Luis Elizondo on UFOs and Disclosure 2 - Classics Remastered

Show Transcript

This remastered interview includes bonus content of additional questions and answers originally made available only to members of Cristina's Patreon members club. So, before we start, there is one thing that I would like you to clarify. Various critics have defined you as a career disinformation agent. (00:28) When, in reality, you are a part of counter intelligence. This can make it confusing to newbies and young people just getting into this topic when they read such comments or listen to some of these people. For those that may not know, can you explain the difference between the two? Yeah, sure. There's a fundamental difference. Counterintelligence is like playing a game of chess. (00:50) It's knowing what your enemy knows about you. That's counterintelligence quite bluntly. So, if you were to have a chess board in essence, human intelligence or a foreign intelligence FI is knowing what your opponent's chess pieces can do. Counterintelligence is that, but also knowing what your opponent knows about your pieces and what they can do. (01:14) Disinformation is something different. That's psychological operations. That is in a completely different realm. Usually what we call referred to as "cyops" and disinformation is not typically a counterintelligence function. There are elements occasionally where counterintelligence efforts may involve, what we call "tenile and deception." But that is certainly not the case when it comes to this topic. (01:42) I think there's a lot of mystery of what counterintelligence is. Bottom line is, I guess, in the vernacular, the easiest way to explain it is, again, the game of chess against someone and counterintelligence is not only knowing what their pieces can do, but what they know what your pieces can do and then being able to counter that or to neutralize that. (02:05) As far as my critics look, I don't mind critics. I think everybody is entitled to opinion. What I don't like are people that claim disinformation who are themselves providing disinformation, which is precisely what we're seeing here. I think it's a really, in essence, an organized gang of criminals, people that have been convicted for stealing. (02:29) When I say stealing, I don't mean stealing, like robbing a bank and at least having the guts to go do it. I'm talking about picking your pockets and stealing your identity. People that have five felony accounts and in some cases, up to 12 charges, and in other cases, individuals who have been found guilty of assaulting and battery of a female, the woman. (02:52) We're talking about, really, I hate to say it, but the low-lifes of society, people who have spent an entire career in lifetime of taking advantage of other individuals and frankly lying to them. Of course, I'm not surprised that these individuals come out and they start lying about me or other people, because that's what criminals do. (03:14) By the way, that truth is not only going to come out, but it's also publicly available so anybody can see it. I think what concerns me is when the average person doesn't realize that they're being let astray by some of these individuals who don't have any scruples. That's the real tragedy because a lot of these individuals are interested in their hungry for the truth, and they want to know what's going on. (03:35) And they're being misled purposely by a faction of individuals who are engaged in large-scale fraud and deception, and they've been found guilty of it in the past. So this is problematic because what happens is when those individuals find out that they've been, they've been, quote, unquote, had and taken advantage of, they get disenfranchised. (03:57) And they may leave this entire topic of the topic of UFOs altogether because they feel betrayed or they feel that their trust has been in some way violated. It has. I guess my message to them is, look, please keep the faith. We're not all that way. We're not all hucksters and fraudsters. We're not trying to take advantage of you. We don't want anything from you. (04:21) We want is your opinion. We're not asking you for a dime of your money. We're asking you to use your brain and to engage. And so that's really what we're doing right now. And as far as the critics out there, again, I don't mind the health criticism. What I don't like are liars. (04:45) And that's what, unfortunately, in some cases, we're dealing with, you know, to some degree, I feel like a bit of a new sheriff in town, right? And so that's what comes in to try to clean up the streets and the first thing that the sheriff finds out is that a bunch of hucksters or fraudsters come out of the shadows, right? Trying to throw stones and because they don't want the streets clean, they want to keep things as they were status quo, confusion. (05:01) And these, if you will, these, these small micro cottage industries where they're taking advantage of people, you know, give me 29.95 and I'll sell you a video or give me 29.95 and I'll, I'll sell you this or that or a t shirt or I'll give you an encounter with the UFO or something. (05:14) You know, happy horse poo like that. When a reality we're talking about perhaps one of the greatest and the most facing our species. We're talking about something that's truly existential, potentially. And anybody who is going to try to to hijack that I think is, you know, in from my perspective, I think is it's problematic. (05:33) And so there's my frustration, Cristina. Lue, I've watched some of the conversations on different forums and chat communities across the internet and something I keep seeing are a small percentage of people who accuse you of pushing a threat narrative, accusing you of twisting the topic to an evil aliens on the verge of invading earth rather than a more peaceful reason for a non human presence being here. (06:01) And the justification is usually written that if they wanted to do that, they would have entered into conflict with us a long time ago. What would you like to say to address this point and the individuals accusing you of that? Sure. I mean, I'm a national security guy. My job was always paid to be paranoid and, you know, trust but verify. (06:23) I'm not asking you necessarily to accept the threat narrative because, you know, I'm not sure there's a threat narrative there. What I'm simply asking people to do is remain fair and objective. Look, here's a bottom line. Anybody out there who says, oh, well, they're here for peaceful purposes and they're here to stop us from annihilating ourselves from nuclear technology. (06:39) The bottom line is you're completely all informed. That's a bottom line. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. And I don't mean any offense by it. Let's look at real facts and scenarios here in 1945, the US government us vaporized over 500,000 individuals instantly during the dropping of the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (06:58) We literally transitioned human beings from a solid state to a gaseous state. Now, where were UAPs there to stop that from happening and annihilating each other? In fact, know where were their UAP stopping World War One or World War Two or the Korean War of Vietnam? In fact, know where were their UAP stopping COVID or global climate change or World Hunger, right? In fact, there's very little evidence to suggest at all that whatever is out there is out there for benevolent reasons. Now, it doesn't necessarily mean it's out there for malevolent reasons. (07:32) But to say that, oh, they're here to help us from what that's pure conjecture, that's horseshit. Yeah, that's just someone spewing off their opinion without any facts or data at all to suggest that. What we do know is that there seems to be a keen interest in our nuclear military capabilities, not just us, but around the world. (07:48) That does seem to be pretty clear. So, you know, you can fill in the blanks what it means. Now, does it mean that they're here for hostile intent? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that they're here for a threat? No, it doesn't. But what it simply means is that there's no evidence to suggest that they're here for anything humanitarian. (08:03) So, does that mean that they're here for hostile reasons? Not necessarily. Does it mean that they're here like we are when we go out to, let's say, the African planes and the Serengeti and monitor the will to be smigration? Maybe they're just here to observe. We don't know. We simply don't know enough yet about about this enigma to have a cogent conversation about it. (08:23) We're just now at the point where we've recognized that they're real as a US government. So, anybody out there who wants to insert their narrative or preconceived notion of what this is, I think it's premature. And I frankly, I think it's irresponsible. (08:43) And especially people who out there and start peddling, you know, things to suggest that when there's absolutely zero empirical data, that supports that finding. So, let's be real. Let's have a real conversation here, you know. That's my perspective anyways. Again, I'm not trying to fear-monger or scare anybody, but I am here to provide real data. And I'm sorry that data doesn't comport to your preconceived narrative or what your opinion is or what you're trying to sell people. (09:06) So, you're right, we simply don't know. We can only observe their behaviors. With the recent article by Christopher Mellon, there was so much eye-opening content posing so many important questions. You work closely with Mr. Mellon. (09:30) And can you update us on what kind of falLuet or positive effects have come around as a result of that article? Sure, but it's not just that article. Let me preface by saying Chris Mellon is absolutely one of the most intelligent human beings I've ever had the honor and privilege to work with. And I don't say that lightly. I've always said before there's five people that I can count who have called me in the middle of the night at four in the morning and said, "Put your boots on, you need to go to war, I would do it. (09:50) " Okay, Chris Mellon is one of those folks. People know that General Mattis is another one of those individuals. There's a few of those other individuals that will probably at some point come out to light. Chris is an incredible intellectual. He's also an incredible strategist. And he's a remarkable patriot. He has served his country since day one, both in the legislative and the executive branches. (10:15) He truly is a living legend in every aspect of the term. And so what he embodies is something that I admire very much and that's truth above all. The article that he recently wrote about the Air Force, or if you will, the lack of Air Force involvement in this topic, I think is a long time coming. That's a result of years and years of frustration trying to get individuals in the Air Force engaged. And I think it's important to note that when Chris wrote that letter, he wasn't saying the whole Air Force is negligent or bad. (10:48) He's simply saying that the bureaucracy isn't responsive like it is with, may perhaps the Navy and other services who have stepped forward to have this conversation. Recently, Secretary of the Air Force Kendall and no offense to him, look, I served my country honorably as well. And he was picked by the administration to serve a Secretary. (11:11) But when the Secretary of Air Force comes out and acknowledges, yes, we are aware of UAPs. We know the reality of these things, but because we don't know where they're from, we don't consider them a threat. That's the same thing as saying a summary pops out of the Potomac River right there in front of the Pentagon in the White House, but because it's not flying a U.S. flag or a Russian flag, we're just going to ignore it because we don't know if it's a threat or not, so therefore it's not a priority. (11:38) That doesn't make sense. That's not logical thinking. That's not what we need to hear. And frankly, to some degree, it's probably why we're in the predicament we are with with Russian Ukraine right now, because, you know, we have rested on our laurels so long that we've become almost to some degree apathetic. (11:59) And we think that the U.S. pre-eminence or in this case as it relates to the UAP topic that we know everything. Well, guess what we don't. And the sooner we can we can reconcile that reality, the sooner maybe we can do something about it. And in the article, Chris brings up the North American Aerospace Defense Command in 2008, Norad moved its day-to-day operations to the U.S. Northern Command headquarters building at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, while redesignating the Cheyenne Mountain installation as a backup command center. (12:38) Now, the chief priority of Norad is assessing aerospace threats both for Canada and the United States through their N2C to command domain. (13:04) In your time with A-Tip, would it be safe to assume you had a working relationship with the Air Domain Chief at Norad, resulting in the receipts of reports of UAP incursions over the North American Continental Airspace? Well, indirectly. So we had an individual who was a member of Stratcom, Strategic Command. And if you look at what Stratcom's mission is, it is to basically act as a connective tissue with all the other commands. And so VISA V is that individual. I can't say who he is now, but at some point I suspect he'll probably come out in public. That individual who was assigned to Stratcom had the authority to reach out to all these other organizations. It is not just Norad, for example. (13:34) There were other organizations and commands that this individual was responsible for interlocking with on a regular routine basis. Okay, so based on your experience dealing with them, did you find yourself at any time coming to the opinion that you were only receiving a restricted handful of misidentifications with the occasional truly anomaLues case, or that you were actually getting the full unthorodled flow of cases completely unrestricted? That's a fantastic question. We always wound up scratching our head and wondered, are we getting a filtered version of the information? Are we getting what they call raw and unavaluated information or intelligence? (14:19) In some cases, we were getting the raw information. In other cases, we were getting a bit of the excuse of an acular, but the Heisman, right, where someone is kind of doing this and giving you a face palm, which of course is frustrating. There were some organizations that were far more forthcoming than others. Some of the commands were very cooperative and some of the organizations in the intelligence community. (14:43) While others were a bit reticent, I think they were still suffering from some of the stigma associated with this topic historically, that their organizations and agencies were involved with. In other cases, we did what we call non-responsive, where they'd say, look, we don't have anything. And this goes to the point, if you were to do a Freedom of Information Act and ask the US government or the intelligence community, how many UFO reports you have, they're probably saying, "Me and not many." (15:15) And I asked how many un-reconciled UAS reports, right, or anomaLues aircraft that haven't been identified, then you might get something else in return. Because the term UFO or UAP tends to be a bit of a dirty word, still, to some degree, because of the connotations and what it means. So you'll see in a lot of the deck logs by some of the ships, they'll call them drones. That's because they know these deck logs are unclassified and frankly they can be foiled, Freedom of Information Act. (15:51) And in so doing, the government doesn't want to be caught saying, "Well, we don't have any information." And all of a sudden, now here's a deck log talking about three or four UFOs that they've encountered. And I know a lot of times I'll use the term drone. And some of that is for what we call "Opset Reasons," operational security reasons. And you know what, I'll be the first one to say that we've been guilty of that as well. (16:10) You know, when I first requested the release of the videos that now everybody talks about on the 1910, which is the form that you have to use to release them, in that justification, I referred to these three videos as UAS's unidentified aerosystems, because that's exactly what they were. I could not say UFO or UAP because in so doing in an unclassified document, I would have inevitably tipped our hand to the fact that we were looking at UFOs, something that was very, very tightly controlled, it was not public knowledge. (16:44) And there was a very, very small list of individuals who were allowed to know that information. So to the same degree, you know, that other services and agencies have done that, I'll be the first one to tell you we did it too. We didn't deliberately, so we wouldn't have necessarily tipped our hand to the fact we were looking at UFOs to a group of people that were not read on or clear to know that. (17:05) Did you find out the majority of the reports ended up being identified? Well, you know, that's a good question. That talks about metrics, you know. Our hope was that we could identify 100% of them. And reality is we could not. In fact, we set up a filter, if you will, think of a coffee filter to filter the grains of the coffee, we felt designed to filters specifically to try to catch everything that we knew would be either considered a blue force technology or our technology and a red force technology or an enemy technology. (17:38) And what you had left over that didn't get caught by the filter is that delta, if you will, the difference between the two. And so when you have things, that's where the five observables come into play. When you have things that are maneuvering at, you know, not, you know, 15 or 16 G's, but, but 300, 400, 600, 700 G forces. (17:57) And by the way, are able to travel a hypersonic velocity is no by the way, display some sort of camouflage or cloaking and oh, by the way, display some sort of transmittium capability, the ability to operate in air and water and possibly in space. Without a compromise of their performance characteristics and oh, by the way, also some sort of anti gravity, right in the vernacular, the ability to defy Earth's natural gravity without associated technologies like wings or thrust or intakes or engines or propulsion. (18:28) And then you have something truly extraordinary and those were the cases that a tip really focused on were those that that couldn't be readily explained as a drone or a missile or a balloon or a quadcopter or an aircraft or a helicopter or, you know, fill in the blanks. Welcome back with me today is Lue Elizondo and we were just talking about Chris Mallon's recent article. (18:49) And the article by by Mr. Mallon really set me off looking into the scope of no rad and it's reach in early warnings and aerospace defense and by looking into publicly available information. And I found that no rad is indeed operating on a larger scope than I previously imagined being operationally present at facilities such as joint base, LM door, Richardson in Alaska, Tindall Air Force base in Florida and even overseas, for example, at totally Air Force base in Greenland. (19:22) Part of the potential threat response to airspace incursions is a project noble eagle which has been in place since 9/11 and this involves a report coming in from a specific region to end to C2 command domain which results in a rapid response with the scrambling of jet interceptions to interpret and identify aircraft that either don't show a transponder signal or enter restricted airspace among other things being perceived as a potential threat. Now it makes sense to me that there must have been occasions where jets have been scrambled to interpret aircraft demonstrating anomaLues flight characteristics such as what we see with UAP. (20:11) Are you aware of this being the case with any reports you've seen? Yeah, Cristina happens a lot more than you might think. I had the honor and privilege of speaking with a former watch officer at NORAD a kernel which as most people know is fairly senior in rank. I mean this is not a spring chicken. (20:31) This is somebody who's being groomed probably for general officer and some significant command positions and so the watch officer's job is just that it's to watch the skies watch what's going on. The persistent situation awareness of the airspace and one of the incidents that he was recalling to us was that they picked up a UAP up over Canada and as you said before Canada and the US share a air space together especially over North America. (21:03) We're not going to be cooperated together. In fact the deputy commander of NORAD is a Canadian. A lot of people don't know that. So we work together to protect our skies together. And there was a UAP coming in out of out of out of Canada very, very fast, very, very high. To the point where the commander on the ground there at NORAD said I want you to launch everything we have against this thing in catch it. I want to know what this thing is. (21:30) The thing pursued continued and was pursued by our aircraft it continued over the eastern seaboard and wound up leaving us airspace somewhere over over Florida towards Cuba. And we were never able to catch it. Now think about what that means right the best and the strongest country in the world with some of the most sophisticated aircraft despite the commander saying through everything we have added and try to catch this thing. (21:56) We weren't able to do it. And so that's just one example of many where where NORAD has been engaged in these things. But let's let's let's preferences. NORAD isn't necessarily going to call them UAP or UFOs. Chances are they're going to call them something else. Probably something to the tune of a unresolved type anomaly. (22:21) They're in large part of the problem because when you do a freedom of information acting you say what do you have on UFOs. Nor it says we don't because we don't track UFOs. What we track are something else we call them something else. And so they're there in lies some of the challenge when people are trying to say well you know I by I submitted a freedom of information at to NORAD and it came back with nothing. Well because you're asking for the wrong thing unfortunately. (22:46) Was there a significant number of those noble legal cases that ended up classified as unknowns. You know I'm not going to comment on something that might or might not be classified I have to be very careful with that as you know Cristina and some of your listeners. I still hold a security clearance. I still have am obligated to protect classified information and I intend to do so. (23:08) So I don't want to say anything that could compromise in any way some sort of national security capability. So as far as what might be classified and what might be unclassified. Unless I'm sure something is unclassified. I just I just simply can't talk about it. And I totally understand that. So when there is an active threat assessment situation occurring. (23:30) There is a part of the operation called O-NAC which stands for Operation Noble Eagle Conference which where where various intelligence and security agencies are long pulled into the data stream. Are you the opinion that any of those reports pertaining to UAP specifically will be declassified and if not will they at least get in front of the eyes of members of Congress. (23:56) Yeah, I'm very confident that Congress is you know Congress is persistent and Congress is now now been made aware of the fact that that the things are real and that the US government knows that they're real so so they are definitely on the case. Will they be brought into the loop on everything that the executive branch knows that remains to be seen. (24:17) But enough people now are talking to Congress where the executive branch now there's an expectation to deliver some information and this is why you see with the recent Gillibrand amendment that was a bipartisan effort with folks like Marco Rubio etc. This is truly historic because they're not going to allow obfuscation anymore than not going to allow people to say well you know we really don't know well you know what we're paying you to know so if you don't know we'll fire you and we'll find somebody else who can find out. (24:45) But to say that you don't know anymore it's not a priority that that doesn't fly that that excuses is no mass. We now have an obligation to reconcile and try to figure out what these things are whatever they may be. We now have to have a have that conversation and so Congress I don't think is going to let this go. (25:07) I do think that there are some efforts right now behind the scenes with the executive branch to finally do the right thing my old office in particular us di and not going to say which specific offices within. But there does seem to be some leadership engagement saying okay you know what maybe you're right maybe we should maybe we should look at this a little bit differently maybe we need to write the higher the right expertise and the right people to actually look at this and not just whitewash it and try to bury it. (25:36) I remain hopeful but make no mistake if it turns out that this is going to be a tip 2.0 they're going to try to obfuscate and bury this thing then then we will continue to be very very vocal and call these people out by name have no problem doing that at all. Speaking about Congress you recently went to Washington DC again to have some high level meetings. (25:57) Can you tell us some of the objectives you had when you were there and do you believe those objectives were met positively. Yeah simple our mission is awareness and accountability that simple two things make people aware in key leadership roles and hold the government accountable because ultimately that's what the government should be should be accountable to the American people into Congress. (26:20) So that was our mission where we effective I believe so I think we have a coalition of individuals now who are well past the question of whether or not it's real they know it's real they've seen the classified data they've seen the information they've met the individuals who are running certain efforts and frankly we can explain what we're seeing period. (26:41) And if you think that we're talking about old cases like the limits back in 2004 or the USS Roosevelt in 2015 and whatnot your mistake we're talking about things that occur as recently as last week there is a regular continuing flow of information regarding UAP that continues to be reported fortunately now there's still some information that isn't getting reported and that's a problem because the law says you have to report it. (27:09) So at this point if if it's not being reported whoever is responsible for that you're not breaking the law you know that's that's that's an issue because it's pretty clear what the law says so either either either you report it or your your violation of the law. And so that's where the accountability piece comes in right if you offer a carrot and a stick hopefully people do the right thing but in the case that some people don't want to well now it's time to you know break out the stick and say okay look you're in a violation of law that's a criminal issue. (27:38) And you can either be fired or frankly put the jail you know if if you don't do the right thing so that's that's why that law is so historic that's why engagement with our elected officials is so important important so they're armed with with real information and valid information involving this topic it's not just in you windows and you know analogies it's hard data it's stuff that's taken from you know electrical data things that we spend millions and it's not more. (28:06) Not more amount of money on trying to to keep a competitive edge over our adversaries well that same technology can be used to track u a p. And a bit of a long shot question here Lue but do you still retain security clearance that enables you to keep up to date on what is happening within classified u a p research programs today and if so do you believe they are helping you meet your objectives in your visits to DC. (28:34) Well I've made no no bones about it I do have an active top secret security clearance and some other stuff I won't go into here what does that mean well it means that I can't discuss means two things actually I don't think people really are aware of it there were of one side of that requirement which is I can never discuss classified information because of my non disclosure agreement but it also means I can't lie because we are subject to regular routine polygraph examinations and psychological evaluations and all sorts of other stuff and I can't do that. (29:03) All sorts of other stuff and so if it is found that let's say me having this conversation with you or I lied to you or the American people that would hurt my security clearance because that would go back and say okay so lose lying and if lose lying then then we've got a bigger issue on our hands because now we're not sure he can hold a top secret security clearance and what else is he lying about so it it's not easy people think oh well you know security clearance what is that mean well it means a lot it's very invasive and if anybody has has never had a security clearance. (29:32) Never had a security clearance a T.S. security clearance and you want one just try getting a T.S. SE. I it's not fun it's very very invasive and and they go into every bit of your background and by the way your part is something called CE which is a continuous evaluation meaning at any time they're looking at your credit score they're looking at anything that you may have done that could somehow call into question your character right and so where it's having a top secret security clearance (30:01) and it helps you from from from discussing classified information it also prevents you from lying and that's important people seem to forget that and this is why the whole disinformation nonsense that you hear people coming out with it's it's absolute you know horse manure I'll say politely because these are people who have no idea most of these people couldn't even qualify for security clearance themselves they have absolutely no qualifications to to discuss whether something is a disinformation operation or not but then there's also laws and there's security issues so you look at things like executive order one two triple three United States intelligence activities you look at what it takes from a security apparatus E.O.12958 and you look at things like DOD directive 5240.1 and DOD directive (30:48) yeah let's go on and on and on I don't want to waste your time here but there's a lot of rules and requirements for not only intelligence operations activity but also maintaining a security clearance and what it takes to hold a security clearance and until you know that then it's you know people are kind of kind of misinformed about that they like to fill in you know with in your windows well he must be disinformation agent because he has a security clearance no actually I'm held to a higher standard means I can't lie you know all this crap you see behind me and I could show you a bunch more is is a result of my dedication and my promise to the American people in my country that I would I would never tell a secret I'd always tell the truth (31:31) and so anybody's out of security clearance will tell you the same thing Wow based on those clearances without giving away classified information have you become aware of any conceivable security reason why the UAP topic having a non human origin could be withheld by the US government or other governments across the globe and if so in your opinion is it a legit reason or an outdated reason related to not causing panic? Cristina, great question and I don't mean that lightly there was a time where you know and I still feel this way that it's it's inconscionable and and there's no excuse to hold what we call extra governmental activities extra constitutional activities were all held to the Constitution the same and either it means something or it doesn't (32:23) and we've all agreed that it means something so therefore we are all all held to the Constitution. Are there reasons why in the past maybe certain people weren't briefed to this topic or maybe the American people weren't made aware? Yeah there are reasons do I agree with those reasons? No but do I understand why people m