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This remastered interview includes bonus content of additional questions and answers originally made available only to members of Cristina's Patreon members club.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 may have made those choices in the past? Yeah I do I actually do and it makes sense again I don't agree with it to me I think the truth is always more important you know even if I have cancer I want to talk to you to tell me look Lue you got cancer you know don't lie to me because it's bad news I need to know (33:01) and I think the same holds true for this topic you know there was a lot of things going on in this country at the height of the Cold War and we had very real threats with other countries and it was a winner takes all chessboard so there was a very real threat out there and then you had this other topic here of UAPs where we weren't really sure what they were whether from or what they want or their capabilities and so you know that was kind of put on the back burner for a little bit while we could focus on this other (33:32) other immediate threat which is a country that has real nuclear weapons and point at us. And despite what people may think about the Cold War the Cold War was actually pretty hot it was a kind of a winner takes all environment where we were doing these proxy wars all over the world against the then Soviet Union and they were doing against us so there was a very real threat and so I can understand why and I plan to address some of that in my book what I've come to learn on why some people may have want to kept quiet about it and again I just want to say for the record I don't agree with that position but I can understand it. (34:11) It does make sense and I think when people find out they're going to say well you know what Lue you're right it does again I don't agree with it but I can see how some people may have thought that way. When you frame it like that it can make sense now I would like to switch the topic to the June report mentioning radio frequencies being detected during UAP encounters in your opinion do you think a follow-up course of action of the introduction of specific radar systems used to track them by tuning into a specific frequency or a range of frequencies has been implemented (34:51) or should be implemented as part of solving this mystery. Yeah so radio frequency was kind of in the vernacular we're talking about our frequencies that can be detected on the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum is huge you know we visible light is just a very very very very narrow spectrum if you will band within that greater spectrum of electromagnetic. (35:18) And so we call it electro optical visible light and of course right below that you have infrared right above that you have ultraviolet and it goes all the way to x ray and ultimately you know gamma radiation cosmic cosmic radiation. You know the really that what that's about is about signature detection are there identifiable signatures that can be picked up within the electromagnetic spectrum as they relate to UAP. (35:47) So that's that's where that language really comes from you know are there is there data that we can use to to to detect these things maybe beyond the visual spectrum. I'm not going to comment whether or not we have made any headway one way or the other regarding that clearly it's in the law. (36:06) So what that means if we have to continue focusing on it whether or not we've made any headway is something that I wouldn't be able to discuss at this time. And I've been suggested by some that certain radio frequencies and in the electro optical electromagnetic spectrums etc may also be used to determine where a UAP could appear supposedly well in advance. (36:30) Is this something you've heard of come across yourself well again this goes back to signature collection data right so in intelligence we have things called human intelligence which is where you're talking to human sources. And you have signals intelligence and you have imagery intelligence and you have electronic emissions intelligence eelent and you have all sorts of measurements intelligence, massive right. (36:53) You have all sorts of different types of ways to collect information to help you assess and determine and hopefully at some point predict what your adversary is going to do. And you know this is not even uncommon even in the business world we have business intelligence to help us predict what our competition is going to do in the next six months with certain products or perhaps a merger and an acquisition. (37:19) So to ask the question whether or not the US government will be looking at these type of ways to help ultimately predict UAP activity I don't think is is out of the realm of reality in fact everybody now knows we tried to do that in a tip and I'm not going to go into detail here right now but but there were some things that we did that we we we did for this specific reason of trying to lure these things out. (37:47) And it turns out that you know these things could be could be pretty successful if you know what you're doing. I've been asked by a few people since our last interview and it was brought up on my show which in me church just a few days ago to ask you if you've ever been to Antarctica. Forgive me my here that was not that was not planned. No I have not been to Antarctica. (38:17) I would love to go but no I have not been to Antarctica as most people know that's a pretty pretty expensive endeavor takes a lot of logistics and resources even if you go by the government you know there's a lot of planning and preparations and authorities that you need to get down there because it is so remote. (38:35) You know obviously the Arctic regions both North Pole and South Pole Arctic and Antarctic regions are interesting because there's not a whole lot of persistent surveillance up there. You know most people when you look at the earth you see you see satellites going around it you have a few that are on a polar orbit what we call polar orbits. (38:54) But the vast majority are are you know looking at civilization they're looking at things you know from a certain latitude down to a certain latitude. There's not a whole lot going on in the polls and some people have have speculated maybe that is potentially an undiscovered hotspot maybe these things are coming in and out of the polar regions certainly certainly worth looking at in my opinion. (39:20) Well on that note do you believe that there is something going on with you a P in Antarctica or at least some game changing evidence located there that is controversial and being kept tightly under wraps. Yeah people have speculated for a long time that that there's stuff going on in Antarctica. And you know of course in the vacuum of information and the lack of information that leads the way for speculation. (39:53) There's landmass under their miles beneath beneath the ice their lakes there their biomes there there's all sorts of stuff going on in Antarctica. Some people have speculated that these UFOs are in fact also part of a greater phenomenon called us os unidentified submersible objects and that these things may in fact spend quite a bit of their time in the water and in the oceans. (40:19) And you know Antarctic ocean is and the Arctic Ocean are there's a lot of water there you know there's unlike the North Pole which is basically a floating ice cap we we you know we are allies and some of our adversaries actually can you can take a submarine and go from one point to the other. (40:38) And you can take the polar ice cap you can't do that in Antarctica because there's land there. And so some people especially some old reports coming from some old expeditions have reported some pretty extraordinary findings there. The question is you know can can those findings be substantiated an a tip we didn't focus so much on Antarctica simply because most of our efforts were focused on US military equities and assets meaning people equipment property. (41:07) And most US military assets are not in the Arctic there actually you know in combat areas and here in the United States and whatnot so. So that's where most of our focus was during a tip do I think it's worth exploring absolutely I think we need to cast a very very wide net and see what fish we can catch with that net. (41:27) So in the Arctic Blue in 2004 the National Security Agency declassified a document called communications with extraterrestrial intelligence it was written in 1966 and makes mention of the possibility of communications with radio frequencies. So in the organization I'm aware of that publicly is doing research into extraterrestrial communication is said which was established as a nonprofit in 1984 so my question is this in your opinion could there be an active radio frequency monitoring project going on that would work with no rad and be out of the public eye. (42:08) I'm really glad you asked that question first of all I mentioned that article there was an article in a in a periodical about a week ago that I mentioned as an example of how the US is beginning to loosen some of its restrictions on on UAP reporting and that related to you of the phones and I quoted that article and it was I think I probably wasn't clear. (42:34) And a couple people reach out and say, Lue you probably need to be more clear in the future because you're creating some confusion. So let me apologize first of all for saying that second of all that report that came out from 1964 absolutely talks about about communicating with potentially some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence. (42:55) The reason why I I talked about it was simply to emphasize the fact that there does seem to be some sort of loosening of some of the government restrictions around this topic. I did not mean to imply that it had just come out and was just released by the NSA so let me caveat that but with that said. You know, steady has long been been assigned that responsibility, but there's other organizations. Let's let's look at this holistically NASA is spending millions of dollars of our tax pair of money each year looking for microbial life within our solar system. (43:36) You mentioned said he is spending a lot of money trying to find techno signatures radio signatures from some sort of civilized society within our own galaxy, maybe even beyond. You know, there's a lot of organizations that rely on RF radio frequency to communicate whether it's telemetry of satellites or aircraft or anything like that. (43:59) It's fair to assess that you know with those type of capabilities there's a lot of eyes and ears in the sky right now and it's you know not necessarily just NSA. Everybody knows about NSA national security agency because of their mission primarily signals intelligence and some other stuff. (44:17) But there's other organizations to have a lot of capability as well. And some of these are department of defense agencies some of these are intelligence agencies and some of these are kind of a mishmash of both. You know, let's put this in there. You mentioned norad well to track satellites, you know, a lot of times norad relies on all sorts of things to track satellites. (44:39) Some of it may be radar some of it may be through radio frequency identifiers right so there's again there's a lot of eyes and ears looking into the sky. Air forces responsible for monitoring and tracking space debris to some degree. So, you know, they're they're also looking into that what we call that domain space domain as well and signals intelligence is certainly a viable way to do it. (45:06) So I guess a long story short is there's a lot of organizations that that are looking into looking looking in the sky using signals information to look at things. While on the topic of these agencies have you been made aware of what part the space force which was created in 2019 and is basically founded upon the Air Force Space Command that was established in 1982. (45:33) In your best insightful guest or belief what part will it play in UAP reporting to the new UFO office. I would guess that agency would play a big role in any UAP incursions, right? Well, that decision's not up to me. What I will say is that under the leadership of General Raymond and Mr. Cox, the senior civilian, I think they're taking this topic seriously. (46:00) Of course, they have a lot of things to take care of seriously and take to consider seriously. There are new organization. They've got a lot of their plate, a lot of responsibility and a lot of a lot of demands on them. But I would let them speak for themselves. You have space force and then you have something called space command space, you know, I think space force and space com both have an interest in this topic. (46:27) In fact, not too long ago, I think it was a deputy commander for force space, come came out and said, yeah, we're taking this topic very seriously. And to my understanding, they are indeed taking it seriously and so a space force. And so without going into too much detail about what space force might or might not be doing. (46:45) I am very optimistic in what they're doing and the future that they may play in the topic of UAPs. I'm very excited to see what will come forth with that. And I often wonder about the authority and influence a handful of aerospace contractors may have had over the research and secrecy involved with the UAP topic in general. (47:10) It would make sense that they're always striving to develop incredible technologies to sell to the military. But I also wonder about your experience trying to get the government to take the topic seriously when you're with ATIP and now with Chris Melon's article on the vacuum of data where the Air Force is concerned. (47:30) What is your opinion on this? Could it be that basically any and all designated UAP data is just being downstream to contracted private corporations and that the new UAP office will basically suffer the same fate with lack of data? I can't see anything. Damn, I want to know who's asking you to ask these questions. Great questions. (47:59) The role U.S. government contractors played in our national security is no big secret. Folks like Lockheed and Boeing and TRW and Grumman and all those folks in Northrop. They're the reasons why we've had and maintained a competitive edge over adversaries because they were at the cutting edge of science. And because of that, you had innovations like the U2 spy airplane, you had the Lockheed, YF-12A, SR-7, Blackbird. (48:27) You had all these innovations, right? The F-17, forgive me if you hear my dogs barking, I've got four German shepherds here and sometimes I get a little mouthy. Maybe they're telling me I'm talking about something maybe I should. But the role of our contractors have always been vital to our national security. They tend to bring the best and the brightest. One can look at just do a Google search on the Jason's committee where you bring in the very brightest and our scientific community to help us solve big problems, real problems. (49:00) And so we need the work and the help of our contractors because they do a lot of the heavy lifting force. There's an old saying, you know, like BASF, right? We don't make a lot of the products you buy, we make a lot of the products you buy better. Well, same thing here. The US contractors make a lot of the capabilities that we have better and we need them. Now, what is our involvement in the historical UAP topic? Well, that is something we are still trying to figure out completely. (49:34) It's very likely historically they played a role in this. I'm not going to say who. I'm not going to say what companies and what specific rules they might or might not have played in, but one only has to look at A-tip and we had contractors. Look at all SAP. We had contractors. Look at anything that we do sensitive and you'll find contractors are always part of that calculus. And there's a reason for it, a valid reason for it. (49:59) What we don't want to do is put the contractor in a position where now they're making authoritative decisions on behalf of the government. Because that's neither right nor is it fair. It's not fair to the US government and certainly not fair to the contractor. So whatever role some of these companies may or may not have played in historically in the topic of UAPs, you know, we need to, we need to get a better handle on that. (50:24) And what we need to do is create a capability to allow those legacy efforts to help inform any new effort that we may be engaged in as a country. I warned you before the show. I've been doing my homework with these questions, but I'll tell you what led me to that one. And that is the interview I did with Ross Coltard. (50:47) And he said there are West Coast contractors that have full access to both monitoring and crash retrievals. So that led me down that rabbit hole with that question. Okay, so moving on. Well, you should know how to make me squirm. I've been watching the UAP research movement for quite some time now in a civilian capacity. And you always say that this is a marathon and not a sprint given all the developments over the last 12 months with media reports and the UFology community. (51:24) Are you pleased with the progress made or are you disappointed? And the reason I asked this is because in a recent interview with Jimmy Church, you said you wish you could destroy UFology as it is to stay as it is today and to start it a new. Yeah, well, that's two different things, isn't it? Am I happy of the progress we have collectively made all of us together? Yes, absolutely. (51:46) I think we've come in this the last four years, possibly farther than we have in the last 75. And people come out there and say, well, what have you done? You know, at this point, if I got it, if I got to write a list for you, it's going to be several pages long and people out there have been following this topic, no damn well, what we've been doing. (52:04) So I'm not going to waste your time, you know, going over that comprehensive looks again, but it's exhaustive. As far as UFology, look, we're seeing it right now, right? We're seeing a handful of charlatans trying to to hijack the narrative once again of this topic and put out a bunch of junk and garbage and disinformation. (52:29) And you know, fortunately, I think most people are smart enough, but there's some people who are and they get caught up in it. And at the end of the day, I think, you know, you follow Jesus own worst enemy. I'm not a uFologist. I never have been. I never will be. I'm not a uFologist. I'm just an x intelligence officer that was given a job, the same job as hunting terrorist and spies, just a hunt UFOs. (52:56) And I applied the same methodologies to do all three. And so I think, you know, we need to get rid of the speculation in any windows and everybody trying to put some crazy narrative that is ill informed. They have no idea about anything and they're just pure speculation and they're selling it as absolutes. (53:14) And I cannot believe the amount of people that fall for it. And it's just, it's, it's frankly not only is it mind boggling, it's, it's really disheartening. I mean, we really that ignorant as a species, because if we are, then you know what, maybe we're not ready for the truth. (53:28) You know, maybe I made a mistake coming out four years ago, because maybe society just really isn't ready. I hope that's not the case. But the way we treat each other, look at social media in any particular day. And it's appalling. (53:46) And it's, it's all these you supposed experts in uFology, right? Well, hey, to tell you there are no experts otherwise we'd have figured it out by now. We'd all be flying around in UFOs. So please cut the crap. You know, I'm tired of people saying, well, you know, we know damn well. Well, you know, we don't know damn well. And stop telling people that because you're wrong. We don't know. You know, I wish we did. (54:03) I wouldn't have put my career on the line to do this if we did. Someone had just told me to shut up and call her Lue. And, and we've got all this taken care of. And then I would have because I'm a patriot, but that never occurred. And the more I search, the more we realize I realize in my colleagues that there's a lot of information out there. (54:21) And, and we're not doing the right thing with it. And so, you know, I do want to blow up uFology. I love the people in it, but I think as a whole, we have, we have corrupted something to the point where nobody in their right mind, we want to look into this topic because it's so fraught with stigma taboo. (54:39) And I'm talking about, you know, whatever it's it's it's people from alpha proximal, for centurary or the pliities. And I know this because I had a download. Well, that's great, but you know, that doesn't help us much because there's no way to measure that there's no way to prove that is it's it's fairly subjective. (54:58) So we have to approach this very scientifically, and I'm not saying their opinions are valid, but at the end of the day, they're just opinions stop stating them as fact. That's why I don't give my opinion people, it's a lieu, what do you think? You know what it doesn't matter what I think what matters is what the facts suggest and what the data suggests, because I am not going to make that same mistake is everybody else. (55:18) We have to have we have to exercise some sort of self restraint, we've got to be willing to approach this scientifically just like Galileo when he was proposing that the earth was not the center of the galaxy right there are people that even refuse to look through that through his telescope. And they could have seen the truth right there, but they didn't. (55:39) And I think to some degree were in the same situation now, you know, I know everybody wants answers and in the absence of answers, we tend to fill in the blanks with what we think, but sometimes what we think isn't necessarily what we know. And we have to put remember that there's a difference between a personal truth and a universal truth, you know, a personal truth is something like religion or political affiliation or you know, something like that. (56:05) We're a universal truth as a gravity right where we're all subject to that. And we have to be able to reconcile the two and we don't because there's a lot of emotion in this topic and I understand that I appreciate that believe me I gave up my career because of it. So I get the emotion, but we have to resist the urge of going down that rabbit hole saying yes, this is a way to do it. (56:28) And this is absolutely the answer because we don't know yet, you know, and what happens that people will seize upon that and they'll take advantage of people and they charge people in the super and about a money to go on a UFO expedition. When reality, there's nothing there. And I can't tell him any shows that you'll watch this. Oh, a portal opened up. (56:48) What the hell does that even mean? What? What is that mean? What scientific evidence are you suggesting that because you see something in the sky and all of a sudden now you're taking a leap that there's some sort of portal to where another dimension and other time and other space. What what what physics are involved? What are you talking about? What do you know what a portal looks like? You know, is even there such a thing as a portal? So these are the things that that you know, I'm just harping on one big little example, but we got to avoid that. (57:17) We have to avoid that. That's why we were doing our show with unidentified, you know, we didn't provide answers deliberately because we made it we made a decision we were not going to provide any type of speculative answers. Here's the facts. Here's what the witnesses are saying you figure it out because we don't know yet. (57:32) You know, and we're trying to trying to solve this mystery together. So anyways, a bit of a long way that I know I tend to get a bit emotional about it, but you know, I it's very frustrating. It's very frustrating to see how people have managed to try to hijack this narrative and twisted and contorted and you know, they wonder why nobody pays attention. Well, you know, look in the mirror because you guys are acting nutty. Stop stop doing that. (57:57) Resist the urge to always have an you know, have your answer in your narrative be the one. Let let's science do its job. And then I'll just with that I'll shut up. That's right. And as you say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lue, I quote you all the time with that. It's so important for me and my younger audience to keep a grip while learning about all of these aspects of this topic, not falling into the trap of fantastical science fiction that sometimes gets put up as an adult evidence. (58:32) Now I turn out to be fantastical science fiction, but we got to let the data prove it. We can't just speculate. And that's what I'm saying is look, you know, I don't know where this is going to lead other than we now know it's real. So so let's have a little patience. Let's continue doing what we're doing. We've got come a long way in four years. You know, let's I think we're I think we're on the right track. (58:55) And the beautiful thing about data and facts and science is that doesn't have emotion doesn't have bias or opinion. It just tells you exactly how it is. And that's why the Galileo project is absolutely fantastic. But to change gears a little bit, I'm curious about how you perceive the changes to the treatment of the UAP topic and to the researchers by the agencies of the US government since the 1980s. (59:21) Specifically, I'm referring to the section of Chris Melon's article where he goes into the detail about Air Force interest in the topic and I quote. The Air Force denied any interest in the UAP topic, yet there are many reasons to doubt these claims. For example, retired USAF special agent Richard Dodie has repeatedly claimed consistent with the Robertson panel's recommendations that the Air Force office of special investigations. (59:50) The OSI conducted clandestine surveillance of US citizens and forged documents to manipulate and discredit such groups during the 1980s. At least one UFO researcher Bill Moore admitted spying on his civilian colleagues on behalf of OSI. This all seems in direct contrast with the situation today where nobody seems to have any clue of what's going on. (1:00:21) And the topic has now been such more mainstream without so much of the ridicule factor. What's your perception on this? Well, I think we need to refrain from trying to point fingers. Look, here's a bottom line. I went down to Uruguay to a multi-video to one of the oldest UFO government sponsor, UFO organizations in this hemisphere that turns out it's an Uruguay. (1:00:49) It's a military organization that's sponsored by the Uruguay military to look and track UFOs. Now, when I was down there, I asked them, you know, what predicated this? Why? Why did you guys get involved in this? And they pull out a memorandum from 1978 to memo. And guess what? The letterhead on that memo was. (1:01:10) It was from the United States Embassy. This is supposedly after blue book was shut down, nothing to see here folks, UFOs aren't real. Turns out there was a direct request by the United States Embassy to the government of Uruguay to establish their own UFO program, which they did they subsequently did. (1:01:29) So that's a fact. We can hide all day long behind details, but that's real. That's a tangible document that document exists and it was done by us. So there has to be a reason for it, right? And there has been a long history of air force involvement in this topic. And I don't want to point fingers because ultimately we need the air forces help. (1:01:51) Now that the go for is finally sticking its head out of the hole, the last thing I want to do is scare it. It goes back under the hole for another 70 years, right? We want to coax it out and we want to let it know we're not going to, you know, we're not going to attack you. We're not going to grab you. (1:02:05) You know, we want to do is simply talk to you. You know, we want to have a conversation. And that's hard because you know, again, a lot of people are emotional. A lot of people want answers. A lot of people want their quote unquote pound of flesh for for apparently injustices that may have been done in the past, but we have to avoid that. (1:02:21) You know, we have to do somewhat of a in my opinion, something like a truth and reconciliation, like you had in, you know, too much more extreme degree, but like in Rwanda, where you had both sides coming to the table and say, look, you know, a lot of bad stuff was done. But to get the truth out, we're willing to forgive and and kind of if you will give everybody a pass on this so we can finally get to the bottom of this and put this behind us. (1:02:46) And maybe that's what we need. Maybe that's what we need as a whole government approach. Maybe we need up with the United States Air Force. Some sort of amnesty program and say, look, you know, no one's going to get in trouble here. What was done in the past. What's in the past is in the past. (1:02:57) Let's move forward. Let's look forward. Let's move forward together. We need your help. And here's how we do it. That's, you know, that's one one way we could do it. We could go about doing it. I sure do hope so. Lue final question. Hot spots. Places where there are UFO flaps going on around in the country or on the coast. (1:03:18) So let me ask you this. If you had the tickets, the accommodation, the best equipment to go sky watching. Where are some of the places and your opinion, it would be best to go gazing at the skies. Wow. We are aware of hot spots, right off the coast of California, off of there by by between San Diego and and an island in Mexican waters down there. (1:03:51) That seems to be a pretty hot spot. There's a lot of local fishermen, military civilian pilots, Navy that are seeing these, these, these UAPs quite frequently. There's other areas as well. We know that there seems to be an interest or under nuclear key nuclear facilities. And I'll just leave it at that. (1:04:13) You know, I'd love to have some sort of static surveillance looking at that all the time. You know, I'd love to have some some capabilities out in the middle of nowhere. Think of an offshore derelict oil rig that's not being used anymore, right. Let's put some cameras up there. Let's get Abby Loeb to put some of those Galileo capabilities out there in the middle of nowhere where you don't have any light pollution and completely occluded, un-included skies in the middle of the ocean. (1:04:40) And let's just sit there for a month and see what we see, right. There's all, I think there's, there's, you know, tell me right now if I had unlimited resources, where would I go? Well, I go to a lot of places and, you know, I don't, I don't think it's, I don't think it's a bottomless pit of money we need. I think there's probably seven or eight key areas that we could, we could set up some sort of capabilities. (1:05:04) And I think we'll probably find some answers, you know, in the near term. And now bonus content of questions and answers previously only available to Patreon club members. Welcome to the app show segment with me today is the famous Lue Elizondo. So I only have a few questions for you. (1:05:26) Are you ready? Let me see, I need to put my seat belt on hold on a second. Okay, I'm buckled in. Ready to go. So Lue, have you had your own UFO sighting recently or since our last interview and if not, are you more than ready to have your own sighting? That's not an easy question to answer people say, well, just say yes or no, it's not yes or no. (1:06:01) Are you asking me in an official capacity or are you asking me in a personal capacity? Are you talking about using sensors and equipment? Are you asking me with my own naked eyes? Unfortunately, you have to be a little bit more specific and I'm not trying to throw the needle here, but, but, but I want to answer your question and depending on what you asked will dictate how I answer. Well, in this case, it would be personal with your own eyes on the skies. (1:06:21) Since we last talk, I have not negative since we last had our conversation. Well, then would you be ready to have an sighting anytime soon? Well, I'm not sure it's up to me. I'm not sure anybody's ready or they're not ready. It either happens or it doesn't. And, and hopefully you're there, you know, with, hopefully with the camera. (1:06:42) Hopefully, yeah, you know, for the love of God, please don't be like, damn, and I let myself in the car. No, please have it on you and start taking video perfectly in others too. So, yeah, I mean, am I ready to have one? I don't know that depends. You know, from far away, that's one thing you can say, ooh, cool. (1:07:04) But, you know, another thing is to have something right in front of you in your face that can be kind of terrifying. So, you know, on one hand, I say, yeah, I'm ready. But, you know, and like really ready, ready, like ready, ready. Probably, I'm not sure anybody really is, you know, because when you're faced with the reality that something in front of you could truly be existential and beyond any type of comprehension understanding you have. (1:07:28) And, you know, I'm a little bit like seeing a ghost, right? People say, I want to see a ghost. Well, do you really? I mean, sounds like a good idea, right? Until, until you're really looking at one right at you, right? And it's looking at you. There's a reason why people are afraid of things like that. You know, potentially this, this may be one of those when you're talking about something that you are, let me give you a real example. (1:07:49) I'm just scuba diving with a body mine. I don't think I ever shared the story. It's a little embarrassing, but I'll share. I'm an avid scuba diver, so do a lot of scuba diving. And, they'll do a lot of it actually when you use to teach some people. So, I was scuba diving off the coast of Florida as a kid. I was in college with a buddy mine. (1:08:09) I really, really need guys, so we're out of the middle of the water and we come to the surface and we're talking it's kind of a murky cLuedy day, you know, typical storms coming in off the coast of Florida in the afternoon. A couple of miles out the shore on a little reef and we see some fins kind of in the inky black water. And I'm like, oh, me, there's a dolphin's man. Let's go, let's go underwater. We're going down about 20, 30 feet. (1:08:29) And do a b line and see if we can intersect with the dolphins and see them underwater. Wouldn't that be cool, right? Play with flipper. So we get underwater and, you know, we take the air out of our BC and we start going and going and going. Yeah, we think, okay, they've done long gone and all of a sudden we start hearing this, this, this, this chatter, this high pitch chatter squeaky, right. (1:08:49) And we realize, oh my gosh, those are the dolphins, they're talking, we can actually hear them underwater. And then something very interesting happens and all of a sudden our entire body starts to resonate starts to vibrate, but it's weird because you can't hear it, but you can feel it inside your body. (1:09:03) And that's a very unique experience and then you realize, wow, they're echo locating off of us and they're not just echo locating off of us. They can see probably inside of us. It's like, it's like a ultrasound, right, because they're using frequencies to navigate under what now we can only see about 20 feet in front of us. And again, the waters are already kind of occluded and murky and it's in. (1:09:27) And all of a sudden, we can start feeling it like our entire bodies are vibrating. He looks at me and I look at him and we're like, okay, this is serious. This is like what the hell is going on. And so all of a sudden as we're swimming forward out of the inky blackness comes an enormous head that was jet black and I mean, it looked like the size of a school bus like it was huge. (1:09:50) And all of a sudden another one pops out and another one pops out and now there's three of these ginormous faces underwater looking at looking at their huge. And we realize all of a sudden these aren't these were not dolphins. These were pilot whales. Now the pilot whale. I feel like, ah, their whales are cute, their harmless. Yeah, but when you're underwater and these things are looking at you and they're right in front of you, all of a sudden you're presented with a reality of, oh my god, you know, this I'm in their territory. (1:10:18) These things live here and now all of a sudden they're wondering what the hell I'm doing in their backyard. So the one in the middle of the face literally all of a sudden does this very slow motion 360 turn adds their echo locating off of us. My regulators in free flow right now. I'm just bug free flow bubbles. So I'm like, I'm terrified. I'm like, I'm about to be lunch. This thing does a complete 360 without even moving just like like something you'd see in a movie like a space movie. (1:10:45) And stops and just looks at us basically telling us look what I can do. What can you do? Yeah, you can't do any of that. Can you and all of a sudden these things just go right passes again. We are frozen. And I'm thinking, oh my god, we're about to be lunch. And of course we were never in any real danger, but it was terrifying. You're all of a sudden realize your face to face with mother nature with a 20 foot pilot whale. (1:11:09) And you've got two more of these things and you know, you realize now I'm the alien. I'm the one that doesn't belong here. I'm the one that's that's in a place that maybe I shouldn't be. And that was fun and going to be kind of cool experience turns out, yeah, not so fun. You know, that fact downright scary. And so, you know, not to make light of a situation, but when you say, are you ready to see one. (1:11:35) I always tell people careful what you ask for, you know, because you, you may be surprised. Don't be a little as on the scuba diving, you know, thinking it's all fun and games because you know, it can be it can be kind of scary at the same time. Has anyone ever told you that you're so enthusiastic when you tell stories like I was on the ride with you. And let me tell you, I cannot wait when you can start telling stories that are considered classified during your work during your job being a part of a tip. (1:12:07) I'm looking forward when you're going to begin to tell those stories with that. You know, as well as I do that's my Latin blood us Latinos. We, we are passionate probably because of the amount of Cuban coffee I'm drinking. You know, it's it's it's kind of in our blood. We tend to be very passionate. You know that or the fact that I've drinking all this has been Cuban coffee. You know, there's an old saying that you drink those little cafes, you know, a little cups to say if you drink one sip. (1:12:34) You'll be awake for 24 hours. If you drink two sits, you'll be awake for like 48 or 72 hours. And if you manage to drink the whole thing, you will never blink in life. And so that's probably probably my problem if I had to guess what I'm still animated. Well, I just have one last question for you. So I imagine you must have a timeline in the back of your mind on the progress towards public transparency or what some call disclosure. (1:13:06) Can you give me your thoughts on where we are on that timeline? We're on time. We're on track. We are exactly where we need to be in this conversation right now. We're not any further or any behind than where we should be. I think part of this issue is socialization, getting people comfortable with the fact that it's okay to ask the hard questions and realize we don't have all the answers. (1:13:36) And that we are dealing with something that truly may not be man made. You know, that's, that's a big bridge to cross, especially in four years. It was a big bridge to cross in the last 70 years, let alone four years. So it takes time. I think I think we're exactly where we should be. And I'm very hopeful that that this year and in the coming future, we're going to continue to shed additional light. (1:14:04) And we're going to continue on this path. You know, one of the things I want to do with this book that I'm doing, so why are you writing a book? Well, because I want to set a book and I want to make sure we can never put the genie back into the model. I want to state the facts as a yard and let them know what we've found. So we can never go back on this conversation. (1:14:24) We can, we can, we can always go forward, but we'll never be able to put the cap back in the back. And that's one of my hopes with, with the book. I think we're, I think we're exactly where we need to be. Lue, again, thank you so much for being done with your time. And I look forward to talking to you very soon. (1:14:43) Thank you so much for what you're doing. Thank you for your audience and thank you for this additional amount of time to have a conversation with you and your audience. I really do appreciate it. And look forward to to many more.