, it's a very simple calculus from a national security perspective. It's capabilities versus intent. Now, we've seen some of the capabilities. We have no idea the intent. So let me give you a little analogy here. And I'll just start with you, Will. Let me ask you a quick question.

I'm sure you live in a beautiful neighborhood, wonderful house. Doors, right. Do you lock your front door at night before you go to bed? No. I do. Oh, yeah. I do too. And you know what? I would submit to you that probably most people do even though you don't expect anything bad to happen.

Let's say one night you go ahead and you lock your front door and you even take the extra step to make sure your windows are locked and you punch in the code, security code to your keypad for your alarm system and you go to bed. And now you wake up one Sunday morning, come downstairs and have a nice hot cup of coffee or tea.

And as you walk downstairs, you notice size 11 muddy boot prints in your living room carpet that were not there the night before. Wow. Now, right, so no one's been hurt, nothing's been taken, but despite you locking the doors and the windows and turning on the alarm, there are now muddy boot prints in your living room that were not there the night before.

So my question to you is, is that a threat? So my response is, it could be if it wanted to be, so we better figure out how it's getting into the house. This is the same rationale from a national security perspective that We see these things coming into our airspace. There's not a darn thing we can do about it.

They seem to be able to interfere with our nuclear equities, and they are very interested in our military capabilities. Is that a threat? Well, it could be if it wanted to be, so we've got to figure it out. Right, we don't know until... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

There are, you know, we do a lot of war planning in the Pentagon for contingency planning.

But it's, look, let me give you another example, Will, what you just said. it could be just like us flying in a helicopter over the Serengeti looking at the wildebeest, right? And let's say we go a step further and we decide to dart one and we tranquilize it and we land the helicopter and we pull blood from it and we're looking at its migratory patterns and its health and whatnot.

Can you imagine from the perspective of that wildebeest, now all of a sudden it wakes up, it kind of waddles over to the watering hole and it's like, Bill, you're not going to believe this man.

Yeah, so I actually had the privilege of speaking to an individual in Montana. He works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is one of the senior bovine veterinarians there. And he is particularly concerned of what you refer to as cattle mutilations.

It's been going on for decades where farmers here in the United States and around the world have been having some of their livestock completely and totally mutilated. It's gutted and disemboweled without any blood loss. In some cases, it looks like the wounds have been cauterized instantly by some sort of laser. No blood loss. In other cases, very perplexing.

One in particular I heard about up in Montana where the only thing that was missing from the animal was the tiniest little bone from inside the ear. So when you look at natural predation in nature, you can expect, you just talked about a coyote, for example, you can see puncture wounds in animal flesh. You can see how the canines and the incisors will tear away flesh. That's not the case here.

These animals, in some cases with surgical precision and a knowledge of anatomy, Their sexual organs have been removed. In some cases, their brains have been removed. Again, no sign of predation, no blood loss. It's as if someone came in with a laser scalpel and just decided to remove certain portions of the animal while leaving the rest behind.

So historically, the CIA and the Air Force had managed this effort for the U.S. government. And then you had some special operations units like Joint Special Operations Command, JSOC, who also appeared to have had a piece of it in the Department of Energy. To say that there's one particular group that had all-knowing or all-encompassing insights into this, I don't think so.

I know that there were, when I had our program, ATIP, there was discussions in the hallways of a much older program, a legacy program. that was involved for many, many years in this topic and really was involved in what we call now crash retrievals and trying to exploit that technology. But again, we get back to intent, don't we, right?

We can look at something all day long from a nuts and bolts perspective and still not have any idea it's intent.

you know one one one way to look at this too people say well is it possible there is no intent like artificial intelligence it's just binary it's just doing what it does yeah that's absolutely a possibility as well you know intent seems to be a very human thing and when i say intent i don't mean motivation you know when a shark bites a surfer its intent isn't to hurt the surfer the motivation is that it's hungry and it wants to eat right humans

are really some of the and and some some advanced primates are really the only animals on this planet that have true intent where we we can manipulate things in order to achieve whatever our our intention is um are we dealing with something that is not only very very smart very intelligent but also has intent or is that more of a uniquely human thing right so these are all questions that are that are being asked philosophically from some of the scientists that are that are still part of this effort by the way

We had some of the best theoretical physicists and astrophysicists and mathematicians and scientists in our program.

Absolutely. No, I think within the next three to five years, you're going to have a heck of a lot more clarity on this.

It is already. We're using it to actually look at deepfake videos to determine if a UFO video is real or faked. And that's important when you're briefing members of Congress, right? You've got to be 100% accurate. And if not, it could blow up.

Yeah, so artificial intelligence, unfortunately, its limitations are it's only as good as its teacher, right? And its teacher tends to be humans. What you prompt it, yeah. Right.

Unfortunately, no. With all due respect, when we actually started calibrating our radar systems to look for UAP, something very interesting happened about a year and a half ago. We started tracking Chinese balloons that were wafting over the northern hemisphere and continental United States. If you remember the stories about these surveillance balloons, they've been there a long time.

The bottom line is we really don't have a very good handle on what we call U.S. air domain awareness. We're supposed to, but the sad truth is we don't. There's a lot of things in our skies that we do not have any visibility into. And that's part of the problem with UAP because UAPs, you know, potentially you could have a near air collision.

And we've had this before with both private pilots and also in some of our military pilots. Right.

It's a little more complicated than that. Let me see if I can break this down for you just from some of the performance parameters. There's five fundamental observables that we have noticed from an intelligence perspective that puts this technology leaps and bounds beyond anything we have. So the first observable is instantaneous acceleration.

That's the ability to move from point A to point B very rapidly. Now, a human being like me We can withstand about nine G-forces wearing a G-suit for a short period of time before you start suffering medical consequences like blackouts, redouts, and ultimately death. So if you compare that to, let's say, the General Dynamics F-16, right?

The F-16 can pull about 16 to 17 Gs before you start having structural failure, meaning the airframe starts to disintegrate around you. What we are seeing are things that are doing 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 G-forces. Well beyond anything that we have. And then you have the other observable, which is hypersonic velocity.

That's five times the speed of sound, or roughly five times 763 miles an hour at sea level, roughly. So you're looking at about 3,200 miles an hour. Now, do we have technology that can go that fast? Yes, we do. The Lockheed YF-12A SR-71, the Blackbird, for example, can do about 3,200 miles an hour at the unclassified level.

But when it wants to take a right-hand turn, it takes roughly half the state of Ohio to do it. And yet what we are seeing... are things that are not doing 3,000 miles an hour. They're doing 10,000, 13,000 miles an hour, and they can execute immediate right-angle turns in 180s, right? So these are some of the things that when you see them, you realize, okay, this is not our technology.

This isn't Russian. This isn't Chinese. This is something completely different.

Well, you know, you don't want to share technology and insight into breakaway technologies. Knowing that there are rogue nations out there and non-state actors that would love to take that technology and do something bad with it. So that's terrifying. Imagine being able to fly over the White House completely anonymously and instantly and do whatever you want and then leave.

That's not exactly a good news situation for our national security. And so that's priority number one, right? How do you have this conversation while keeping it out of the hands of people who don't want to do good things with it? Then you have other issues. How long have we known about this and how long have we kept it from the American people? There's liability there.

There's a very significant problem. For example, look at this from a business perspective. You have company A, aerospace company A, and aerospace company B. Someone in the government decides to take a very interesting piece of material that was found during a crash and gives it to company A. Meanwhile, 10 years later, company A becomes a multi-billion dollar aerospace corporation.

Company B goes bankrupt and now 200 jobs are lost and people, investors now lose their money on the stock market because the company goes belly up. There's like – there's security exchange – there's SEC violations on doing that. You have to – in the government, you have to give everybody a fair chance to compete. And when you give an unfair advantage to company A over company B –

there could be billions of dollars worth of liability in that alone, right? And then you have the problem where people in government were telling people, members of Congress, nothing to see here, folks. Meanwhile, all along, there was a lot to see here. We were actually investigating this and we learned a lot about it.

Yeah, yeah. Sure, absolutely there is. But let me just give this in a term that everybody will understand here. We live in an incomprehensibly complex universe. And in fact, we judge our universe by the five fundamental senses which we have, which is if you can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, etc., we can't interact with it.

And yet, if you have the ability to look at this world around you through something as simple as cell phone vision— And now you could see in 5G and in Wi-Fi and GPS, you would see an entirely different reality around you. For example, I live here in Wyoming. Beautiful, unoccluded night skies. But if you look at that same portion of the night sky through, let's say, infrared, you will see nebula.

You'll see a whole different reality in front of you that's just as real as the reality you live in now. In fact, maybe even more real. The problem is we can't interact with it. The way we look at the universe through vision alone is only 0.0035% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Meaning, most of the universe remains hidden because it lies within a frequency beyond what we can perceive.

And then you've got the other challenge of size. So, as...

I won't comment.

Yeah, let's just say my involvement in the UFO program went over like a lead balloon. Mrs. Elizondo was not very happy about that.

Yeah, in essence, you know, look, today's technology was yesterday's magic. That's just the fact, right? And what we consider paranormal, by the definition of science, everything in science is paranormal until it becomes normal. That's just the world we live in. And so we have to recalibrate a little bit how we think about things and how we look at ourselves and our place in the universe.

Like I said, you know, imagine this universe being 100 billion light years across, and we're this tiny little speck, you know, in the middle. And as big as that seems, if you look at one hydrogen molecule, Avogadro's number, one times six-something times 10 to the negative 23rd, that's roughly the same order of scale, guys. Meaning...

As small as we are to the universe, if you compare an atom to our body, that's roughly the same order of magnitude. That's right. We, as a species, can only interact with one or two degrees order of magnitude up or down. Otherwise, the universe is simply too big or too small. And we'll never be able to interact with it.

And that's where most of reality lives.

Yeah, you have any theater stories? Ever forget your line on stage? Okay, so there's three things that... So despite looking like I'm from Iowa, I'm actually Cuban. So I speak Spanish and I'm Hispanic. Okay. We do three things coming out of the womb quite well. One is we smoke cigars quite well. It's genetic for us, I guess. Two, we can dance salsa and merengue pretty well.

And the third thing I probably can't discuss over the airwaves is probably not appropriate. But those are kind of the three things that as Latinos we do well. Nice. Very nice.

Yeah. No, I know, I know. Of course you were. For sure, for sure. Good for you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just want to make sure I clarify that.

I plead the fifth.

What a pleasure.

Yeah, keep it going, please.

Gentlemen, it's always a team effort. Thank you very much. By the way, my two daughters, who also work for the government, are huge fans of you guys. Oh, tell them hello. Oh, I absolutely will. When I told them I was going to do your show, I think both of them were about to jump out the window. They were so excited.

We love breaking news on this show. You have my word.

And thank you for spending some time with us. Thanks, Luke. Guys, I appreciate it. Look, I didn't come on here to plug a book. Just wanted to have a conversation with you guys. No, of course. I love it. Appreciate it.

But if there's anything you guys ever have any questions, let me know. Thank you, sir. Okay, thanks, buddy. We got a lot.

Hi, gentlemen. Good morning. It is my honor and privilege to be with you, gents.

I might have heard of his name a few times.

Listen, I got to apologize, guys, for, you know, wearing a hat. I know, unfortunately, I'm one of those guys who has short hair and has to wear a hat because I have an unusually hemispherically round head. Yeah. And so my wife forces me to wear a hat. She's like, otherwise I look like a bowling ball, so...

Well, yeah, I've said that a few times. Unfortunately, after 30 years of marriage, I've learned early on that happy wife, happy life. So when she says wear a hat, I wear a hat.

My wife made it very clear to me that if for whatever reason we were ever to have a divorce, I'd have to buy back my own underwear from her. Wow. Okay. Wow. I prefer to stay in the current relationship I have right now.

Yeah, so great question. And again, thank you very much for having me on this wonderful program of yours. You know, when you're testifying before Congress and the American people, it's under oath.

So you definitely need to keep your facts straight and remember that everything you're saying is for the record and it's indelible, meaning those words will be there forever, long after I'm gone and whatnot. So... It's important that we communicate clearly. But at the same time, you're right. I have a security clearance, and I cannot violate that security clearance.

The Pentagon was very, very specific with me on what I can and cannot say in an open hearing. And so that's why you saw me a few times when I said, look, I prefer to have that discussion in a closed session. Because then we can start talking about some of the classified nuances of what they're asking me.

And by the way, it's a bit of a precarious situation because, you know, if you don't say enough, then Congress feels that it's kind of like fast food, right? You feel full, but you're not really satisfied. You get some information, but you're not really getting what you're asking for. But at the same time— If I'm overly specific, then I can get in trouble with the U.S. government.

I can actually find myself in very significant legal trouble. And for the record, I do not look good in an orange jumpsuit. So try to avoid that as much as possible.

Yeah, unfortunately, that's not the case. The public's never happy with half information. And I understand that. You know, frankly, I would get frustrated too. But if you look at this conversation as it's kind of evolved over the last, let's say, seven years, I think we've come further in this conversation in the last seven than perhaps over the last 70 years.

And none of us had to violate our security oaths. More and more information is coming out every single day. More and more whistleblowers are ready to come out and testify in front of Congress and the American people to let them know what they know about legacy programs and the UAP topic. You asked me to define, by the way, what UAP is.

UAP is basically the new word for the old term UFO or unidentified flying object. It was changed to UAP some time ago. One was because of the stigma, the taboo and stigma surrounding UFO. Look, anytime you say UFO, people think tinfoil hats and Elvis on the mothership. And that's what we're talking about.

What we're talking about are things that are being intelligently controlled that can fly over controlled U.S. airspace with complete anonymity And potentially over our sensitive military installations and have the ability to even interfere with our nuclear equities. So from a national security perspective, this is a very serious topic. It is a national security concern.

But there's other aspects to this conversation that if you were to ask me, I would submit to you the government has no business being involved in. So what do I mean? To make a long story short, if I was talking to a three-star or four-star general about potentially our vulnerabilities regarding UAP and our nuclear equities, great conversation to have with a three-star general.

But this is a conversation that affects everybody individually.

both equally and a little bit differently meaning depending how you were raised and your cultural background your religious background this is a topic that affects us from a psychological perspective a theological perspective a sociological perspective even a philosophical perspective and and in that instance i i'm not really comfortable with with a three-star general necessarily dictating to to me

how I should feel about this topic. I was a product of the government. And, you know, there's a lot of things we do right, and then there's some things that we don't do very well.

That may be some of it. I mean, let's face it. Governments are designed to be solution-oriented. What do I mean? We pay a lot of money with our tax dollars to make sure that our government has all the information it needs, all the intelligence it needs, in order to make an informed decision to protect us. Now, when you have an issue like this,

where you can see some of the capabilities, but you have no idea the intent behind these things, it leaves people scratching their head. And that's not a really convenient conversation to have with the American people, especially if you are part of the national security apparatus like the Department of Defense, like the CIA, right? I'll give you case in point.

Back in the 1950s, when the CIA first commissioned the U-2 spy plane with Lockheed Skunk Works, we wanted to build a plane that could fly higher and faster than anybody else in the world so we could fly manned reconnaissance missions over mainland Russia. By the way, in contravention to an existing treaty we had with Russia at the time. So the first few missions went off great.

We flew the aircraft and you know what? The Russians didn't respond. And so we really thought our plane was invisible. It was flying faster and higher and we achieved mission success. It wasn't until the Russians developed the SA-2 surface-to-air missile

What the hell is that? And more importantly, that data is being backed up by radar data, right? So you've got electro-optical data like gun camera footage or POD or FLIR video, and then you've got radar data that is actually confirming what the video is picking up. And then you've got eyewitnesses that are also watching it, right? So you've got...

What the hell is that? And more importantly, that data is being backed up by radar data, right? So you've got electro-optical data like gun camera footage or POD or FLIR video, and then you've got radar data that is actually confirming what the video is picking up. And then you've got eyewitnesses that are also watching it, right? So you've got...

trained observers, pilots that can recognize the silhouette between an SU-22 and a MiG-25 from 20 miles away and make a split-second decision, is it friend or foe, do I kill it or do I let it live? And they're reporting it. So you have now three separate, if you will, collection platforms, the human eye being one of them.

trained observers, pilots that can recognize the silhouette between an SU-22 and a MiG-25 from 20 miles away and make a split-second decision, is it friend or foe, do I kill it or do I let it live? And they're reporting it. So you have now three separate, if you will, collection platforms, the human eye being one of them.

You've got gun camera footage and you've got radar footage, all describing the same event at the same place at the same time under the same circumstances, right? And so keep in mind with my background as a former special agent in counterintelligence, if this was in front of a jury – You know, as I've said before, I think we're well beyond reasonable doubt. That is something there.

You've got gun camera footage and you've got radar footage, all describing the same event at the same place at the same time under the same circumstances, right? And so keep in mind with my background as a former special agent in counterintelligence, if this was in front of a jury – You know, as I've said before, I think we're well beyond reasonable doubt. That is something there.

I mean, that is real. That's not an atmospheric aberration. It's not an anomaly. That is something there. It's tangible.

I mean, that is real. That's not an atmospheric aberration. It's not an anomaly. That is something there. It's tangible.

No, like I said, for me it was more slow and gradual.

No, like I said, for me it was more slow and gradual.

I think for me one of the most compelling moments was when I attended – Boy, let me go back into memory banks. I attended a dinner with some individuals who were already associated with the larger umbrella program called OSAP. And I attended dinner at a Washington, D.C. hotel, and a Brazilian general attended this dinner. And the dinner was sponsored by a gentleman named Robert Bigelow.

I think for me one of the most compelling moments was when I attended – Boy, let me go back into memory banks. I attended a dinner with some individuals who were already associated with the larger umbrella program called OSAP. And I attended dinner at a Washington, D.C. hotel, and a Brazilian general attended this dinner. And the dinner was sponsored by a gentleman named Robert Bigelow.

The famous billionaire hotel. Yeah, I've met him. Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, he's he's an American hero. He's a patriot. He's brilliant. He is brilliant. And he's and people don't realize that he funded self-funded a lot of this stuff on behalf of the U.S. government for by himself. Like he paid it to do it himself. He really is an American patriot, in my opinion.

The famous billionaire hotel. Yeah, I've met him. Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, he's he's an American hero. He's a patriot. He's brilliant. He is brilliant. And he's and people don't realize that he funded self-funded a lot of this stuff on behalf of the U.S. government for by himself. Like he paid it to do it himself. He really is an American patriot, in my opinion.

But anyways, he flew in this guy named General Uchoa. General Uchoa was a Brazilian general, very, very senior in the Brazilian government, who led an investigation about an event that occurred over several days. Is this the Varginha incident? No, it's actually called Colares. Oh, another one. In Brazil, yeah. And the Colares incident. And they had... an overwhelming number of eyewitnesses.

But anyways, he flew in this guy named General Uchoa. General Uchoa was a Brazilian general, very, very senior in the Brazilian government, who led an investigation about an event that occurred over several days. Is this the Varginha incident? No, it's actually called Colares. Oh, another one. In Brazil, yeah. And the Colares incident. And they had... an overwhelming number of eyewitnesses.

And there was even some video and photographs that they had produced internally there to Brazil. And it was overwhelming, the evidence. And for me, it was more listening to him and explain the concern they had and some of the interactions the Brazilian government officials had with these UAP that really I left there that dinner scratching my head and really at that point beginning to absorb

And there was even some video and photographs that they had produced internally there to Brazil. And it was overwhelming, the evidence. And for me, it was more listening to him and explain the concern they had and some of the interactions the Brazilian government officials had with these UAP that really I left there that dinner scratching my head and really at that point beginning to absorb

the profoundness that we're dealing with something that is real. This is not a cover plan for some other technology we're trying to protect. Did he show you this video evidence? So I was sitting at kind of like a table like this. There was a whole lot of people at the table. He was sitting at the head. I was kind of way down over here.

the profoundness that we're dealing with something that is real. This is not a cover plan for some other technology we're trying to protect. Did he show you this video evidence? So I was sitting at kind of like a table like this. There was a whole lot of people at the table. He was sitting at the head. I was kind of way down over here.

And he brought a manila envelope and he was showing photographs to everybody. Right. And some reporting as well. I think he brought, if I recall correctly, his daughter to translate because I don't think English was his, you know, very good. It wasn't his language.

And he brought a manila envelope and he was showing photographs to everybody. Right. And some reporting as well. I think he brought, if I recall correctly, his daughter to translate because I don't think English was his, you know, very good. It wasn't his language.

But for me, that was and I think for one of my colleagues, too, which I probably can't say his name right now because he hasn't come out publicly yet. But we both left that dinner. And I think scratching our heads and saying, wow, this is legit. This is real. The U.S. government is interested in this. And there is interest by our government.

But for me, that was and I think for one of my colleagues, too, which I probably can't say his name right now because he hasn't come out publicly yet. But we both left that dinner. And I think scratching our heads and saying, wow, this is legit. This is real. The U.S. government is interested in this. And there is interest by our government.

After that dinner, attending more meetings and beginning to read the reports, the field reports and speaking to the scientists, it became evident to me that this was a very serious issue. We had near misses over some of our areas of operation. In some cases, literally these UAP splitting a combat formation. Now, if you know how planes fly, they fly very close in a combat situation.

After that dinner, attending more meetings and beginning to read the reports, the field reports and speaking to the scientists, it became evident to me that this was a very serious issue. We had near misses over some of our areas of operation. In some cases, literally these UAP splitting a combat formation. Now, if you know how planes fly, they fly very close in a combat situation.

These things were splitting the formation, right? That there were reports being provided through the Air Force, mostly through the Navy, about air safety issues, where pilots literally could run into these things, right? They were pervasive. It wasn't like a onesie and twosies.

These things were splitting the formation, right? That there were reports being provided through the Air Force, mostly through the Navy, about air safety issues, where pilots literally could run into these things, right? They were pervasive. It wasn't like a onesie and twosies.

Not that I'm aware of what I can tell you that there has been incidents where there appears to be some sort of provocation where one of these things seems to be coming deliberately close to an aircraft, not necessarily trying to hit it, but maybe trying to demonstrate performance capabilities. There was one video in particular. I haven't been cleared by the Pentagon.

Not that I'm aware of what I can tell you that there has been incidents where there appears to be some sort of provocation where one of these things seems to be coming deliberately close to an aircraft, not necessarily trying to hit it, but maybe trying to demonstrate performance capabilities. There was one video in particular. I haven't been cleared by the Pentagon.

So let me see if I can speak about it in general terms. There's a pilot flying. And you can hear on the radio this chatter back and forth. Do you see it? Do you have eyes down on it? Pilot, nope. Negative, no eyes down. Okay, you should have it on radar. Yeah, I got something on radar, but no eyes. I can't see it. And then all of a sudden, a craft, a

So let me see if I can speak about it in general terms. There's a pilot flying. And you can hear on the radio this chatter back and forth. Do you see it? Do you have eyes down on it? Pilot, nope. Negative, no eyes down. Okay, you should have it on radar. Yeah, I got something on radar, but no eyes. I can't see it. And then all of a sudden, a craft, a

An object goes whizzing right by the cockpit, and I mean probably like 15 feet away. And you can hear the pilot, the expletives of the pilot. I won't say it here on air, but you can imagine, right, what a pilot would say when they're very, very surprised. That was one. Can you describe what he saw? I think I can.

An object goes whizzing right by the cockpit, and I mean probably like 15 feet away. And you can hear the pilot, the expletives of the pilot. I won't say it here on air, but you can imagine, right, what a pilot would say when they're very, very surprised. That was one. Can you describe what he saw? I think I can.

I want to be careful that I don't, because again, I haven't had a, what I, what I have approval to talk about. I've, I've spoken about, um, let me preface by saying I still have my security clearance. Uh, and on occasion I still will consult for the U S government. And so I want to be very mindful. I have no problem going up all the way to the line. Right. Understood.

I want to be careful that I don't, because again, I haven't had a, what I, what I have approval to talk about. I've, I've spoken about, um, let me preface by saying I still have my security clearance. Uh, and on occasion I still will consult for the U S government. And so I want to be very mindful. I have no problem going up all the way to the line. Right. Understood.

But if I put up, you know, a pinky toe over that line there. Right, right, right. Um, but it was a wedge shaped craft wedge shaped wedge shaped, um, like triangular, but, um, Yeah, like a wedge. I don't know how else to describe it. I could draw it for you if you want. You want me to draw it?

But if I put up, you know, a pinky toe over that line there. Right, right, right. Um, but it was a wedge shaped craft wedge shaped wedge shaped, um, like triangular, but, um, Yeah, like a wedge. I don't know how else to describe it. I could draw it for you if you want. You want me to draw it?

Give me a second.

Give me a second.

Yeah, but it was silver metallic and like a diamond maybe. That's a better way to describe it. Like a diamond almost.

Yeah, but it was silver metallic and like a diamond maybe. That's a better way to describe it. Like a diamond almost.

and it looked kind of like it look look kind of like that really it's just uh just a little and that that kind of shape is something that's been reported multiple times um so that was the first time i ever saw something like that to me it was keep in mind i i never followed this topic so every time i'm seeing one of these videos i'm kind of seeing something for the very first time so lenticular whether it's a disc shaped craft or it's

and it looked kind of like it look look kind of like that really it's just uh just a little and that that kind of shape is something that's been reported multiple times um so that was the first time i ever saw something like that to me it was keep in mind i i never followed this topic so every time i'm seeing one of these videos i'm kind of seeing something for the very first time so lenticular whether it's a disc shaped craft or it's

It's a wedge-shaped craft or a diamond-shaped craft or a triangle-shaped craft, boomerang in some cases. These were all new to me. So it was very, very perplexing. And obviously, to our military pilots, it was very concerning. And I think when you look at some of the gold standard cases we had, like the Nimitz, for example, that case, you have this overwhelming number of sensors

It's a wedge-shaped craft or a diamond-shaped craft or a triangle-shaped craft, boomerang in some cases. These were all new to me. So it was very, very perplexing. And obviously, to our military pilots, it was very concerning. And I think when you look at some of the gold standard cases we had, like the Nimitz, for example, that case, you have this overwhelming number of sensors

Looking at the same thing going on that the pilots are reporting. And for me, that was most compelling. Like I said, more than eyewitness testimony is important. But at the end of the day, you know, grandma seeing some lights in her backyard doesn't really do it for me. You know, I'm a fact oriented kind of guy. I've got to see the data. Let the data.

Looking at the same thing going on that the pilots are reporting. And for me, that was most compelling. Like I said, more than eyewitness testimony is important. But at the end of the day, you know, grandma seeing some lights in her backyard doesn't really do it for me. You know, I'm a fact oriented kind of guy. I've got to see the data. Let the data.

provide us the information we need so then we can make a conclusion. If you start seeing UFOs in the sky everywhere, well, chances are they're probably not. It's a quadcopter, it's a balloon, it's an aircraft, it could be all sorts of things.

provide us the information we need so then we can make a conclusion. If you start seeing UFOs in the sky everywhere, well, chances are they're probably not. It's a quadcopter, it's a balloon, it's an aircraft, it could be all sorts of things.

That's why I think from our perspective, having the fundamental categories, the observables we call them, was so important because they are so beyond what a normal aircraft, a traditional conventional aircraft can do. At that point, you realize you're dealing with some sort of beyond next generation technology. And that's when it gets compelling for guys like me, right?

That's why I think from our perspective, having the fundamental categories, the observables we call them, was so important because they are so beyond what a normal aircraft, a traditional conventional aircraft can do. At that point, you realize you're dealing with some sort of beyond next generation technology. And that's when it gets compelling for guys like me, right?

When you're seeing performance capabilities that far exceed, far surpass anything we have. And I'm talking even the very, very best technology we have. We don't come close to that. and no visible means of propulsion? No, or obvious signs of lift, right? And not even a cockpit. You have to scratch your head and see what's going on. Interestingly, I'll share with you.

When you're seeing performance capabilities that far exceed, far surpass anything we have. And I'm talking even the very, very best technology we have. We don't come close to that. and no visible means of propulsion? No, or obvious signs of lift, right? And not even a cockpit. You have to scratch your head and see what's going on. Interestingly, I'll share with you.

No windows. Well, in some cases, no windows. Other cases, people will report what they think are windows. They say, oh, I saw windows. But at the end of the day, we're looking at that in terms of what we think a window is, right? So you see a car, you see windows. Or a plane, those are windows.

No windows. Well, in some cases, no windows. Other cases, people will report what they think are windows. They say, oh, I saw windows. But at the end of the day, we're looking at that in terms of what we think a window is, right? So you see a car, you see windows. Or a plane, those are windows.

I didn't see any information to suggest that there were actually windows, even though an eyewitness might describe a window, because we are describing something that we recognize. And so we say, oh, that might be a window or whatnot. But it might not be a window. And so I want to be very careful to say there were no windows. There could have been.

I didn't see any information to suggest that there were actually windows, even though an eyewitness might describe a window, because we are describing something that we recognize. And so we say, oh, that might be a window or whatnot. But it might not be a window. And so I want to be very careful to say there were no windows. There could have been.

But the ones that I was privy to that I saw, I didn't see any obvious signs of like a windshield or a window. I didn't see anything like that. I saw vehicles that were doing things that were just left you scratching your head. And they were real, like I said, because you're backing it up with all this other sensor data.

But the ones that I was privy to that I saw, I didn't see any obvious signs of like a windshield or a window. I didn't see anything like that. I saw vehicles that were doing things that were just left you scratching your head. And they were real, like I said, because you're backing it up with all this other sensor data.

And some of the best sophisticated sensor data, by the way, at the time on the planet... Right. Like the spy one radar and the E2 Hawkeye and and some of the other radar capabilities and technical capabilities that other intelligence agencies have that I can't discuss here. You know that this this is the stuff that that helps us put forgive the analogy here, but. warheads on foreheads.

And some of the best sophisticated sensor data, by the way, at the time on the planet... Right. Like the spy one radar and the E2 Hawkeye and and some of the other radar capabilities and technical capabilities that other intelligence agencies have that I can't discuss here. You know that this this is the stuff that that helps us put forgive the analogy here, but. warheads on foreheads.

When we're going to take a strike against a terrorist, these are the same sensor systems we use to prosecute that war, that act, both in combat and not in combat. So yeah, that for me was very compelling. And it's lots and lots of videos. People think that there's only three videos. Those don't even scratch the surface. There are hundreds and hundreds of videos that

When we're going to take a strike against a terrorist, these are the same sensor systems we use to prosecute that war, that act, both in combat and not in combat. So yeah, that for me was very compelling. And it's lots and lots of videos. People think that there's only three videos. Those don't even scratch the surface. There are hundreds and hundreds of videos that

the intelligence community and the Department of Defense have on these things. Has there ever been any discussion about releasing any of these? I don't want to speak on behalf of the government. Colleagues of mine like Chris Mellon, who have been very, very, very active in this topic and have actually been responsible for a lot of what we see now happening in Congress, has been championing that.

the intelligence community and the Department of Defense have on these things. Has there ever been any discussion about releasing any of these? I don't want to speak on behalf of the government. Colleagues of mine like Chris Mellon, who have been very, very, very active in this topic and have actually been responsible for a lot of what we see now happening in Congress, has been championing that.

He is the one who says, look, we need more videos to come out so the American people can see for themselves what we've been dealing with. When I had Chris Mellon in the Pentagon, he saw those videos.

He is the one who says, look, we need more videos to come out so the American people can see for themselves what we've been dealing with. When I had Chris Mellon in the Pentagon, he saw those videos.

And up to that point, he had been, when he was a senior person at the Pentagon, like very senior, one of his jobs as the senior intelligence official, he asked, hey, do we have any UAP, UFO videos, investigations, anything like that? And they told him no. So when he came to the Pentagon and saw what we actually did have, You can imagine someone like Chris Mellon, right? He wasn't very happy.

And up to that point, he had been, when he was a senior person at the Pentagon, like very senior, one of his jobs as the senior intelligence official, he asked, hey, do we have any UAP, UFO videos, investigations, anything like that? And they told him no. So when he came to the Pentagon and saw what we actually did have, You can imagine someone like Chris Mellon, right? He wasn't very happy.

He was actually pretty disappointed, saying, why was I told no? I can see these videos clearly. I see the reports. Clearly, this is something that we're interested in as a Department of Defense. And yet, when I was one of the senior guys, he got the Heisman, right? He was being told no. And so that was, I think, a point for him that really, that's probably the spark.

He was actually pretty disappointed, saying, why was I told no? I can see these videos clearly. I see the reports. Clearly, this is something that we're interested in as a Department of Defense. And yet, when I was one of the senior guys, he got the Heisman, right? He was being told no. And so that was, I think, a point for him that really, that's probably the spark.

And I don't want to speak for my friend Chris, but I suspect that was probably the spark that got him to the point where he said, okay, we have to do something about this. This is BS.

And I don't want to speak for my friend Chris, but I suspect that was probably the spark that got him to the point where he said, okay, we have to do something about this. This is BS.

Yeah, I think they said those were drones, though, if I'm not mistaken. I think the jury came out, if I'm not mistaken, I could be wrong, that it was somebody using drones with some LED lights.

Yeah, I think they said those were drones, though, if I'm not mistaken. I think the jury came out, if I'm not mistaken, I could be wrong, that it was somebody using drones with some LED lights.

You absolutely can.

You absolutely can.

100%.

100%.

Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, we have to be careful as our own technology begins to advance. There's going to be pranksters out there. And that's one of the things that for me in AATIP, I always went into an investigation or a case assuming that it was manmade.

Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, we have to be careful as our own technology begins to advance. There's going to be pranksters out there. And that's one of the things that for me in AATIP, I always went into an investigation or a case assuming that it was manmade.

And until I saw the compelling data that said otherwise, we were always going to assume or presume that this was something that was conventional. It was probably misidentified. but it wasn't exotic. And then once the data suggests otherwise, then you kind of go into that other mode of, okay, now what are we dealing with?

And until I saw the compelling data that said otherwise, we were always going to assume or presume that this was something that was conventional. It was probably misidentified. but it wasn't exotic. And then once the data suggests otherwise, then you kind of go into that other mode of, okay, now what are we dealing with?

Again, especially on the backdrop of the five performance observables, that's when you start to say, okay, yeah, this is not an F-16. This is not a Chinese aircraft. This is something different.

Again, especially on the backdrop of the five performance observables, that's when you start to say, okay, yeah, this is not an F-16. This is not a Chinese aircraft. This is something different.

Civilian or military?

Civilian or military?

It just so happens I brought you something. Oh. When the glasses come out, you know it's getting serious. No, it just means I'm old. Me too. Yeah. I'm going to provide you a document here. It's a short document, but the portions I think are highlighted that you're going to want to pay attention to. And let's see here. Okay.

It just so happens I brought you something. Oh. When the glasses come out, you know it's getting serious. No, it just means I'm old. Me too. Yeah. I'm going to provide you a document here. It's a short document, but the portions I think are highlighted that you're going to want to pay attention to. And let's see here. Okay.

So if this is just for you and if your audience is interested, it's this paragraph here you're going to want to read. And then it's the last one that's highlighted. And then take a look at the date and the subject line.

So if this is just for you and if your audience is interested, it's this paragraph here you're going to want to read. And then it's the last one that's highlighted. And then take a look at the date and the subject line.

Oh, great. Yeah. So paragraph six right now. So if you want to scroll down to paragraph six. OK.

Oh, great. Yeah. So paragraph six right now. So if you want to scroll down to paragraph six. OK.

And the date of that document, if you scroll a little bit higher, you are going to see the date of that memo.

And the date of that document, if you scroll a little bit higher, you are going to see the date of that memo.

Right.

Right.

So this is the recognition that we have a serious problem over our sensitive military installations. This is nothing new. This is not – 1970s reverse engineered technology or some sort of special technology.

So this is the recognition that we have a serious problem over our sensitive military installations. This is nothing new. This is not – 1970s reverse engineered technology or some sort of special technology.

We had just broken the sound barrier, and we had not yet entered into space. And we have these things that are performing in ways that, frankly, we can't replicate. I brought a few more of these later on to emphasize that point you just brought up at some point if you're interested. Yeah. But it highlights that these are official government documents through official government personnel. Right.

We had just broken the sound barrier, and we had not yet entered into space. And we have these things that are performing in ways that, frankly, we can't replicate. I brought a few more of these later on to emphasize that point you just brought up at some point if you're interested. Yeah. But it highlights that these are official government documents through official government personnel. Right.

raising the alarm bells just like we did in OSAP and ATIPS. And so this is nothing new. Now, if you want to look at this from an adversarial perspective, our government has already said that's not ours, right? If you look at a 1950 Sabre jet, for example, it wasn't even supersonic. And yet these things that we are observing in some cases are doing about some more documents here.

raising the alarm bells just like we did in OSAP and ATIPS. And so this is nothing new. Now, if you want to look at this from an adversarial perspective, our government has already said that's not ours, right? If you look at a 1950 Sabre jet, for example, it wasn't even supersonic. And yet these things that we are observing in some cases are doing about some more documents here.

multiples of of mock um at at at and doing velocities and doing things that we frankly could not do back then and frankly we still can't do in some cases but temporarily speaking the only two countries in the world may may have a chance of doing something like that would be russia and china and now in 1950 where was china was in the middle of a famine and at the time, and where was Russia?

multiples of of mock um at at at and doing velocities and doing things that we frankly could not do back then and frankly we still can't do in some cases but temporarily speaking the only two countries in the world may may have a chance of doing something like that would be russia and china and now in 1950 where was china was in the middle of a famine and at the time, and where was Russia?

Russia was trying to develop the atomic bomb and still was using horse-drawn carts for a lot of their military operations. So, temporally speaking, it doesn't make sense. This is the analogy I've used before, Joe, that it would be like the Carter going into King Tut's tomb for the very first time in the 1920s, discovering King Tut's tomb, And when he goes in, he finds a fully assembled 747 jet.

Russia was trying to develop the atomic bomb and still was using horse-drawn carts for a lot of their military operations. So, temporally speaking, it doesn't make sense. This is the analogy I've used before, Joe, that it would be like the Carter going into King Tut's tomb for the very first time in the 1920s, discovering King Tut's tomb, And when he goes in, he finds a fully assembled 747 jet.

It doesn't make sense. Temporally speaking, they did not have that technology. So is it possible, and I'll be very careful what I say, that the U.S. government has some sort of exotic technology? Well, my answer is I sure hope so because, you know, we want to have an advantage over our adversaries. But in 1950, that wasn't the case.

It doesn't make sense. Temporally speaking, they did not have that technology. So is it possible, and I'll be very careful what I say, that the U.S. government has some sort of exotic technology? Well, my answer is I sure hope so because, you know, we want to have an advantage over our adversaries. But in 1950, that wasn't the case.

There is film of many crafts, and not just New Mexico per se, but over many military installations. I've got another one for you I'll provide you. You don't want to have to waste your time reading it, but I think you'll appreciate this. Take a look at the date of this and who it's to and who it's from, and I think you'll find the subject line very interesting.

There is film of many crafts, and not just New Mexico per se, but over many military installations. I've got another one for you I'll provide you. You don't want to have to waste your time reading it, but I think you'll appreciate this. Take a look at the date of this and who it's to and who it's from, and I think you'll find the subject line very interesting.

Just to highlight a portion so you can see the top of the document, who it's from, who it's to and the date, and what the subject line is.

Just to highlight a portion so you can see the top of the document, who it's from, who it's to and the date, and what the subject line is.

Yeah, it's an old reproduction of official government document. Bottom line, it's a document from J. Edgar Hoover.

Yeah, it's an old reproduction of official government document. Bottom line, it's a document from J. Edgar Hoover.

And read the subject line of that memo.

And read the subject line of that memo.

Flying disks, I should say. Flying disks over the savanna. There's a sensitive facility that we had where we were doing atomic development.

Flying disks, I should say. Flying disks over the savanna. There's a sensitive facility that we had where we were doing atomic development.

Savannah River Plant. Yes, sir. Okay. That's correct.

Savannah River Plant. Yes, sir. Okay. That's correct.

Yeah, and the date of that being 1952, right? So this is verified? That was released by the government. Those are all official. All these are official U.S. government documentation that anybody can pull up anytime they want.

Yeah, and the date of that being 1952, right? So this is verified? That was released by the government. Those are all official. All these are official U.S. government documentation that anybody can pull up anytime they want.

So great question. Our focus was really more – modern time. It was more like taking a picture of where we are now.

So great question. Our focus was really more – modern time. It was more like taking a picture of where we are now.

Sure. And anecdotally, that's great. But keep in mind, on the backdrop of national security, when you go to a general... They should clean this up, by the way.

Sure. And anecdotally, that's great. But keep in mind, on the backdrop of national security, when you go to a general... They should clean this up, by the way.

Yeah, that's Uncle Sam for you. You know, when you go to a general or- It makes me suspicious. No, you can find it.

Yeah, that's Uncle Sam for you. You know, when you go to a general or- It makes me suspicious. No, you can find it.

But it was just like- Yeah, the government released that. I mean, they admit that.

But it was just like- Yeah, the government released that. I mean, they admit that.

Well, remember, they were using typewriters back then too, right? And the ink smears. Blotchy. Yeah, blotchy. And I'm sure the original is probably much, much cleaner. But that's what the government put out online for people to review.

Well, remember, they were using typewriters back then too, right? And the ink smears. Blotchy. Yeah, blotchy. And I'm sure the original is probably much, much cleaner. But that's what the government put out online for people to review.

So when you're going back to answer your question, when you are going to a general or you're going to a military leader about this topic, if you go back to anecdotal stuff like, oh, this is something from 1950s, they're not interested. They're like, look, what is going on now? What is the threat now? I've got a carrier strike group out in the water.

So when you're going back to answer your question, when you are going to a general or you're going to a military leader about this topic, if you go back to anecdotal stuff like, oh, this is something from 1950s, they're not interested. They're like, look, what is going on now? What is the threat now? I've got a carrier strike group out in the water.

I'm getting reports these things are coming in and interrogating the ship.

I'm getting reports these things are coming in and interrogating the ship.

you know what i want to see that i want to see the videos i want to see the reporting i want to see the the deck logs and what the commander says and i want to know the pilots i want to talk to the pilots the radar operators right that's their focus they're not interested by the way we've tried a few times and the further back in time we go the less interested they were so it was really interesting yeah it was really the current information what's going on now i'm not interested in what happened they're just taking a pragmatic approach yeah yeah and it's you know it's understandable from a military perspective a national security perspective

you know what i want to see that i want to see the videos i want to see the reporting i want to see the the deck logs and what the commander says and i want to know the pilots i want to talk to the pilots the radar operators right that's their focus they're not interested by the way we've tried a few times and the further back in time we go the less interested they were so it was really interesting yeah it was really the current information what's going on now i'm not interested in what happened they're just taking a pragmatic approach yeah yeah and it's you know it's understandable from a military perspective a national security perspective

The other stuff is interesting. And from the general public's perspective, you know, they're interested. But from a national security perspective, they're like, hey, man, that was three decades ago. Right. Makes sense. I need now. So it is understandable. A little frustrating because you want to demonstrate, look, boss, this is nothing new. This is a repeated pattern that we're seeing here.

The other stuff is interesting. And from the general public's perspective, you know, they're interested. But from a national security perspective, they're like, hey, man, that was three decades ago. Right. Makes sense. I need now. So it is understandable. A little frustrating because you want to demonstrate, look, boss, this is nothing new. This is a repeated pattern that we're seeing here.

But they're more interested in the here and now.

But they're more interested in the here and now.

There was reporting, yeah. And again, I got to be careful because some of that stuff I haven't been cleared to talk about. But there are reports we call foreign intelligence, FI, foreign intelligence reports. I can't say where or who or anything like that. But on classified systems where we know without a shadow of a doubt UAPs were encountered in other countries, adversarial countries. Why?

There was reporting, yeah. And again, I got to be careful because some of that stuff I haven't been cleared to talk about. But there are reports we call foreign intelligence, FI, foreign intelligence reports. I can't say where or who or anything like that. But on classified systems where we know without a shadow of a doubt UAPs were encountered in other countries, adversarial countries. Why?

Because we spy on them and we know. Again, I can't say how we know and whatnot because I can get in trouble, but just... So we know this is not a United States phenomenon. Precisely. It is not a U.S.-only phenomenon. And in fact, in other countries, whether it's in Latin America, South America, or in Europe or Russia, China, there is an extreme interest in this topic.

Because we spy on them and we know. Again, I can't say how we know and whatnot because I can get in trouble, but just... So we know this is not a United States phenomenon. Precisely. It is not a U.S.-only phenomenon. And in fact, in other countries, whether it's in Latin America, South America, or in Europe or Russia, China, there is an extreme interest in this topic.

In fact, the Chinese, it was in the newspaper, I think it was the China Morning Sun, there's something called the Five Continents Initiative, where allegedly they were trying to

In fact, the Chinese, it was in the newspaper, I think it was the China Morning Sun, there's something called the Five Continents Initiative, where allegedly they were trying to

broker a deal with the united nations that would allow china to run all the ufo investigations for the united nations right so we also know that russia they've come out and said yeah we're interested in this topic there was some released old kgb footage that showed mig interactions with these uap and there's also in latin america you have the same thing if you go to latin america now they don't have the same level of stigma and taboo associated with this topic like we do

broker a deal with the united nations that would allow china to run all the ufo investigations for the united nations right so we also know that russia they've come out and said yeah we're interested in this topic there was some released old kgb footage that showed mig interactions with these uap and there's also in latin america you have the same thing if you go to latin america now they don't have the same level of stigma and taboo associated with this topic like we do

And so they talk freely about it. They have no problem talking. In fact, when I was in the Patagonia area of Argentina, there is a near town called Bariloche and Las Lajas. One of the chief of police was telling me that there's an area there called La Miranda. La Miranda means to see, to view places.

And so they talk freely about it. They have no problem talking. In fact, when I was in the Patagonia area of Argentina, there is a near town called Bariloche and Las Lajas. One of the chief of police was telling me that there's an area there called La Miranda. La Miranda means to see, to view places.

And they call it that, the town, because UAP are so frequent there that local law enforcement actually built an observatory, an observation post, to look at these things because they were so frequent. So this is not a new phenomenon. This is something that's been around for quite a long time. The problem is, in my opinion, and I could be wrong, but this is my assessment –

And they call it that, the town, because UAP are so frequent there that local law enforcement actually built an observatory, an observation post, to look at these things because they were so frequent. So this is not a new phenomenon. This is something that's been around for quite a long time. The problem is, in my opinion, and I could be wrong, but this is my assessment –

The reason why it's so difficult to have the conversation here is because our government had placed so much emphasis and interest trying to stigmatize this topic that it almost worked too well. Now we're at the point where we should be having this conversation and people still don't want to because they think it's crazy. You think of tinfoil hats and Elvis on the mothership.

The reason why it's so difficult to have the conversation here is because our government had placed so much emphasis and interest trying to stigmatize this topic that it almost worked too well. Now we're at the point where we should be having this conversation and people still don't want to because they think it's crazy. You think of tinfoil hats and Elvis on the mothership.

But in reality, we're talking about a real national security issue. I mean, these things are here. You have, Joe, you have a former director of national intelligence, Ratcliffe, a former director of CIA. Yeah. Brennan, you have former presidents all coming out and saying, yeah, there's something to it. It's real. Right now, what it is, where it's from and all that stuff.

But in reality, we're talking about a real national security issue. I mean, these things are here. You have, Joe, you have a former director of national intelligence, Ratcliffe, a former director of CIA. Yeah. Brennan, you have former presidents all coming out and saying, yeah, there's something to it. It's real. Right now, what it is, where it's from and all that stuff.

I'm not sure we're quite ready to go there yet. But the acknowledgement is, hey, man, yeah, this is real. It's not ours. And we probably should do something about it.

I'm not sure we're quite ready to go there yet. But the acknowledgement is, hey, man, yeah, this is real. It's not ours. And we probably should do something about it.

Luke, how are you? Hey, sir. I'm doing better than I deserve. Well, that's a good statement. You know, there's an old military saying, any day above ground is a good day.

Luke, how are you? Hey, sir. I'm doing better than I deserve. Well, that's a good statement. You know, there's an old military saying, any day above ground is a good day.

Yeah. My understanding is you have to look at where America was at the time they were doing these investigations. It was at the height of the Cold War, right? And despite what some people think, the Cold War wasn't very cold at all. It was pretty hot. And we had Russia and the United States engaging in these proxy wars.

Yeah. My understanding is you have to look at where America was at the time they were doing these investigations. It was at the height of the Cold War, right? And despite what some people think, the Cold War wasn't very cold at all. It was pretty hot. And we had Russia and the United States engaging in these proxy wars.

Neither side wanted to let the other side know what we had and what we didn't know. Right. So if you have these UAP coming in and out, the last thing you want to do is tell the other side broadcast. This is what we've learned from it. And more importantly, this is what we don't know about it. Right. And so both sides were keeping this very quiet.

Neither side wanted to let the other side know what we had and what we didn't know. Right. So if you have these UAP coming in and out, the last thing you want to do is tell the other side broadcast. This is what we've learned from it. And more importantly, this is what we don't know about it. Right. And so both sides were keeping this very quiet.

But there was an interesting agreement at the classified level, I believe, in the late 60s where. There was this relationship with the United States. We were putting up our northern tier radar system to detect then Soviet Union ICBMs. And they were doing the same thing, right, because none of us really trusted each other.

But there was an interesting agreement at the classified level, I believe, in the late 60s where. There was this relationship with the United States. We were putting up our northern tier radar system to detect then Soviet Union ICBMs. And they were doing the same thing, right, because none of us really trusted each other.

But we trusted each other enough to say, look, before you hit that button, if you see something coming over the horizon, before you hit that button and launch, give us a call because – It might be a UFO, right? And we don't want to start World War III because either side mistakes the UFO for an ICBM. And that's how serious they took the topic. I mean, that's real.

But we trusted each other enough to say, look, before you hit that button, if you see something coming over the horizon, before you hit that button and launch, give us a call because – It might be a UFO, right? And we don't want to start World War III because either side mistakes the UFO for an ICBM. And that's how serious they took the topic. I mean, that's real.

That's a real memo that existed between the United States and Russia. So that is an indicator how much both sides took this topic seriously.

That's a real memo that existed between the United States and Russia. So that is an indicator how much both sides took this topic seriously.

I'm aware of the fact that people say it does exist and people have been briefed on it. I wasn't privy to that. I was, again, more focused on the here and now. I was aware of people who had attended certain meetings, very senior level meetings where that was discussed, where they saw certain footage. But I'm hearing that secondhand. I did not see the old footage myself.

I'm aware of the fact that people say it does exist and people have been briefed on it. I wasn't privy to that. I was, again, more focused on the here and now. I was aware of people who had attended certain meetings, very senior level meetings where that was discussed, where they saw certain footage. But I'm hearing that secondhand. I did not see the old footage myself.

My focus was more on the current, what's going on now. But back to your point, why was this effort to try to create so much stigma and taboo? I think it was because of that. I think because you had Russia and U.S. at this weird stalemate where neither one wanted to tell the other side what we know and what we didn't know about UAP.

My focus was more on the current, what's going on now. But back to your point, why was this effort to try to create so much stigma and taboo? I think it was because of that. I think because you had Russia and U.S. at this weird stalemate where neither one wanted to tell the other side what we know and what we didn't know about UAP.

And really, I think the focus from a national security perspective, let's say you're a general and I'm a general. Look, we've got a real Cold War going on here right now. As long as these things aren't coming in and zapping my people, that's going to be my focus right now. That's a real potential threat that I have to deal with now.

And really, I think the focus from a national security perspective, let's say you're a general and I'm a general. Look, we've got a real Cold War going on here right now. As long as these things aren't coming in and zapping my people, that's going to be my focus right now. That's a real potential threat that I have to deal with now.

I've got Russia pointing nukes at me and I'm pointing nukes at them at any time we could launch. Let's focus on that more so than the other stuff. And that has been my observation on why they didn't want to address the problem, the challenge openly with the general public back. And they also were worried.

I've got Russia pointing nukes at me and I'm pointing nukes at them at any time we could launch. Let's focus on that more so than the other stuff. And that has been my observation on why they didn't want to address the problem, the challenge openly with the general public back. And they also were worried.

There was several studies that suggested that most people would be very uncomfortable with that idea that there's something else in the cosmos potentially or even right here on Earth. And that it would create some sort of societal disruption. Right. They didn't want to cause panic. They were afraid that people would kind of like think of a run on Wall Street. Right.

There was several studies that suggested that most people would be very uncomfortable with that idea that there's something else in the cosmos potentially or even right here on Earth. And that it would create some sort of societal disruption. Right. They didn't want to cause panic. They were afraid that people would kind of like think of a run on Wall Street. Right.

You know, those things.

You know, those things.

When people get panic, they do kind of strange things sometimes. And I think the government was very worried about that. What's the most compelling modern thing that you've seen? Oh, my God. I can't talk about it, unfortunately. This is my frustration, Joe, because I know what I've seen. I know what my colleagues have seen, right?

When people get panic, they do kind of strange things sometimes. And I think the government was very worried about that. What's the most compelling modern thing that you've seen? Oh, my God. I can't talk about it, unfortunately. This is my frustration, Joe, because I know what I've seen. I know what my colleagues have seen, right?

And to this day, there's video that's coming in on a regular routine basis that is very, very compelling.

And to this day, there's video that's coming in on a regular routine basis that is very, very compelling.

Well, we have classified systems. We hide a lot of things.

Well, we have classified systems. We hide a lot of things.

So let me backtrack a little bit. This, there's a general public that is filming stuff. But from a Department of Defense perspective, our focus, now Arrow is a different story, but when I was in the government, we had to be very, very careful of something we called intelligence oversight. Back in the 60s and 70s, the U.S. intelligence apparatus, particularly in the Department of Defense,

So let me backtrack a little bit. This, there's a general public that is filming stuff. But from a Department of Defense perspective, our focus, now Arrow is a different story, but when I was in the government, we had to be very, very careful of something we called intelligence oversight. Back in the 60s and 70s, the U.S. intelligence apparatus, particularly in the Department of Defense,

was kind of naughty. They were doing things they shouldn't do. They were spying on students and they were spying on American citizens. You don't say. Crazy. Say it isn't so. So Congress passed some laws and said, okay, you can no longer do this kind of stuff on American citizens. You can't conduct intelligence operations on American citizens. You can't do it. It's illegal, right?

was kind of naughty. They were doing things they shouldn't do. They were spying on students and they were spying on American citizens. You don't say. Crazy. Say it isn't so. So Congress passed some laws and said, okay, you can no longer do this kind of stuff on American citizens. You can't conduct intelligence operations on American citizens. You can't do it. It's illegal, right?

So you have Executive Order 12333 and all these other rules and laws and DoD 5240.1 that all come out and say, no mas. So Department of Defense is supposed to focus on military. That's it. You don't bring in U.S. persons' information and ingest them into a Department of Defense database, especially a Department of Defense intelligence database. That's a super no-no. That's called U.S.

So you have Executive Order 12333 and all these other rules and laws and DoD 5240.1 that all come out and say, no mas. So Department of Defense is supposed to focus on military. That's it. You don't bring in U.S. persons' information and ingest them into a Department of Defense database, especially a Department of Defense intelligence database. That's a super no-no. That's called U.S.

Persons Information, and it's pretty much verboten. So our focus was looking specifically at military-sourced information. I was not focusing at all on what the private citizens were seeing because at the end of the day, we couldn't use it. You can't do anything with the data.

Persons Information, and it's pretty much verboten. So our focus was looking specifically at military-sourced information. I was not focusing at all on what the private citizens were seeing because at the end of the day, we couldn't use it. You can't do anything with the data.

I've heard that before.

I've heard that before.

Overwhelming. Overwhelming. There's absolutely no doubt that we didn't have to look at civilian data because we had... better collection sensor systems from the military that was looking at stuff and giving us better insight if you can't tell us about can you give us some sort of an understanding of like what you're talking about yeah sure um without being specific yeah let me see um okay yeah um

Overwhelming. Overwhelming. There's absolutely no doubt that we didn't have to look at civilian data because we had... better collection sensor systems from the military that was looking at stuff and giving us better insight if you can't tell us about can you give us some sort of an understanding of like what you're talking about yeah sure um without being specific yeah let me see um okay yeah um

There is a video, high resolution video of, I can't say what platform it was taken from. I can't say where it was taken from. But an object that, do you know how large an offshore oil derrick is? They're huge, right? They're almost like a small city, right? They're like one city block. They're huge. They're enormous things. There is a video that shows one of these objects underwater.

There is a video, high resolution video of, I can't say what platform it was taken from. I can't say where it was taken from. But an object that, do you know how large an offshore oil derrick is? They're huge, right? They're almost like a small city, right? They're like one city block. They're huge. They're enormous things. There is a video that shows one of these objects underwater.

That goes by, the speed was calculated between 450 and 550 knots underwater, and it was bigger than the offshore derrick that it was passing, because you could see in the video the offshore derrick, and you could see this thing zip right by it. Jesus. Yeah.

That goes by, the speed was calculated between 450 and 550 knots underwater, and it was bigger than the offshore derrick that it was passing, because you could see in the video the offshore derrick, and you could see this thing zip right by it. Jesus. Yeah.

Right. So exactly. Why do we use the term UAP, right? Now it's unidentified anomalous phenomenon because it's all domain. Initially it was UFO, unidentified flying object. And for several reasons they changed the name. One of them not just because of stigma like people think. But because the word flying object means flight and you have to have wings to fly. That's flight.

Right. So exactly. Why do we use the term UAP, right? Now it's unidentified anomalous phenomenon because it's all domain. Initially it was UFO, unidentified flying object. And for several reasons they changed the name. One of them not just because of stigma like people think. But because the word flying object means flight and you have to have wings to fly. That's flight.

And these things don't have wings. So that term we're not even sure is even accurate anymore because they're not necessarily flying. We see them underwater. We see them super high altitude. So the term was changed to unidentified aerial phenomenon. But again, that did not encompass flying. All the observations we were seeing.

And these things don't have wings. So that term we're not even sure is even accurate anymore because they're not necessarily flying. We see them underwater. We see them super high altitude. So the term was changed to unidentified aerial phenomenon. But again, that did not encompass flying. All the observations we were seeing.

So now the term UAP, I think the latest description of it is unidentified anomalous phenomenon to help describe this multi-domain or transmedium characteristic that we are beginning to see and record that these things can do. And that is – I'm going to – if I can digress for a second because that's super important, Joe.

So now the term UAP, I think the latest description of it is unidentified anomalous phenomenon to help describe this multi-domain or transmedium characteristic that we are beginning to see and record that these things can do. And that is – I'm going to – if I can digress for a second because that's super important, Joe.

We have transmedium vehicles, right? We have things like seaplanes. And it's a plane and it can float on water. But let's face it, a seaplane is neither a really good plane or a really good boat because it's a compromise. It's a design compromise between an object that you want to perform in the air and in the sea. And that's why it's neither really good at both.

We have transmedium vehicles, right? We have things like seaplanes. And it's a plane and it can float on water. But let's face it, a seaplane is neither a really good plane or a really good boat because it's a compromise. It's a design compromise between an object that you want to perform in the air and in the sea. And that's why it's neither really good at both.

Same thing with, for example, a space shuttle. It goes out into space and it can glide down, but it's not a very good airplane. It comes down like a brick, you know, because there's design compromises and performance compromises. But what we are seeing doesn't have any of that attributable compromise. These objects aren't slowing down. They're not changing their performance capabilities.

Same thing with, for example, a space shuttle. It goes out into space and it can glide down, but it's not a very good airplane. It comes down like a brick, you know, because there's design compromises and performance compromises. But what we are seeing doesn't have any of that attributable compromise. These objects aren't slowing down. They're not changing their performance capabilities.

They can do the same thing that we're seeing in the air now. and possibly in space and even underwater. So that is a fundamentally different type of technology than we are used to dealing with.

They can do the same thing that we're seeing in the air now. and possibly in space and even underwater. So that is a fundamentally different type of technology than we are used to dealing with.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. So we had some of the best scientists on the team, folks like Dr. Hal Pudoff and some other folks. I'm not allowed to say their names. Dr. Davis and some others that were doing the calculations, mathematical calculations on how this is possible. And the consensus was by by the scientists, not me, because I'm not a I'm not a. I'm not a physics expert. I'm not an astrophysicist.

Yeah. So we had some of the best scientists on the team, folks like Dr. Hal Pudoff and some other folks. I'm not allowed to say their names. Dr. Davis and some others that were doing the calculations, mathematical calculations on how this is possible. And the consensus was by by the scientists, not me, because I'm not a I'm not a. I'm not a physics expert. I'm not an astrophysicist.

They were saying that – so let me back up here. Initially, the government for years was trying to identify the different exotic technologies that could explain the different performance characteristics. And it was during the ATIP years that the scientists had this consensus that if you had one type of technology, if you could do one thing, all these other observables now become possible.

They were saying that – so let me back up here. Initially, the government for years was trying to identify the different exotic technologies that could explain the different performance characteristics. And it was during the ATIP years that the scientists had this consensus that if you had one type of technology, if you could do one thing, all these other observables now become possible.

Kind of think of like a unifying theory. And so if you had the ability to create this bubble around you in a localized area that insulated you from the effects of Earth's gravity. Now, what is gravity? People think that, you know, when I... Drop my glasses. That's gravity. That's not gravity. That's an effect of gravity. Gravity is the warping of space-time.

Kind of think of like a unifying theory. And so if you had the ability to create this bubble around you in a localized area that insulated you from the effects of Earth's gravity. Now, what is gravity? People think that, you know, when I... Drop my glasses. That's gravity. That's not gravity. That's an effect of gravity. Gravity is the warping of space-time.

And that's important because people don't – you hear the term thrown around a lot. But they don't realize that space and time are actually connected. They are one and the same. They're opposite sides, if you will, of the same coin. And so you can't have one without the other. And so you have this ability to create a bubble around you that insulates you from the warping of space time.

And that's important because people don't – you hear the term thrown around a lot. But they don't realize that space and time are actually connected. They are one and the same. They're opposite sides, if you will, of the same coin. And so you can't have one without the other. And so you have this ability to create a bubble around you that insulates you from the warping of space time.

Let's say in this case, Earth's gravity or something like that. then the way you experience time inside that bubble is perhaps fundamentally different than the way you might experience space-time outside that bubble because you're not subject to the effects of gravity, which would explain potentially why things don't need wings and why they don't need propulsion systems like that, right?

Let's say in this case, Earth's gravity or something like that. then the way you experience time inside that bubble is perhaps fundamentally different than the way you might experience space-time outside that bubble because you're not subject to the effects of gravity, which would explain potentially why things don't need wings and why they don't need propulsion systems like that, right?

So it's a completely different way of looking at how we understand physics and how we, as humans, move about. Everything we do is fundamentally force equals mass times acceleration. F equals MA, right? Mass times acceleration and you force. This may be something a little bit different. This is not using a set, again, conventional thrust or if I put, you know, Newtonian, right?

So it's a completely different way of looking at how we understand physics and how we, as humans, move about. Everything we do is fundamentally force equals mass times acceleration. F equals MA, right? Mass times acceleration and you force. This may be something a little bit different. This is not using a set, again, conventional thrust or if I put, you know, Newtonian, right?

If I push this way, I have an equal and opposite reaction that way, right?

If I push this way, I have an equal and opposite reaction that way, right?

There is. Actually, Dr. Halpudoff about- Three years ago, gave a speech on this, a very interesting talk, lecture about this technology. And if you ever have the chance, you really should have him on because he's an incredible human being. He's also the one who helped start the government's remote viewing program and a bunch of other stuff for the government.

There is. Actually, Dr. Halpudoff about- Three years ago, gave a speech on this, a very interesting talk, lecture about this technology. And if you ever have the chance, you really should have him on because he's an incredible human being. He's also the one who helped start the government's remote viewing program and a bunch of other stuff for the government.

He's been involved in a lot of our nation's probably most classified efforts. But he was working with us on ATP as one of our scientists. And he gave a lecture about three years ago to some other scientists about the specifics on how this is possible. I am not a scientist, so I'm definitely not going to speak on behalf of Hal Pudov because I'm sure I will muck it up.

He's been involved in a lot of our nation's probably most classified efforts. But he was working with us on ATP as one of our scientists. And he gave a lecture about three years ago to some other scientists about the specifics on how this is possible. I am not a scientist, so I'm definitely not going to speak on behalf of Hal Pudov because I'm sure I will muck it up.

But I do recall a time when he came into our SCIF and gave us about a three-hour lecture on this unifying theory. And at that moment, it was very much for us the epiphany that a lot of us had been searching for. He's like, look, at the end of the day, this is how it's possible. And that was kind of this... Wow. So it's really not.

But I do recall a time when he came into our SCIF and gave us about a three-hour lecture on this unifying theory. And at that moment, it was very much for us the epiphany that a lot of us had been searching for. He's like, look, at the end of the day, this is how it's possible. And that was kind of this... Wow. So it's really not.

I'm 57. You are?

I'm 57. You are?

Yeah. Explain it to someone like me. Yeah. Well, I'm in that category, Joe. So we're speaking the same language. Yes, sir. Yeah. Single syllable grunts. Right. Yeah. So. You have an object like this cup on your table, and you want it to be insulated from the effects of Earth's gravity.

Yeah. Explain it to someone like me. Yeah. Well, I'm in that category, Joe. So we're speaking the same language. Yes, sir. Yeah. Single syllable grunts. Right. Yeah. So. You have an object like this cup on your table, and you want it to be insulated from the effects of Earth's gravity.

So you create this bubble artificially using a certain energetic source at a certain frequency, and it interacts with certain material, certain metamaterial. And again, I've got to be careful exactly what I say, but...

So you create this bubble artificially using a certain energetic source at a certain frequency, and it interacts with certain material, certain metamaterial. And again, I've got to be careful exactly what I say, but...

Well, I look 10 years older than you. I got a lot of hard miles on me, unfortunately. I do, too. Believe it or not. Well, you'll have to share with me your secret because, unfortunately, I tell people this is as good as it gets. I'm about as attractive as a cement truck.

Well, I look 10 years older than you. I got a lot of hard miles on me, unfortunately. I do, too. Believe it or not. Well, you'll have to share with me your secret because, unfortunately, I tell people this is as good as it gets. I'm about as attractive as a cement truck.

uh certain skin of the craft this aluminum via the cup here and all of a sudden you have this bubble around you where what you see on the outside is not necessarily what you see on the inside in fact may do it one more drawing for you okay forgive me i'm not an artist so i'm going to do this upside down for you and then i'm going to kind of scoot this just a little here all right let's do this so

uh certain skin of the craft this aluminum via the cup here and all of a sudden you have this bubble around you where what you see on the outside is not necessarily what you see on the inside in fact may do it one more drawing for you okay forgive me i'm not an artist so i'm going to do this upside down for you and then i'm going to kind of scoot this just a little here all right let's do this so

Unfortunately, I know your audience can't see this, but actually it's probably good. That's okay.

Unfortunately, I know your audience can't see this, but actually it's probably good. That's okay.

It's probably good that they don't because I'm not an artist. But let's say this is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional space. Okay. And in essence...

It's probably good that they don't because I'm not an artist. But let's say this is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional space. Okay. And in essence...

Yeah, right. And so you have this – you have location A and location B. And let's say you go from Los Angeles to Baltimore. Okay. And it takes me five hours to fly at 500 miles an hour. Okay. That's a function of distance over time. And in essence, you can mark that linearly like this. So I fly. It takes me five hours. There I am. Okay.

Yeah, right. And so you have this – you have location A and location B. And let's say you go from Los Angeles to Baltimore. Okay. And it takes me five hours to fly at 500 miles an hour. Okay. That's a function of distance over time. And in essence, you can mark that linearly like this. So I fly. It takes me five hours. There I am. Okay.

If you had the ability to compress space-time, and not a lot, just a little bit, and you were able to allow these points to be a little closer together, now in essence... What took you, let's say, five hours and 500 miles an hour to do it, you can do it in one hour. And you can do it in much less time.

If you had the ability to compress space-time, and not a lot, just a little bit, and you were able to allow these points to be a little closer together, now in essence... What took you, let's say, five hours and 500 miles an hour to do it, you can do it in one hour. And you can do it in much less time.

But to the observer outside, because we're still in the same universe, we would see something like that. We would see this incredible hopscotching ability to, if you will, take a shortcut through space-time. And so what would appear to be instantaneous acceleration, hypersonic velocity, and other things, now becomes a reality. And so that is fundamentally what the scientists had discovered.

But to the observer outside, because we're still in the same universe, we would see something like that. We would see this incredible hopscotching ability to, if you will, take a shortcut through space-time. And so what would appear to be instantaneous acceleration, hypersonic velocity, and other things, now becomes a reality. And so that is fundamentally what the scientists had discovered.

And so it seems like science fiction, but when you understand the mathematics and some of the theorem that they proposed, a lot of these other observables become possible.

And so it seems like science fiction, but when you understand the mathematics and some of the theorem that they proposed, a lot of these other observables become possible.

Yeah. And again, I'm not a scientist. I want to be very careful. I don't want to misrepresent anything. There's a whole lot of other stuff that if you can do that, all of a sudden now makes sense and may describe things. the observations that people are seeing and why they're kind of hard to see and they seem obscure.

Yeah. And again, I'm not a scientist. I want to be very careful. I don't want to misrepresent anything. There's a whole lot of other stuff that if you can do that, all of a sudden now makes sense and may describe things. the observations that people are seeing and why they're kind of hard to see and they seem obscure.

So after the Army, I went into the Federal Service and had a lot of jobs, mostly in counterintelligence, which is looking basically what the bad guys know about us from an intelligence perspective. And in 2008, I changed my job. One of my jobs, I was working at the Director of National Intelligence, which for most people may or may not know, it's kind of outside of D.C.

So after the Army, I went into the Federal Service and had a lot of jobs, mostly in counterintelligence, which is looking basically what the bad guys know about us from an intelligence perspective. And in 2008, I changed my job. One of my jobs, I was working at the Director of National Intelligence, which for most people may or may not know, it's kind of outside of D.C.

And so I think from a governmental perspective that it was kind of a revelatory moment for the folks in our program.

And so I think from a governmental perspective that it was kind of a revelatory moment for the folks in our program.

Do you mind? I'm sorry.

Do you mind? I'm sorry.

I am not allowed to talk about what the government may or may not have in its possession, other than that I have, so I went through a very lengthy Pentagon review process. Recently, I wrote, I won't talk about it here, but I wrote something, and I had to go through Pentagon to have a review process, and it took almost a year.

I am not allowed to talk about what the government may or may not have in its possession, other than that I have, so I went through a very lengthy Pentagon review process. Recently, I wrote, I won't talk about it here, but I wrote something, and I had to go through Pentagon to have a review process, and it took almost a year.

In this thing I wrote, I talk about up to the part I can talk about, and they approved for me to talk about up to that point. When it comes to what the government may or may not have in its possession, all I can simply say is that there is very compelling evidence to suggest that the U.S. government is in absolute possession of exotic material that is not made by humans.

In this thing I wrote, I talk about up to the part I can talk about, and they approved for me to talk about up to that point. When it comes to what the government may or may not have in its possession, all I can simply say is that there is very compelling evidence to suggest that the U.S. government is in absolute possession of exotic material that is not made by humans.

Now, beyond that, I can't really expound upon. I haven't been given permission to talk about it. But what I can say is what I've already said for the record, which has been approved by the Pentagon. won't get in trouble by saying it, is that there's very compelling data to suggest that we are in possession.

Now, beyond that, I can't really expound upon. I haven't been given permission to talk about it. But what I can say is what I've already said for the record, which has been approved by the Pentagon. won't get in trouble by saying it, is that there's very compelling data to suggest that we are in possession.

I don't, well, two reasons. I don't think they have a choice. I think with now the introduction of cell phones and ring cameras, the cat's out of the bag. It's the worst kept secret at this point. Two, there is a faction, unlike before in the Cold War, I believe there is a faction of people inside the government that do want this conversation to occur.

I don't, well, two reasons. I don't think they have a choice. I think with now the introduction of cell phones and ring cameras, the cat's out of the bag. It's the worst kept secret at this point. Two, there is a faction, unlike before in the Cold War, I believe there is a faction of people inside the government that do want this conversation to occur.

But equally, there's still a faction of people that are very mad with me. They do not want me having this conversation. And mark my words, just by me being on your show, It is going to cause an absolute storm inside the Pentagon, and I am sure the other shoe is going to drop. I promise you, you're going to hear all sorts of stuff.

But equally, there's still a faction of people that are very mad with me. They do not want me having this conversation. And mark my words, just by me being on your show, It is going to cause an absolute storm inside the Pentagon, and I am sure the other shoe is going to drop. I promise you, you're going to hear all sorts of stuff.

People make stuff up about me trying to discredit this topic because as many people are in the government that want this topic to be discussed now, there's still some people that do not want this conversation.

People make stuff up about me trying to discredit this topic because as many people are in the government that want this topic to be discussed now, there's still some people that do not want this conversation.

Sure.

Sure.

Sure. And I want to preface here. I'm not fear mongering.

Sure. And I want to preface here. I'm not fear mongering.

Look, if I was a military person, right, I would look at this from the perspective of there's three options. They're good, they're neutral, or they're bad. So let's go down this road for a second. Let's say they're good, right? Well, we've got nothing to worry about. The problem is there's nothing to suggest that they truly are benevolent.

Look, if I was a military person, right, I would look at this from the perspective of there's three options. They're good, they're neutral, or they're bad. So let's go down this road for a second. Let's say they're good, right? Well, we've got nothing to worry about. The problem is there's nothing to suggest that they truly are benevolent.

People say, well, you know, they're like – they don't want us to nuke ourselves. Well, you know, I discussed it in what I wrote that – There's no data to suggest that. They didn't stop us from dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and vaporizing 500,000 living souls. They didn't stop us when we started developing nuclear weapons from the atomic age.

People say, well, you know, they're like – they don't want us to nuke ourselves. Well, you know, I discussed it in what I wrote that – There's no data to suggest that. They didn't stop us from dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and vaporizing 500,000 living souls. They didn't stop us when we started developing nuclear weapons from the atomic age.

They didn't stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They didn't stop the testing in the Nevada range of atomic and nuclear weapons. And now, how many countries have atomic weapons and nuclear weapons? A lot, right? They didn't stop... Chernobyl, they didn't stop Fukushima, they didn't stop Three Mile Island. So to say that they're here to help us, I'm not sure there's data.

They didn't stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They didn't stop the testing in the Nevada range of atomic and nuclear weapons. And now, how many countries have atomic weapons and nuclear weapons? A lot, right? They didn't stop... Chernobyl, they didn't stop Fukushima, they didn't stop Three Mile Island. So to say that they're here to help us, I'm not sure there's data.

And where I lived, I was on the other side of D.C., living on a little island in the Chesapeake Bay. And so my commute was terrible. I mean, it really, really frankly sucked.

And where I lived, I was on the other side of D.C., living on a little island in the Chesapeake Bay. And so my commute was terrible. I mean, it really, really frankly sucked.

People say, well, you know, in Minot and North Dakota and Montana, the UFOs came in and they interfered with our nuclear weapons and they brought the entire Echo flight offline. Which, by the way, I have the government report on that if you want it. But in Russia, a lot of people don't know, they turned them on. So that's equally scary.

People say, well, you know, in Minot and North Dakota and Montana, the UFOs came in and they interfered with our nuclear weapons and they brought the entire Echo flight offline. Which, by the way, I have the government report on that if you want it. But in Russia, a lot of people don't know, they turned them on. So that's equally scary.

They're interfering with our nuclear capability whether to attack or to defend ourselves. So when you say they turned them on in Russia, this is a Russian report? Yeah. So this is a – I don't know if you remember the – hearing, congressional hearing that occurred last year where the- With David Grush? Nope.

They're interfering with our nuclear capability whether to attack or to defend ourselves. So when you say they turned them on in Russia, this is a Russian report? Yeah. So this is a – I don't know if you remember the – hearing, congressional hearing that occurred last year where the- With David Grush? Nope.

The other one with Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Ronald Moultrie, and some people from the Navy. And I think it was Congressman Gallagher that asked the very specific question. And he said, are you aware of UFOs interfering with our nuclear capabilities? And the response was something like, no, I'm not really familiar with it. Never heard of it.

The other one with Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Ronald Moultrie, and some people from the Navy. And I think it was Congressman Gallagher that asked the very specific question. And he said, are you aware of UFOs interfering with our nuclear capabilities? And the response was something like, no, I'm not really familiar with it. Never heard of it.

And then the question was, I think, we asked specifically at these locations. And the government's response was, no, not familiar with it. Here's the actual report from the Department of Defense. This is the actual intelligence report that was released through FOIA. There's a gentleman out there who runs a site called the Black Vault. His name is John Greenwald.

And then the question was, I think, we asked specifically at these locations. And the government's response was, no, not familiar with it. Here's the actual report from the Department of Defense. This is the actual intelligence report that was released through FOIA. There's a gentleman out there who runs a site called the Black Vault. His name is John Greenwald.