“We Are Not Alone” – Luis Elizondo: Real UFO Encounters, Government Secrets & Underwater Aliens | PBD Podcast | Ep. 471
01:50:46 Share

This episode is brought to you by Merrill. Join one of the most iconic names in wealth management. Merrill, you'll be part of a dynamic team of advisors and specialists working hard every day to grow their clients' wealth. And with the support of best-in-class research, advanced digital tools, and the resources of a global institution, it's truly an opportunity you can be bullish about. Learn more at careers.bankofamerica.com. Copyright 2024, Bank of America Corporation.

As dawn broke over the seven seas, the pirates of the Crimson Galleon set sail for adventure. But there was one problem. Paperwork. Mountains of it. Filing, invoices, you name it. This work ain't fit for a pirate. Luckily, their captain had an idea. She used the smart buying tools on Amazon Business so they could work more efficiently and get back to doing what they do best. I know, right? Amazon Business. Your partner for smart business buying.

There's a real national security issue here. So they made it very clear to me that I have to be very careful not to talk about something that I'm not allowed to talk about. You know, let me give you a little piece of advice here. Don't let your analytic bias get the best of you because what you're going to learn may challenge any preconceived notions or narratives that you have.

The American population absolutely cannot have this discussion. They cannot handle the truth. It will cause people to lose faith in their religions, their faith and confidence in government. It was basically a definitive no. But I left the Pentagon after that. I left. I resigned. I believe Americans can handle the truth because we're having a conversation now, what you and me. Some of these vehicles have come so close to a combat formation that they've actually split up.

The air force is right down the middle. You've personally witnessed it. You've seen it right in front of you. I've held it in my hand. Okay. Stephen Greer. What are your thoughts on Stephen Greer? When anybody gets up there and says, believe only me, that's a problem. This is the true dominant life form that's been on this planet all along. And we just discovered it 120 years ago.

So is it possible that these friends from out of town, these UAP, are just as natural to Earth as we are? We know more about the surface of the moon than we know about our own oceans. Is it possible these things could be coming from underneath the oceans? Yes, that's possible, too. Former President Donald Trump saying, for the record, if he were to get elected, he would actually consider releasing the UFO files. But I have people come to me and beg me not to do it.

But I'll be doing that very early on. Who doesn't want this conversation to be on? Oh, wow. There's a few. Would you consider yourself a whistleblower? Well, if you're asking me, um, no, I'm a patriot. Did you ever think you would make it?

♪♪

So, guys, every time I do a podcast, I have a simple mission. Every time I'm like, what's my number one outcome? And I kind of go into the podcast. Today's outcome is very simple. We're not going to make it complicated. All I want to know by the time we're done with the podcast is...

what the government is hiding from us. If we can figure that out, Luis, with you, and not a big deal. We just want to know what's going on with these aliens and UAPs. And, you know, you've been all over the place the last few years. Every time you turn it on, you're on CNN, you're on Fox, you're on this, you're on News Nation, you're on Rogan recently. You're all over the place. So we have a simple mission. That's what the mission is. You got a book that just came out, Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs.

And for the audience that doesn't know you, first of all, I appreciate you for coming out and spending some time together. Oh, my privilege. Thank you. I have consumed so much of your content that I feel like I know you at this point from watching these interviews. I'm so sorry. But for the audience that doesn't know you, if you don't mind taking a minute or two and just kind of give your background, how you went about and then what all of a sudden in 2008 when you got that call, walk us through that. Yeah, sure. Yeah.

So long story short, I grew up as a blue collar kid in South Florida. After high school, I attended the University of Miami. I studied microbiology, immunology and parasitology, not parapsychology, the study of parasites, so microorganisms.

And after that, I joined the Army and went into military intelligence and did some support to special operations. And from there, I was recruited into a very specialized program within the government. It was a civilian program that still – basically like a civilian soldier program.

where I was a special agent and basically focused on national security crimes, so terrorism, espionage, things like that. Spent early part of my years in Latin America doing counterinsurgencies and counter-narcotics and things like that and supporting some other three-letter agencies down there, counter-guerrilla operations.

And then after 9-11, found myself over on the other side of the globe. Focused a lot of my efforts in places like Afghanistan and the Middle East, this time focusing on things like Hezbollah and other organizations, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and things like that. How much experience do you have with them, with Hezbollah, with al-Qaeda? How much interaction experience, like close-up? That was our job. I mean, we recruited sources. We were, you know...

using them as spies. Okay. We'll come back to that. We'll come back. That's good to know. So, um, then, uh, probably after four or five of these trips over there, my wife finally said, look, you know, I'm, I'm concerned you're not going to come back. Um, you're, you're really, you're really rolling the dice here and you're taking a lot of chances. And so, uh,

I came back, took a supervisory position, started running investigations back in Washington, D.C., and from there spent some time with other three-letter agencies and the director of national intelligence. And in 2008, I was asked to come back to the Pentagon,

At the time, I was working over by the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, which is somewhat close to CIA's headquarters. But the commute was killing me. And we raised our two daughters and our family on a little island called Kent Island in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay because I didn't want to raise them in a big urban area like D.C. So my commute was three hours each way. Sometimes it was not uncommon for me to spend more time in the car than I was at the office. So 2008.

I was asked to come back to the Pentagon and start a program to help integrate national level intelligence, excuse me, with local law enforcement. After 9-11, we realized that we, as a national security apparatus, we weren't sharing threat related information very well with local law enforcement. So my job was to fix that. And it was shortly thereafter that some people visited me in my office.

And after several meetings, asked me to be part of their organization. Now, what that organization was at the time, I had no idea. But they were cleared. They had the blue IC badge like I had, and they had all the clearances. And finally, one day I met their boss, and that's when I learned about the U.S. government's UFO investigation. And by the way, we weren't the only show in town. There was a long history of

of the U.S. government being involved in investigating. We call them now UAP, but in the vernacular, it's UFOs. Now, at the time, is that a publicly known organization or it's underground that no one knows about? It was not publicly known at all. So you're talking about the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program? Is that the one? Correct, AATIP. And in fact, there was a larger umbrella called OSAP, and then there was an evolution over time

where the focus went from AUSAP to really kind of more pinpoint focused, which was AATIP. So AATIP was looking pretty much at the nuts and bolts of UAP interactions with U.S. government assets. So think of military aircraft, military installations, other type of research centers that are that belong to the U.S. government and how UAP were interacting in and around those areas.

Okay. So is this the one that Harry Reid raised $22 million to start? This is the one? That's correct. That's correct. So what prompted him to want to do this? Like normally somebody doesn't just wake up and say, guys, we have to start this thing and I want to start recruiting certain people. Let's go raise 22 million bucks to investigate what, what prompted his motive. Right. So it wasn't just Harry Reid. A lot of people think this was some sort of

wild goose chase by Senator Harry Reid. It wasn't. This was a bipartisan effort. It was also Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, who was Republican, and Senator Inouye from Hawaii. And on top of that, you had also John Glenn as well, former astronaut John Glenn. And they all had their own experiences with UAP. So, for example, Stevens actually during war had seen a UAP and also Harry Reid had

had indicated that he had several, if you will, run-ins with UAP himself when he was younger. Oh, when he got younger? When he was younger. You're not talking about the time he got a black eye. That wasn't a UAP. That's a different story. Well, it probably felt like a UAP crashing into him. I'm just trying to make sure we don't want stories to be... Yeah. Go ahead. When he was younger. Yeah. And so there's always been an interest by these individuals in Congress to get to the bottom of this. There was also a report, which I heard directly from...

from the former Senator where he was accidentally read on to the program at one point to the, to the ongoing government's UFO program. And he was so incensed that when they tried to read him off and say, Oh, there was a mistake. We shouldn't have told you about this. He got very mad. And this was one of the, one of the many reasons why he got involved. There was also some, several individuals in the Pentagon at the time who were also very concerned about UAP. One of them was actually the original director for OSAP and,

James Likatsky. James Likatsky was probably, in my opinion anyways, the world's premier rocket scientist. This is an individual who

who epitomizes what it means to be a rocket scientist for the U.S. government. He could tell you the burn rate of a first-stage solid rocket booster motor. He could tell you the trajectory and reentry velocity of, let's say, a MIRV, multiple reentry vehicle coming in from low Earth orbit. The guy was just a wealth of information. Skinwalkers at the Pentagon? That's who you're talking about? Yeah, yeah. And so that's James Lukatsky, and there were several others, right?

that were part of this effort. And, you know, I can happy, happy to talk to you about them, but what was Harry Reed's interaction when he was a kid? I don't know. He never shared that with me, but he did say that he did have something. He shared that with me and a couple others. Yeah. Got it. So their motive is, is it almost personal? Like, look, I think something's going on. Let's find out. And let's put a program here. Or is it because Harry is in Nevada, right? And area 51 is in Nevada. Now the other fellow you're talking about is from Hawaii, right?

Right. And then Glenn. So it's not like everything is Nevada based. Did any of his motives of wanting to do this because there was Area 51 in Nevada or no? Well, I think that the real impetus was the fact that he was aware there were U.S. military encounters going on with with these UAP. There's a real national security issue here. Right. You have these you have these.

Let's call them vehicles that have the ability to fly unimpeded, unchallenged into controlled U.S. airspace over sensitive military installations and potentially even interfere with our nuclear equities, our nuclear capabilities. So there was a big concern on behalf of the government, both in the intelligence community and the Department of Defense,

In some cases, we had almost near-air collisions with these things. In fact, if you talk to some of the fighter pilots, they'll relay to you, they'll tell you where some of these vehicles have come so close to a combat formation that they've actually split the air formation right down the middle. So that's close, right? You're talking, what, 15 feet maybe? So there was an air safety issue as well, and it became almost like the worst kept secret in the Pentagon. It was happening everywhere.

So often with especially with a lot of our nuclear carrier strike groups that people on the ship were literally using their phones to take pictures and videos of these things. So something had to be done. And I think from that perspective, I can't really talk much about the Skinwalker Ranch because my focus was more on the on the eight of the military piece of aspect of this.

But there was significant amount of data to suggest that, yeah, there's something there because it's not just, look, it's not just eyewitness testimony, right? It's not like grandma seeing some lights in the backyard. We're talking about trained observers that are trained to recognize a silhouette and

at 10 miles away and determine, is it an SU-22? Is it a MiG-25? Is it an F-16? And identify friend or foe. Do I kill it or do I save it? Right? Within a second. This is how good these pilots are. And they're Top Gun trained. Like literally people watch the movie Top Gun. Well, these are the real Top Gun pilots. And not only are they seeing these, these craft that outperform, outperform anything that they have in their inventory, but

But it's also being further substantiated by gun camera footage and FLIR footage from a pod for looking infrared footage. And, oh, by the way, it's also being corroborated by radar signature and radar returns from airborne radar, seaborne and ground-based radar systems. So you have this menagerie, if you will, or this collection of sensor capabilities that

all reporting the same incident at the same time, at the same location, under the same circumstances, right? So now put that on the backdrop of where I come from, being a former special agent in counterintelligence. If I was providing this information to a jury, for example, we're well beyond reasonable doubt at this point. I mean, this is, the jury would have to convict because the information is so compelling. I mean, these are the same collection sensor systems that we use to prosecute and win wars, right?

And when you see these technologies that are coming into our controlled U.S. airspace, and there's really not a darn thing we can do about it, that's a problem. That's a real national security issue. Forget about tinfoil hats and Elvis on the mothership and all that other nonsense. We're talking a real national security. Imagine if one of these things had a Russian star on the tail or a North Korean tail number, right? It would be on the front page of every newspaper. But because these things didn't even have a tail, no rudder, no wings, no ailerons, no control surfaces, not even a cockpit, right?

It was crickets. Nobody wanted to say anything. So you can think about this from a national security perspective, right? You go to an airport today or to a train station, you always hear over the announcements. If you see something suspicious, say something.

And yet it was the exact opposite for our own men and women in uniform in the military when these things were coming up close and personal to their aircraft or over our facilities. Nobody wanted to say anything. It was crickets. And so I think there was a recognition by the senators at the time that something had to be done. And in fact, it's the same reason now, it's the same impetus why Congress now is involved in this topic because they're concerned. They've heard from the whistleblowers. They've heard from the pilots. They have received some of the briefings.

It's real. Whatever it is, it's real. That part of the conversation is already over. So you get recruited to this Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, 07, 08. I think 07 is when it started. I think you get recruited in 08. It was actually early part of 09. Okay. So I came to the Pentagon in 08, late 08, and it was really right after that on the tail end. So you came to Pentagon and then they recruited you and assigned you to this, they give you this assignment, right?

after recruiting you from the Pentagon. That's kind of how they met you. Yeah, there was a vetting process. The nomination and the vetting process. Yeah, so I don't know what their selection criteria was. I've always thought it was because early on in my career, I did a lot of advanced aerospace protection, technology protection. I recently learned that was not the reason why. They just wanted the hard work.

hardcore counterintelligence background and security background to make sure that I guess the bad guys are Russians. Which strength do you want more, right? You need somebody that's going to be investigating or instead of just a level of curiosity, but okay, let's stay on this. So now you're in there. Okay. You're in.

You're going through it. At first, are you the guy that's always, you know, I heard you say you're not a Star Wars guy. You're not a Star Trek guy. You weren't that guy. You weren't the guy that was a person that thought aliens and all these guys existed. But when you go in and when was the first moment where you said, oh, shit, things just got real. Yeah. So it was a conversation with with the director of OSAP, Dr. James Lukatsky, this rocket scientist. And I remember at the end of the conversation we had, I still don't know what the program was.

And he says, so let me ask you something. Okay. So what do you think about UFOs? And I waited for a second. I thought, I don't. I answered him truthfully. I don't think about them. And he's like, well, what do you mean? You don't believe in them? And I said, well, no, you didn't ask me that. You asked me what I think about them. And I don't think about them because I really don't have the luxury to think about them. I'm too busy doing my daily job and whatever.

paying the mortgage and whatnot. And he said, well, that's fair, but you know, let me give you a little piece of advice here. Don't let your analytic bias get the best of you because what you're going to learn may challenge any preconceived notions or narratives that you have. And that was my first, I mean, at that moment, I wasn't sure if he was trying to like maybe test me to see if I was like maybe psychologically unstable or

I didn't really respond to it, but that was probably my first real introduction that, hey, there's something going on here that they're taking very seriously. How much longer after you got hired did you have that conversation with the doc? Well, they threw me into the deep end of the pool. So it was very quickly I realized that what he was saying was absolutely legit. Now, you know, people have always asked me just like you did, what was it like when you first realized what was actually going on? There's two ways I've noticed that.

people absorbing this information, in my experience, just being part of the program. Some have this revelatory aha moment, this epiphany, oh my gosh, you mean they're real? Where others, it's more of a slow and steady, gradual realization and acceptance. For me, I was probably the latter category. It got to the point where

it was obvious this wasn't our technology and we were pretty darn sure this wasn't adversarial technology. And at that point you're forced to reconcile, you know, any narrative you may have had before. Um,

The information was very, very compelling. And by the way, it wasn't just me, it was our colleagues as well. And some of these folks are what I would consider intelligence community greats, the old gray beards. You know, we had people, for example, like Dr. Kit Green. We had people like Hal Pudoff. Dr. Hal Pudoff was the godfather, if you will, of the CIA's remote viewing program, psychic espionage. That was his program.

Dr. Kit Green was in charge of the weird desk at the CIA. All these individuals, these legends in the IC were actually part of OSAP and AATIP. It was just like this incredible, incredible group of people. I often joke, but not really, that when I entered the room, I think the IQ probably dropped about 20 points. These folks were really, really, really intelligent. Some of the best astrophysicists that we had in the government were working this topic as well.

And for me, it was we had a dinner at the time early on with a four star general in Brazil named Uchoa, General Uchoa. And he came to Washington, D.C. and provided some very, very compelling information about a Brazilian investigation, Brazilian government investigation into an incident in a region of Brazil called Colares.

- Where he... - Cassandras, yeah. Yeah. And so very, very interesting. It was an official investigation by the Brazilian government. And what conclusion did they come up with? Well, the things were not... They were not man-made and they had the ability and capability to harm people if they wanted to. And some of their own people, even in the Brazilian military, were injured.

Now for you, so you have UAP, right? And you have UFOs because we used to hear UFOs. Now it's like unidentified. Okay. You know, so aliens and you have, you know, the separating the two yourself with your own eyes. Have you seen anything where you're a hundred percent unidentified?

Proof for your own self. Like, are you, here's Jesus, here's the 12 disciples. They walk with them, right? And then they go and tell everybody else, look, I hung out with Jesus. Trust me, I saw this stuff, right? Or I saw the resurrection, right? Oh my God, I was there, right? So it's still witness. You're not the main source for us to witness, right?

Are you at 100% that both aliens and UAPs exist? So great question. And I think we need to, for your audience's sake, pull that question apart a little bit because it's not so simple. It may seem like a simple answer, but it's not. And then let me explain it. To me, it's simple, but I want to hear how you explain it. Yeah, and then let me try to explain it. And then at the end, I'll give you the simple explanation. So when you say aliens, people think something from out there. So I've always told people when they say, oh, they're from outer space.

They could be. They could be from outer space, inner space, or frankly, the space in between. So what do we mean by that? This is a wonderfully complex universe we live in. And we are realizing new paradigms almost every day in the world of science. So let me give you a case in point. I told you I went to University of Miami. I studied microbiology and immunology.

There are people, scientists right now, anthropologists who believe that modern humans, Homo sapiens sapien, has been around for the last 100 to 200,000 years. It wasn't until the Greeks 2,000 years ago that we actually recognized the two major life forms on this planet. And you were either a plant or you were an animal and human beings fell into that animal category.

And we were very proud of ourselves. And it wasn't until the Renaissance or the days of enlightenment, about 300 some years ago, where we discovered a whole new life form on this planet that we've been sharing all along. And that was the world of fungus. And so again, pat ourselves on the shoulder, you're either plant, an animal, or you're fungus. Now, it wasn't until the last one, think about this, out of 200,000 years of modern human history,

of being actually modern humans, not human history, that it was the last 120 years that we actually discovered the true, the true dominant life form on this planet. In fact, if you add up all the biomass of every plant and all the biomass of every animal and all the biomass of every fungus and add it all up together, it still will not equal the biomass of the true dominant life form on this planet. And it wasn't until we could curve glass and look through a little steel tube and famously shout, little beasties, little beasties,

did we discover the world of microorganisms that are inside every single human being that makes us up as individuals that can survive on the skin of the ISS space station and can survive the crushing depths of miles of ice underneath the Arctic.

So plant, animal, fungus, microorganism. Right. So my point being is that this is the true dominant life form that's been on this planet all along. And we just discovered it 120 years ago. So is it possible that these friends from out of town, these UAPs,

are just as natural to Earth as we are. Maybe we're at the point now where technologically we can start tracking them. Maybe they're from under the ocean. Look, we've only mapped less than 10% of the ocean floor. We know more about the surface of the moon than we know about our own oceans. Is it possible these things could be coming from underneath the oceans? Yes, that's possible too. So when we say the word aliens, we have to be careful because people automatically presume we're talking about things from out there.

And we're not really sure if they really are from out there. They could be from right here. There's so many different possibilities. And this is why in ATIP, we've always said that

All options have to be on the table until they're no longer on the table. And so back to your question, you know, aliens, UFOs, have I had seen hard evidence? I have seen hard evidence that there is technology out there that's not made by us. But whether to say that they're aliens from out there. Okay, let's start on that though. Yeah. Let's start with that one. And then I'll go a little bit deeper. So technology you've seen that is not made by us. Okay. Yeah.

You've personally witnessed it. You've seen it right in front of you. I've held it in my hand, material. What was unique about this technology? Sure. Well, let's start with material science, right? So let's take this pen, for example.

I'm in the desert and I find this pen on the ground. And so I'm going to look at this. I'm going to do a physical analysis, right? At the macro level. I'm going to look at it. It's hard. It's plastic. It's kind of cylindrical. Do some measurements. How much does it weigh? And then what I'll probably do is go and do a chemical or molecular analysis where I'm now going to go and I'm going to see the actual relationships of the, of the, of the molecules themselves. And I can see that there's some stainless steel, maybe some rubber and how it interacts, how they are arranged as molecules. Okay.

And then what I'm going to do is say, you know, this is really unique enough. I'm going to do an atomic analysis. I want to look at things like isotopic ratios, which are, there's a varying degree of isotopic ratios that are found in nature. When you find them that are outside that spectrum, then they're not natural, meaning they've been engineered or they're from somewhere else. So case in point, there was a little dagger that was found back when we found Tutankhamen's, his tomb back in the 20s.

And it was a little dagger. Nobody paid much attention to it until they did analysis on it. And they realized that the nickel content in that dagger was not found on Earth. It actually came from an asteroid. And that's why that dagger was so important, why they buried it with King Tut, because it was made from an asteroid. So that's how we can tell if something is made naturally here on Earth or not.

or if it's not. And then you're going to look at the arrangements of the atoms themselves in basically a lattice-type matrix. How were the atoms arranged? Now, keep in mind, to arrange atoms very specifically is A, very costly, and B, takes a lot of technology and sophistication to do. We only recently have had that technology to arrange atoms that accurately, right? So when you find a piece of something that

And it does not have, it's clearly engineered. It's got a beveled edge. It's been manufactured. And it's been put away in it together in a way that we cannot replicate still, right? And then turns out, oh, by the way, this material comes, it was found decades ago. You are then forced to ask the questions, logical questions. Okay, well, if we can't make it, we didn't make it, who did? Who has the technology, right? So the further back in time you go, the more you realize that

No one had that technology. So if you found, let's say, a garage door opener and you were Mike Da Vinci and you were walking in the desert and you found a garage door opener back in the 1600s, you've never – didn't discover plastic and certainly the electromagnetic spectrum wasn't even discovered, right? So who built it? It doesn't make sense that you're going to find this material that is so precisely engineered and you're going to be able to – and by the way, some country –

built it three decades ago, four decades, five decades ago. And so that's how that scientific analysis is so important. Now, let me caveat. I did not do the analysis. I am not a trained material scientist and I'm not a material engineer, but we had people in the government who were. And we had organizations, very reputable organizations. For example, let's say NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, right? The best of the best.

conduct analysis. And when they come back with a big goose egg and say, look, man, I can't tell you where this came from. I have no idea, but we, we cannot manufacture that. What's it capable of doing? Well, that's, that's a great question. Apparently it can do all sorts of interesting stuff, but we're not sure yet because it's, it's, it's part of something else, part of a bigger system, right? It's like this pen. If I find just the pen cap of it,

well, it's interesting and I think I know what it does, but maybe it can do a whole lot of other things. So we don't know yet everything it can do. We have some theories. Some of the folks that I work with at OSAP and ATIP have some very interesting theories. Such as? So one is multiple waveform capabilities. Another one is potentially some sort of antigravitic, meaning the ability to defy

the natural effects of Earth's gravity without the associated technologies, right? These are purely assumptions or is there a reason based on a certain formula they saw to say that's capable of doing XYZ? Actually tests. So it wasn't, it wasn't either. It wasn't, it was actually tests that they did and they said, hmm, this is a very interesting property. If you take this material and you bombard it with X terahertz of

of radiation, interesting things start to happen. Which we didn't do because we don't know what it's capable of. It could even be explosive, right? So did we test it out or? So I have- Because you're playing with fire a little bit, no? Yeah, sure. Anytime you have something that you, of unknown origin, you have to be careful. Just like this conversation, believe it or not, because I was cleared by the Pentagon to talk about

Whatever's in there is cleared. I'm good to talk about. I have to be very careful, though, about going beyond that because I don't have clearance to talk about that. I have not been cleared by the Pentagon. I still just full disclosure, I still maintain my security clearance with the government. I still consult from time to time. So they made it very clear to me that I have to be very careful not to talk about something that I'm not allowed to talk about. So.

Again, I'm being a little bit vague on purpose, but yes, if you have material, let's say this pen, you find in the middle of the desert and you start finding interesting properties associated with this pen. And by the way, it was made at a time where we couldn't manufacture pens. We didn't have the technology. Now you have something very interesting. Okay, so now let me ask this question about, so when you say the atomic, we test it out this way, we test it out that way to see the nuclear, this to see the atomic, this and all the, and then we're like, nobody's done it.

Is this where the world is aligned where you ship it out or somebody flies out with it to Russia to see if the Russian engineers know or we fly them in? Do we test it out with other allies to say, hey, China come in, hey, Russia come in because this is the one area everybody around the world is unified on? Absolutely not. And we should. This is the problem. This is why this is the other part of that equation. So then...

Then if you say it's an unidentified object, then we don't 100% know because it may have come from Russia or China or anywhere else that maybe at some point their engineers figured something out that we just don't know about. That's a great point. So let's go down that rabbit hole for a minute because that's wonderful logic and you're absolutely correct to presume that. So let's take that argument for a second and deconstruct just a little bit.

Let's look at where some of this material, its origins came from. So it came right at the end of 1940s. Okay.

This is material that to this day we cannot replicate. So that would assume that some country out there has, since in the late 1940s, early 1950s, which by the way, where was China? It was in the middle of a famine. Where was Russia? Well, they were barely trying to develop an atomic bomb. We had barely broken the speed of sound, Mach 1, and we hadn't been to space yet, right? So that means some country had the technology to build something in total secret and then deploy that capability over controlled U.S. airspace

and over censored military installations and has been doing so for at least 75 years. Now, if that is the case, then this would be the greatest intelligence failure this country has ever experienced, eclipsing that of even 9-11. And I don't say that lightly because 9-11 just happened, right? I mean, this is, we're celebrating, we're not celebrating anything. We're unfortunately memorializing 23 years, you know, it was a

horrible event. But this would be even worse than that because that means despite the billions of dollars that we invest each year into our intelligence community and our national security apparatus, we're

And all 17 intelligence organizations out there, someone has managed to fly under the radar, no pun intended, with this technology, create it and deploy it without zero accountability, meaning no one knows, zero sponsorship. No one knows who's behind this technology. And so that means our country is totally failed. We've been leapfrogged technologically by an adversary. And oh, by the way, have been for the last 75 years. So...

that's not a really good scenario to be in. Right. And so we invest a lot of money to always keep a competitive edge on our adversaries. We're looking very, very carefully at their new emerging technologies, whether it's Russian hypersonics or, you know, other technologies they're working on. We know what they have. Where do we find this piece? Uh,

I guess I can talk about it. So the material that I have personally held in my hand was acquired by some folks in the OSAP program, allegedly from a crash that occurred at Roswell.

At Roswell. Okay, got it. So, okay, so we know where it came from. It's here. So here's the other question for you. Do you remember when, you know, the stories we read about that Hitler was fascinated with Antarctica, so he goes out there and is investigating what is going on, what's out there, we're curious about it, then U.S. sends a bunch of people, so wait a minute, we can't get Germany to figure something out before we do.

And then all of a sudden, everybody gets on the same page when it comes down to Antarctica. There's representation that they have. A bunch of these countries are representing what's going on there, and they're very unified for that topic, right? A little bit weird, but I can understand it. What do they know that they don't want the rest of the world to know? I don't know, right?

Is the idea of UFOs currently like that as well? Like, is there a board where people from around like a world economic forum, is there a board like that where representative from different countries that if, if, if, if aliens from another country want to attack us, it becomes earth against everyone else. It doesn't become, you know,

or China or Russia, you're borderless now because your borders is the space, right? Does anything like that exist? So, you know, Ronald Reagan once famously said a very interesting quote where he talked about, imagine if we all, all of a sudden faced with the reality of an, of a, let's say an alien threat, right? And all of a sudden, how our petty differences that we have with one another and our other countries would probably completely evaporate overnight. Sure. Solidarity and sing Kumbaya and, you know, work together. Right.

The reality is, is that there were very specific reasons why the U.S. government did not want to engage on a converse in a conversation about the UAP topic. And it makes sense. So let me go into that a little bit and see if this maybe scratches your itch on your question.

So let's look at when the U.S. government was really interested in UAPs. Well, it really goes all the way back to the 1950s and all the way through the 60s and the 70s. We had Project Blue Book and there are reports you can see online right now, highly classified documents, very classified that were classified that have since been declassified and released through the Freedom of Information Act Procedure.

So now anybody can get online and pull some of these documents up, and you will see that there have been UAP encounters over our centers of military installations, like, for example, a research center like Oak Ridge National Laboratory or Savannah River Facility, where we were doing certain things, technologically speaking. These UAP have been seen a lot and have been investigated continuously by the U.S. government. So...

Back to the issue here regarding UAP and regarding historical, and you asked if there's like this international group of people. At the height of the Cold War, we had this real threat with the then Soviet Union, right? They had nukes, we had nukes, and we were playing this winner-takes-all chess game that we called the Cold War, which, by the way, in reality was pretty hot. There was a lot of proxy wars, right? There wasn't cold at all.

And so the generals say to themselves, look, we've got this real threat over here. Yeah, we've got these other things, but they're not really doing anything overly provocative. And there's not a whole lot we can do about them right now. Let's just focus on the Russia threat. And then later on, when we have time, we can worry about this other stuff, right? And then you have the other mindset in the government, which is our job in the government is to be solution oriented. It's not a great conversation to have any government with their people to say, oh, look, by the way, there's something over here that's

you know, doing stuff that we can't replicate and there's nothing we can do about it, right? That's not a great conversation to have until you have a solution. So the Department of Defense and the intelligence community being solution focused, don't want to admit there's a problem until you have a solution. Case in point, here's a perfect example for you. When we started flying the U-2 spy airplane, which was built by Lockheed Martin Skunk Works and commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency, we were flying it over mainland Russia.

And in contravention, that's right, in contravention of the treaty that we had with the Russians, that we weren't going to fly reconnaissance missions over their country. Now, they didn't react. So we thought this plane flew so high and so fast that the Russians couldn't see us, right? Because Russians didn't do anything. It wasn't until the Russians were able to develop an SA-2 surface-to-air missile and successfully shoot one down did they ever admit to their people and the world that

that they've been watching us, right? Why admit that?

A problem for there's no solution. It wasn't until the Russians could actually shoot one down that they said. That's right. So they've been saying, hey, we've been tracking every one of your flights, but now we can shoot them down. Right. So that is also part of that mindset. Right. Why? And there were some studies done back in the 60s and 70s, actual real studies for the government where the government asked the question, look, if we're truthful about UAPs and we decide to disclose the truth about UFOs,

What would the net result be on the population? And they came back with a unanimous, no, don't do it. That the American population absolutely cannot have this discussion. They cannot handle the truth. It will cause... Who said this? Who was the president? So it wasn't the president. Actually, it was a study done. I think it was a Rand Corporation that did the study. It's a very famous study and basically said that the American people, this would cause...

people to to lose faith in their religions their faith and confidence in government and it was it was a um it was basically a definitive no now there was also what year is this uh gosh you know there were two studies so i believe one was in the one for sure was in the 70s i think one was in the 60s but you can look them up online okay they're there and i think grand corporation was one and there was another one um by the time when we're done with this i'll get to the actual details because i don't want to you know give you incorrect information um

So there's that problem too, right? So why admit an issue for which there is no solution, which makes sense, especially when you are a world superpower, right? You don't want to look weak, exactly like you said. And it's really not that uncommon. There are other examples throughout history where governments have kept things quiet until they had a solution for it, right? Now it turns out that I believe Americans can handle the truth.

Because we're having a conversation now, you and me and your audience. Right. And no one's making a run on the bank. And we all realize we have mortgages to pay and we have to go to PTA meetings and take the kids to soccer. And, you know, if you talk to the younger generation now, they kind of look at it and go, meh. Right. They have this reaction where our old generation was like, oh, you can't tell anybody. And, you know, we want to have this active campaign to actually suppress this information and make people look like idiots. Right.

The newer generation, I think, is a lot more open to this topic. They have, I think, probably because of the pervasiveness of information now. And the cell phone technology, they can pretty much pull up any information anywhere in the world instantly and have it translated in whatever language they want. And so I think they're a little more, maybe a little more accepting and wise to this. Would you consider yourself a whistleblower? Well, I guess it depends who you ask. If you're asking me...

No, I'm a patriot. You know, there's whistleblowers come forward when there is some sort of malfeasance or problem in the government, which I did do, but I'm not really looking for protection like a whistleblower.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

So, you want to be a marketer? It's easy. You just have to score a ton of leads and figure out a way to turn them all into customers. Plus, manage a dozen channels, write a million blogs, and launch a hundred campaigns all at once. When that's done, simply make your socials go viral and bring in record profits. No sweat.

Okay, fine. It's a lot of sweat. But with HubSpot's AI-powered marketing tools, launching benchmark-breaking campaigns is easier than ever. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. I asked that because everywhere when I saw you being painted of on the articles, right? If I go online and I type in your name and I type in whistleblower, Rob, if you could do that. So Guardian, whistleblower who spoke out on UFO Claims Pentagon, try to...

discredit him. Luis Elizondo lodges complaint with defense inspector general, defense department accused of disinformation campaign, right? Okay. Then I go to the next one, Fox News. Fox, this is 2024, June 2024, if you want to pull that up. U.S. whistleblower says he's being threatened as congressman. Warns protections are a joke. Yeah. Luis Elizondo, former head of

advanced aerospace again atip said he's faced threats as he pushes for ufo transparency right and continuously that those two are linked you're saying you're not a whistleblower well whistleblowers there's a legal definition of whistleblower then there's a vernacular so if you want to actually be a government whistleblower right it's usually involving fraud waste and abuse so if you look at the legal definition of whistleblower it's very narrowly defined

The problem is that in the vernacular, we, whistleblower, the term whistleblower is used for other things beyond just fraud, waste, and abuse. But from a governmental perspective, that term is very specific for the most part to relate to some sort of malfeasance or fraud, waste, and abuse. And that's why people are very narrowly defined for legal protections as a whistleblower. Now, we as a society consider anybody who's willing to step forward and, and, and,

basically draw attention to something that's wrong as a whistleblower. So that's why I'm hesitant to call myself a whistleblower if I don't fall under the legal definition of a whistleblower, according to the U.S. government. But at the same time, I'm doing what a lot of whistleblowers do. Does the U.S. government think you're a whistleblower? Oh, my gosh. Well, I think some do, and I think probably something I'm the devil. But the U.S. government, do they think you're a whistleblower? Because, and the reason why I'm asking this question is,

If they think you're the whistleblower and you're being everywhere, Wikipedia whistleblower, Fox whistleblower, Guardian whistleblower, everywhere you're painted and written about. If the average person looked you up, they would say this guy's a whistleblower. But if that's the case, how do you still hold on to a secret, you know, clearance? How does that happen? Well, because I haven't done anything wrong.

I haven't broken the law. I haven't leaked information. I'm not like Edward Snowden or anything like that. Yeah, but I would, if I'm the U.S. government, if you truly are somebody that's going out there and the government's not happy for you, I would cut your secret clearance overnight. I'd be like, guys,

This guy's going out there talking. What makes you think one day he's not going to get drunk or have a beer with somebody? And maybe he's sitting with a celebrity and wants to brag about how much he knows. We got to cut this guy's secret clearance off. Why are we keeping him on that? Why are they still keeping giving you secret clearance? Well, first of all, if they did that, it's called retribution, which is illegal.

Right. So they can't do that. No, they can't. Well, they tried, but they failed. And there are, by the way, I will also say in the government's defense. Yeah. There's also a large group of people in the government that want this conversation to occur. They look at this topic. Well, I agree. You know, secrecy has a shelf life. Some people think secrecy is like a fine bottle of wine. And the longer you keep a cork on it, the better it gets. When in reality. Yeah.

I've told people that secrets are like vegetables in your refrigerator. And if you keep them there too long, they start to rot and they stink. And now you've got a real big mess on your hands. And so this is very much the same way. I believe now that there is a group of individuals in the government that are actively wanting this conversation to occur. We certainly know that's the case in Congress right now. So, and this is by the way, I think,

I think almost historic because it's one of the few bipartisan issues, whether you're a liberal or conservative, that's actually being championed in Congress by both sides. Who doesn't want this conversation to be had? Oh, wow. There's a few. Most particularly are those who've been involved in any legacy efforts,

regarding this program. There's some very specific reasons why you would not want to have this conversation. So let's, perfect example. You're company A, I'm company B, aerospace company. And the government comes in and says, hey, listen, I want you to analyze this piece of material, right? Now there's supposed to be fair competition amongst companies, but they give it to you. 10 years later, you're now a multi-billion dollar aerospace corporation. Right.

My company goes bankrupt. 200 people lose their jobs. And oh, by the way, my shareholders lose their investment. So now you've got SEC violations. You've got unfair business practices being violated.

pushed by the government, certain individuals to certain companies. So there's real liability there. And then you've got the fact that people in the government simply didn't do what they were supposed to do and inform certain members of Congress. This goes back to your question about what made Harry Reid so angry, because he knew that there were these secret deals going back and forth. And of all the people in the Senate who should have known, he should have known. And he was deliberately being kept out of the loop. And furthermore, you even have some presidents that were never briefed into this topic. Such as?

Well, most of them recently. I mean, some of them now are learning about it after the fact. Some presidents were briefed into it. Some presidents were not briefed into it. And so think about that, for example, right? So let's look at this on the context of what it means to be an American, right? We believe in the principles of the Constitution because this is a government for the people and by the people. And we all agree that. And the government is here to serve the interests of the people, not the other way around. And the government is comprised of people, right?

Well, imagine a scenario where you have somebody in the government making a unilateral decision not to inform their chain of command, not to inform the president, and not to inform certain people in Congress. Why? Well, because for whatever reason, they look at them as temporary hires. So that is what drives me to do what I'm doing. UFOs, UAP aside...

To me, it's a matter of accountability and transparency. I personally believe that Americans can handle the truth. And it's up to nobody in government to make a unilateral decision what you should be allowed to know. For the last four years, every time we do podcasts, I have to ask Rob or somebody, hey, can you pull up this news? Can you pull up that? Which way do these guys lean? Can you go back to the timeline of eventually after asking so many questions, I said, why don't we design the website that we want aggregated? We don't write the articles. We feed all of it in.

using AI. So nine months ago, eight months ago, I hired 15 machine learning engineers. They put together our new site called VT news.ai. What this allows you to do when you go to it. If you go to that story right there, that says Trump proposes overtime pay, click on it. It'll tell you how many sources are reporting on this from the left. If you go to the right, Rob, it says left sources, click on it. Don't click on it.

Those are all the left sources. If I want to go to right sources, those are the stories. If I want to go to center, I go there. Now, if I want to go all the way to the top and I want to find out a lopsided story, a story that only one side is reporting on, either the left or the right. So if you notice the first one, we'll say Zelensky announces release of 49 Ukrainians from Russia. Notice more people on the left are reporting on that than the right. If I go to the middle one, same thing. If I go to the right one, same thing. You can see what stories are lopsided.

And if I pick one of the stories, pick the first story, click on a Trump one proposes overtime tax cuts to the right on the AI. I can ask any question I want, but click on the first question that has it. It says, what is the political context and potential motivation behind the tax cuts?

Trump's new tax cut proposal. Click on the question mark. It explains exactly what the motives are. So for you to use, whether you're doing a podcast, you're in the middle of a podcast, or you just want to know it for yourself, you're busy like myself. And last but not least, this is all AI doing. This is machine learning engineers. Go all the way to the top. I can go to timelines, go to timelines, and see how far back a story goes. Pick the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

If I want to go to that and go back and see why are some, those two days, a big spike, I'll have Rob pull it over to go to those two days with a big spike and

and I'll see exactly what happened on that day or the previous day and many other features VTnews.ai has. So simply go to VTnews.ai. There's a freemium model, there's a premium, and then there's the insider. If you want to have unlimited access to the AI, click on the VT AI Insider. You can now become a member effectively today. Now, if we're talking about protecting sources and methods, we're talking about protecting military operations, I got it. There's a reason to have things classified.

But the mere fact that these things are real, the mere fact that we may not be alone in the universe, no one, no organization, institution, religion, government has the right to keep that from people, right? And where I come from, my father was a revolutionary in Cuba. He was part of the Bay of Pigs invasion, came here with not a dime in his pocket. And my family is in exile from Cuba because of that participation. And he told me,

About two years ago, right before he died, I'll share something with you. And maybe this kind of gives you some insight of why I do what I do. About a month before my father passed away, I had a chance to go on a nice long road trip with him. And I knew he was dying. He didn't tell me he was, but I could see the signs it was coming. And so about halfway through the trip, I asked him and I asked him actually flippantly, and I feel kind of guilty about it. I said, Dad, what do you think is the greatest threat to humanity? And I'm thinking to myself,

you know, disease, pandemic, terrorism. And he looked to me and he says, son, corruption. And I said, corruption? Like financial corruption? He says, no, son, any corruption.

Corruption is a mere act of trading away one of your core values in exchange for something else. And so whether it's financial corruption, religious corruption, governmental corruption, moral corruption, it doesn't matter. And when you do that in government, when you're in a government official and you are corrupt, you begin to chisel away the very foundation of what democracy is. And from there, it's a very slippery slope down to tyranny. So my beef with this is people in the government that have historically kept this knowledge and

out of the channels that it was supposed to be in in the first place. Not letting Congress know what's going on, spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money and never informing Congress about what's going on. Same thing with the presidents and their chain of command.

You can't have, you're not going to get rid of corruption until you have transparency and accountability. And you only have accountability through transparency. So it all starts with transparency. If you want all this to be fixed, you got to be transparent. And you know, the government doesn't always like to do that. Now, I also want to be clear. I'm not villainizing the whole government. I love my country. I love my government. And it does a lot of things really, really good. I think it's the best country in the world. But with that said, because of...

Like you, I took an oath to this country to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Full stop. And by the way, you and I have never been relieved of that oath. I don't know. Maybe you have. They never told me I don't have to do that anymore. So for me, it turns out that part of the enemy was the bureaucracy itself. It wasn't working in a way that allowed even my own secretary of defense, a guy I was in Afghanistan with, right? This guy was incredible. Jim Mattis. The elements in the Pentagon wouldn't even let me brief him.

Talk about a need to know, right? This is a guy who thrives on more information, not less. This is, you know, the warrior monk. This is mad dog. This is call sign chaos. And even him, they wouldn't brief on this topic. So that's a failure of the system. And by the way, I don't want to villainize any one person because

Their reasoning for it, I understand. I don't agree with it, but I can respect it because it makes sense. There were several reasons why they didn't want the boss to be informed. It wasn't that they were making unilateral decisions saying, you know, he doesn't deserve it. There were some very specific reasons, which again, if at some point you want, I'm happy to talk about those. But who are they?

These are senior officials. I don't want to name them by name. I'm very careful not to do it because I don't want, first of all, their privacy. I want to maintain their privacy too. I've been harassed. I've been threatened on a regular basis. I don't want that to happen to them. So they have more power than Mattis does. Well, they don't have more power, but they can, they are the proverbial Praetorian guards. Let me restate the question. They have more intel than Mattis does. Yes. No.

They have more intel than Mattis does. When's the last time you and Mattis spoke? Oh, my gosh. I bumped into him in the hallways of the Pentagon when he was Secretary of Defense. Yeah, I think I might have injured his leg at one point by mistake. It's an embarrassing story. I don't want to go there. What happened? I was briefed.

I don't think I've ever told this story. I was briefing one of the seniors there in the secretary suite, believe it or not, on ATIP. We were having another one of our weekly briefings on it. And I said, okay, great. See you, Lou. Great. See you next week. Fine. And as I open up the door, something hits me like a brick wall. And I actually get, my reaction was to be angry. Like who the hell has the audacity to be running down the hallway of the secretary suite? Like,

Seriously, who's got the... Who the hell are you? Who do you think you are? And the guy just did a face plant and papers went everywhere. And I looked down, I'm thinking to myself, God, you know, the only guy that has even an excuse to do that would be like the secretary himself. Wouldn't that be something? And as I looked down, it's Mattis. You're kidding me. No. And he looks up at me and you could hear a pin drop and everybody in the suite was like, oh, I'm like, oh my God. And he looks at me, he's like, Lou, Lou.

I think I said something. I think I said either Greenland or Alaska. And he's like, huh? And I said, yes, sir. If you're thinking about reassigning me, I prefer Greenland over Alaska. And for like a week later, he would, he was, there was, he'd be on CNN and Fox news and he's going to meet the Chinese and he's walking with a limp. And I'm like, oh my God. He gives me the vibes. He gives me interesting vibes of a man's man who is,

You know, some of the greatest quotes about him, you know, things he said in war. Super intellectual, by the way. Also one of the smartest. Absolutely. We had him at our event. We had him speak at one of our events, annual convention. He is one of five people on this planet that if they said, put your boots on, call me at four in the morning and put your boots on. We're going to war. I would do it. He's at bar none. He's an incredible human being. I've seen what he can do in the Middle East. I saw what he could do in Afghanistan. The guy is absolutely everything they say he is and more. What's his level of interest in UFOs and unidentified objects?

Couldn't tell you. Remember, I didn't brief him. I didn't get to brief him. His tier below him was briefed on a regular basis. But I left the Pentagon after that. I left. I resigned. Okay. So...

Why is it that the last few years, it's almost as if they want this information to be leaked? They want us to talk more about it. You know, you're hearing people getting up, they're doing hearings. Who was that one fellow that did the hearing and you never saw him again and he saw him and you didn't see him again? Dave Grush. Dave Grush, yeah. Yeah.

What are your thoughts on Dave Grush? He's absolutely an American hero. I know him personally. I worked with him. I had the privilege of working with him. He was part of the UAP task force. Stellar individual. And he is everything he says he is. And by the way, he knows a hell of a lot more, but he can't talk about it. People were giving him flack for saying, oh, you know, it's all secondhand, thirdhand information. Nope.

He's got some firsthand information, but he's not allowed to talk about it. The guy really and they, you know, they ran this guy through the ringer within 24 hours of him coming out and having this conversation with the American people and testifying before Congress. They tried to do what they did try to do to me. They tried to ruin his career and try to ruin his reputation by saying someone leaked some medical records about him and just really nasty stuff. And this is that part of the retribution that.

That makes a lot of whistleblowers now that want to come forward not want to come forward. And this is why Congress is pushing so hard now for new legislation to protect people so they can come forward and have these protected conversations without worrying about somebody and Uncle Sam doing something nasty to them. What's the worst thing they can do to you? Probably don't want to go there. They can do a lot. Well, aside from the ultimate, but what's the worst thing they can do to you?

Well, that's pretty bad, right? I mean, that's, you know, I can tell you for point blank that I was explained that some of the tactics and techniques to keep people quiet is to remind them what happened to the Rosenbergs.

you know, under national security. People say, oh, well, the government can't, can't kill you to protect a secret. Oh, absolutely it can. I mean, go, go to area 51 and look at the signs on the, on the, on the, on the chain link fence that says lethal force authorized if you cross over this, this line. So yeah, they, they can, they do have that authority to do things like that. And people need to be aware of that. And when you're talking national security interests and issues, you know, you got to pay attention to that. That's why I'm very, very careful with, with what I say. Um,

You know, what happened with the Rosenbergs, especially his wife, was a tragedy. He was working for the Russians and selling secrets, but the wife was pretty much innocent. And there's a whole story behind that, and I won't get into here, but...

Look, we haven't... If you want to know, when people say, well, the government's always honest, all I got to say is Pentagon Papers, Afghanistan withdrawal. Who says government's always honest? Well, a lot of people think, oh, the government's not going to lie to you. And it's like, you know... Who actually says that? The government has the lowest trust score since 1963, 62? They're the lowest. That's right. The American people do not trust the government today. Right there. It's the lowest score since...

Yeah. Pre-Kennedy. Yeah. And there's a reason for that, right? Because, you know, we tell the American people one thing and then we find out later on that the government's lying to you. And it was the same thing with this UAP topic. And I think, you know, we've, as a government, we've backed ourselves into a corner over the decades and

And now we're trying to find a way out. And I am for that. I want constructive dialogue. It was up to me. I know there's a lot of people that want their pound of flesh and say, well, we should, you know, pitchforks and torches and whoever was keeping this secret, we need to put him in jail. I think the opposite. I think you give them an award, you pat them on the back, say thank you for your support to national security. But the time has come for us to change the conversation and have disclosure. Do you think there's such a thing as globalists?

Oh, sure. I do. So do you think the new world or the globalists or what Klaus Schwab is doing, do you think those motives are there?

Well, when you say globalists, you know, there's different interpretations of that. There are people who have a global view and they conduct business as such. There are no borders, so to speak, in their business model. Is there a secret cabal of people that are trying to control world governments? I don't know. You know, that to me is... You're just saying, I don't think so. You said, I don't know. No, I don't know. I don't know. Is it possible? Look, the problem is I've...

This topic already has a lot of stigma associated with it. I've already been called a conspiracy theorist, even though I'm not. I'm a scientist. My background is science, and I was an investigator. Parasite, right? You said bio. What did you study? Microbiology, immunology, and parasitology, the study of parasites. Right. That's when you were talking about plant parasites.

You know, man, fungus. Right. Interesting. Okay. So the reason why I asked that is because for me, when I call around and I talk to friends, I say, so let me ask you, what do you think about Grush? Okay. What do you think about, you know, Lou Elizondo? What do you think about this? What do you think about Stephen Greer? What do you think about that guy? What do you think about this guy? You're doing your regular thing to want to do an interview and be a little bit more prep for it.

Here's what conclusion I come up with. Nobody knows what the real answer is. On one end, it's like, okay,

When you started talking about this and your wife, I think, because you guys are being interviewed by News Nation, if I'm not mistaken, and your wife was talking about the fact that she had to work at Target at one point. You guys were living in a trailer home at one point. You know, you got two girls. You're trying to do your thing with your family and kind of have your life afterwards. And you're trying to do your part as a patriot. Okay. So that's tough to kind of listen to that, right? When your wife is talking about what happened between the two of you guys with your life.

So, two, you know, one hears this and says, no, this is real. This is what's going on. This is actually accurate what they're talking about. This is exactly what they, you know, experience and witness. And they're doing their best to be great patriots. So we know about it. Great.

Three, is there a part of this which is kind of like the... Forget about the military-industrial complex. Forget about the climate change-industrial complex. There's so many industrial complexes. How about the Space Force-industrial complex? This is the one thing that people don't know a lot about, right? So...

If the government wanted to gaslight and find a way to create fear porn for people to be controlled for the next generation that would be willing to give permission to the government to come up with new laws and new ways to control people, this is a great fear porn to use. This is how much do people know about climate change? Well, they're getting a little bit more and more and more educated about it where the $30 trillion request by Trump

you know, AOC and some of our peers, I don't know if we're going to do that. You're going to, for what, for this much of a temperature? It is what it is, right? Even people on the left are like, no, we're not going to do something like this. This is ridiculous. But this one here, this is a unique one because if you really play up the fantasy of man wanting to believe that aliens exist, they're watching us, they're doing what they're doing, you know,

You know, it's so easy to do because like, look, the planet is so big. Here's what we found. There's another living, you know, such and such. And here's what's going on. And they're watching us. And this is why we need real money. And we need to get U.S. and everybody else to come together. This is becoming a world issue because if they attack us, so then one will be like, that's right. We have to become globalists and we have to make this a, you know, borderless society and all this other stuff.

If that 5% chance that that's the case, oh my God, this is one of the best fear points it can use because the ultimate last one is what? It's real. There's aliens. And by the way, I come from the school of thought of, you know, the math. We had David Kipling on, Rob. How long ago was that? Three weeks. Three weeks ago, right? And he's built, you know, he's going to see this, you know, a telescope that he's going to, you know, they're doing what they're doing.

I ask him, hey, what do you think exists out there? You think there's something out there? I believe we have the math to say we don't know.

So 95, 98, 99, 99% of the stuff we don't know what's out there. What makes you think, you know, that it doesn't exist. You have to put the percentage of saying there's very high likelihood that maybe something does exist. Maybe there is life out there. Maybe there is aliens out there. Maybe there is all of that stuff out there. Right. Okay, great. But my God, this will be the ultimate fear, born porn, space force, uh,

you know, industrial complex to get funding, to give more money, more taxes, because God forbid, if something happens, I think many of the big governments with social media need the next big thing that they can control people with. This is definitely qualifies as a pretty good candidate.

This episode is brought to you by Tic Tac. Minty, refreshing, classic. And it's not just the Tic Tac Mints. It's the new track by Kniece with beats that'll leave you feeling as refreshed as a Tic Tac and a vibe that'll take you on a ride through 100 layers of flavor. Does it get any fresher than this? Pick up a pack of Tic Tac Mints today.

Your business deploys AI pilots everywhere. But are they going anywhere? Or are they stuck in silos? Exhausting resources? Unable to scale? Maybe you don't need hundreds of AI pilots. You need a holistic strategy.

IBM has 65,000 consultants with Gen AI expertise who can help you design, integrate, and optimize AI solutions. So you're not just deploying AI, you're scaling it across your business. Learn more at ibm.com slash consulting. IBM, let's create. Well, Russia and China have already admitted they have their own UAP program. And countries in South America for decades, their governments have already acknowledged government-sponsored UAP UFO programs.

So it would be really hard for me because when we say fear porn, I think of, well, what scares me more than that is Russian space capabilities. I'm not going to get into them here, but that to me is going to bring a lot more money than a UAP program. The UAP program we have right now is woefully unfunded compared to other capabilities that we have. And also let's look at it this way. You have...

Former director of national intelligence, Ratcliffe, and you have former director of CIA, Brennan, and even a former president of the United States all coming out and saying, yeah, there's something to this. Yep. We got to take this seriously. Right. And it's on both sides. It's both Democrat and Republican. So I, I don't think you're ever going to get a consensus on,

both sides to manipulate or deceive the American people. I think that is just, I think it's a bridge too far. You would have to be, you would have to exercise such control and hope that nothing, nothing goes wrong to execute a disinformation campaign like that. It would almost be mind boggling the amount of coordination that

and conspiracy. And when you look at historically that we have the reports going back to the 50s of these things doing 13,000 miles an hour, we had just broken the Mach 1 speed of sound. These things are doing 13,000 miles an hour in low earth atmosphere on radar, multiple radars, tracks, we see it. That means we started this campaign, what, 60, 70 years ago? Yeah.

That doesn't make sense. Plus you have people that, that we have them on gun camera footage. It's not, that's not fake footage. It's real. Right. So I, I just, I can't subscribe to that now. Is it possible? Look, anything's possible. Absolutely. It's certainly possible. You can't say it is impossible, but the likelihood is,

is I think is so, so unlikely. I think it's preposterously unlikely that that would be the case. I just, I just don't see it. I don't see how you could coordinate something like that. Yeah. I just think like, you know, again, the government, many of them, the people that don't even have the ones that have more intel than Madison don't want to tell Madison everything. They, they look at the people as kids, right? Right.

It's like, it's kids. They don't know what they're doing. Like even parents in a household, you got two kids. That I agree with. It's kind of like, listen, Hey, my nanny, she's pretty much the kid's grandma. Cause she's been in our house for 15 years. But, uh,

She would say, you better eat this food or else coyotes coming, coyotes coming. There is no coyotes coming. We live on an Island. There is no coyotes coming. Right? So coyotes coming, coyotes come. Oh my God. Coyotes are coming. Right. And so, but it works, but it doesn't work at 12. It doesn't work at 10, but at 10 or 12,

Daddy's coming still works, right? But it doesn't work at 18 because you're out, you're in college, who gives a shit, right? So then you have to come up with, you know, hey, you better do this or else, you know, Armenians would say, if you don't finish your plate and clean it up, your wife's going to be ugly. Who the hell says something like that? But it's so effective. What man wants their wife to be ugly? So guess what? You eat and clean up your entire plate. What an effective way to do it. So I know this is funny, but

But the government looks at people and says, you guys are idiots. You guys are so dumb and naive. It's so easy to control you guys. So this is the problem I have. Exactly what you're saying. That's exactly what I'm... This is the issue with this, not just this topic, anything else where somebody in government is making a unilateral decision, not...

not to inform the American people because they can't be trusted or because they can't handle the truth or any nonsense like that. That's you. That's the nail on the head. That is what drives me to do what I'm doing because of that type of behavior by certain people in our government. And by the way, it's not everybody. There's a lot of really good patriots in there, men and women in uniform that, that have literally in some cases died for this nation. So I don't want to, you know, with a broad stroke, paint everybody the same color on the palette, but,

But we've got a problem and we can see it all the time. Look, there was this one congressperson there who had what, half a billion dollars in gold from corruption that he's been sucking away for how many years? And they've been trying to go after him over and over and over again. I mean,

We've got a problem. And, and the pro and for me is this, the reason why they get away with it because the government is our government is so successful, our country. And it's so rich that a couple corrupt people can be corrupt. And the system doesn't get affected that much because it's, there's so much wealth. The problem is when more and more and more people do it, you reach a critical mass. And then now the plane is too heavy to fly. Then you start coming down in altitude and eventually you hit the ground. So the,

Your point that you're making right now is exactly what drives me. This is exactly why I do what I do. Yeah, but there's a part of it you have to ask both questions. Are the people naive? Are they dumb? Can they handle it? Can they not handle it? You've got to ask both sides, right? Because sometimes with kids...

Can the kids handle everything? Should they know everything? You know, my dad used to say, don't argue in front of the kids because kids shouldn't worry about the future at eight years old, six years old. And, you know, my mom and dad would argue. It's like, no, we have to argue privately, not publicly. Right. Some of the things I can see that they need to be doing their day to day stuff, because if they worry too much, they may not go on and get things done. But I also don't think that keeping stuff away from a matter or present and all that stuff. By the way, do you think we landed on the moon?

I do. You do? I'm pretty sure of it. You're not 100% of it? Well, again, there's always room for error, right? But what I've seen, so I have an unfair advantage. I have family that were actually part of the development and early development of the Apollo missions. And there's, you know, I've got original photographs from NASA back from the 19, early 70s that were taken from those missions. So,

I'm a little bit unfair to ask me simply because, you know, I've seen the compelling evidence that suggests, yes, we were absolutely on the moon, but can I say conclusive? No, I wasn't on a moon. Have you watched the movie fly me to the moon? I have not, but I am aware. I am aware of it. And I know that there's some pretty interesting stuff in their conclusions that show that maybe, you know, some folks think some of that stuff was fake. I mean, do you think the government funds movies? Of course they do. Okay. So this qualifies for a movie that the government would fund.

Because whatever you do, do you have a flight? Are you flying back home? Okay. Can you make this the movie to watch on your phone or the iPad? Sure. I just want to get your thoughts on this. Sure. Because can you just go to the Wikipedia? I don't even know what they say. I just want to know how they paint this movie. Okay. I want to read the plot. Okay. Go up a little bit just to read the plot. Okay.

In the 1960s, advertising executive Kelly Jones is offered a high-stakes job by Moe Berkus, a covert government operator working for President Richard Nixon. He tasks her with the revitalizing NASA's public image amidst the wanting interest in the space race. Under threat of being exposed for her deceptive past, Kelly reluctantly agrees to

and moves to Cocoa Beach, Florida with her loyal assistant Ruby. Upon arriving, Kelly encounters Cole Davis, the series and principal launch director at Kennedy Space Center. They immediately clash over Kelly's unconventional methods to boost NASA's public appeal, including corporate sponsorships and hiring actors to portray scientists. Despite their differences, they begin to develop a mutual respect and attraction as NASA prepares for its historic launch.

Apollo 11 mission Kelly suggests broadcast in a moon landing using a television camera on the lunar excursion model. A proposal Cole dismisses as impractical. However, Moe secretly endorses the idea and reveals an additional shadowy directive.

to Kelly. She must prepare a fake moon landing to be aired if the real mission fails. A project condemned, codenamed Artemis, more pressures Kelly into creating this falsification by threatening to expose her less than honest past

As she has skillfully reinvented herself, being skilled at her job, she arranges a very talented but virtually unknown director to come on board, finding the most isolated airplane hangar on the base. If it is heavily guarded, everyone involved is sworn into secrecy. It's a true story. So they make a movie to say the fact that

The real mission made it. And if it didn't, the one right next to it, because a cat walked to the moon landing, and God forbid if they would have used it, it would have shown that there's a cat on the moon. This is the story of what they're pitching. I walked out of this movie. We watched this in the Hamptons with like 20 of us, family, friends. We were there for Christmas. We were there for summer. And I said, hey, man.

If this was the government's job of trying to convince us that the, you know, theory that they would, the moon landing was fake. You just screwed everybody up. This is not a movie. The government wants people to watch. Okay. And they, it's like, it's Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum. Aren't it? So I don't know, man, I was, I was 60, 40. We landed after this. I was like, I don't know. This is 30, 70. I don't think we did. Well, look, and there is a history of our intelligence community. Yeah.

using Hollywood to do certain things. You know, there was a movie not too long ago about the Iranian hostage situation

where television crew went in, which was actually, I guess, co-sponsored by serial CIA operatives. You're talking about Argo? That's right. Yeah. That's right. And so, you know, we do have a history of using the media. In fact, we're still doing it. It was part of the campaign initially when I first came out to try to discredit me. There are people in the media right now that are saying,

are being used by certain elements in the government and in the Pentagon to put out disinformation. And that is a fact. That is absolutely true. And unfortunately, you even see it with your own Wikipedia right now. But look, Wikipedia is just a bunch of editors. Some of these folks can put all sorts of stuff up there. And, you know, it's not always accurate. It's interesting you bring this up because my dad's sister, Ellen, was at the embassy once.

When this happened, when the revolution happened, she was at the embassy trying to escape. And my dad pulled up with the, so when we watch Argo, some of the people that play, they're playing my aunt, my dad's sister, who very weird. You brought this up. She passed away yesterday. So it's my dad's last sibling that, uh,

didn't make it yesterday. God bless her soul. My dad's in a lot of pain, but yeah, Argo was a movie we watched that, you know, it's, it's when you watch it, it's Iran, the whole, yay, we're going to make this movie and we're doing this and we're doing that and finding a way to get rid of some of the people that

But yeah, I don't know when I watch this movie and I watch some of the stuff that's being said and some of the stories and the punching in the face, we'll put your hand on the Bible that we landed on the moon. Boom. It's a lot of weird things with that. But let's get, did you ever read that book? Um, um, maybe if you didn't, we can just move on. Did you ever read the book? Who built the moon? I did not. Okay. It's interesting. I thought maybe a guy like you, by the way,

On another topic here, I'm just curious to know now where you're wired and what some of your beliefs are. Careful. I'm going to see what you're going to say. 9-11, what do you think happened with 9-11? Well, you know, people will say it was a terrorist attack, but the real failure was our fault. We had information within the CIA and information with the FBI and information within the DOD, and we weren't sharing it with one another. 9-11 happened.

Because we didn't do our job. We had enough information potentially to stop those attacks. And because of these proverbial rice bowls, if you will, these little fiefdoms within the government, no one wanted to share information with one another. You know, a very good friend of mine named Chris Mellon from the famous Mellon family, right? So Carnegie Mellon and Mellon Bank, Mellon University, right?

He, incredible intellect. You should have him on your show. He's incredibly brilliant. He worked on the senior staffer in the Senate, then became a senior intelligence official for the Department of Defense. He said the reason why we won the Cold War wasn't because we kept better secrets. Okay. Russians did that. We knew how to move information around more efficiently and faster. So it wasn't that we kept information more classified. We knew how to use it and get it to the right people to do something with it.

9-11 happened because we forgot that. We forgot. We started getting back into our ways of...

this is my information and I'm going to keep it to myself and need to know. And this is why there was a pendulum swing the opposite right after 9-11 from need to know with responsibility to provide. And unfortunately, that pendulum swing so far that it allowed, you know, unfortunately people like Snowden and Manning, Private Manning to lead classified information because it made it too easy, right? So then now the pendulum kind of swings back towards the middle. Now it's just need to know with responsibility to provide and it's kind of this, you have to balance both out. But

that was right after 9-11. So I think what happened with 9-11 is that we failed as a government to work with one another. Yeah. So Building 7, what they say, the explosive, that stuff, you don't subscribe to any of that? I don't. I think...

I worked with the original, it was John Lipka, the first FBI special agent. He did, I think, the original 93 investigation when they tried to blow up the tower the first time with a car bomb in the basement. And he was a special agent in charge for the FBI. And I met him in Denver. And it was clear to me that this was a symbolic target for a very long time. It wasn't just...

They've been looking for a while to make the World Trade Center a target, a terrorist target. And so I don't really subscribe to any type of anything other than that this was a successful terrorist attack, unfortunately. Yeah, we had this guy on the podcast a couple of years ago. His name was Richard Gage, and he was part of the architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth. I think it's like 3,000 of them, some big number. It wasn't a small number.

The interview was taken down. A week later, four days later, they took down the interview. Not sure why, but they took down the interview. And we were pushing back, and he was saying, this is what happened. And they just, YouTube didn't want that to stay up. It was taken down. So, okay, let me ask you another question. Stephen Greer, what are your thoughts on Stephen Greer? I don't know him. So I don't ever usually have an opinion on anybody, never talk about anybody if I haven't had a chance to meet them personally. So I had him on for the second time two months ago.

And are you familiar with Sean Ryan, podcaster Sean Ryan? He had Greer on. Rob, can you pull up that one clip? Because this is the part where it's kind of like, you know. I think I'm aware of it. I know the one you're going to show. Yeah, there's a couple of them. I want to show this one here to you. I want to see what you're going to say about it. Go ahead. When you're talking about these disinformation agents, these NOCs, I have somebody that comes to mind. And we were talking about him at lunch. Lou Elizondo. Mm-hmm.

Is he one of them? Oh, of course. I mean, you know, as soon as he emerged on the stage, I had a very senior guy, CIA, who's worked this issue since 1979, contact me about that problem. But remember, the only way that you can control at this point all this coming out because of what we have and what we're pushing forward through media is to control the narrative, the spin, right?

So the people coming forward who get an all-access pass on to, say, 60 minutes or something like that are people cleared by this same illegal, corrupt organization because they'll tell the public, yes, the UAPs are real, but we don't know what they are. Well, this is an absolute lie. We absolutely know what they are. Some of them are ours, man-made, and are confused quite frequently with the others, which are of extraterrestrial origin or ETVs, extraterrestrial vehicles.

And those operatives are taught very well to take an issue, grab it, capture it, and then spin it in the direction that they want. Now, the direction they want is endless ambiguity. Gee, we don't know what they are. We don't know what they are. It's nonsense. We've proven what they are. Well, you know, I have 755 whistleblowers. You have 755 whistleblowers? Yeah.

I mean, it's, this archive is unbelievable. You, you had mentioned that you, what do you think about what he says? Because, well, where are the, where are the whistleblowers? And I'll tell you, if, isn't he the same guy? They wrote an article about, if I'm not mistaken, who apparently was accused of taking people on a tour and then paying some dude to pay like 500 bucks to drop flares out of a Cessna. Uh, I, am I, is that the same guy? I don't know that. I think there was a, an article, um,

We can, I think it was, it was done by the debrief, I think. Anyways, you know, my mom always told me if I have nothing kind to say, don't say it at all. So I've never met the man, but you know, look, it's nonsense. I don't want to tell you, man. I mean, where are the whistleblowers? You know, when I went to the IG, you know, and had my conversation, I didn't see anyone. You know, I know the ones that we talk to. We go to Congress and we talk to Congress. I haven't seen him.

Is this the one you're talking about? That's it. Likes to suggest that he has a regular contact with experts. I'm not kindly in person because I document close encounters of the fifth kind. But he's really in contact with them. Well, the U.S. military, I'm very confident, U.F.S. are unknowns, not belonging to China, the U.S. or Russia. He said, I'm not convinced of these objects with career scene. Tuition fee, week-long tuition for $2,500 or $3,500.

Back in January 2017 when Greer Expedition claimed to have summoned two UFOs, the video of sightings was posted on Greer's YouTube channel and this was the first close listed on the photographic and the video evidence. Where's the one with the flares? Go a little lower, Rob, to see if you find it. Night scopes. Just control left flares. So I'm looking for night scopes. There's no smoke. There's no trails. There are no flares. It continues. They're falling. They're waiting for us to arrive. A few seconds later, Greer...

implores let's welcome and begins to join us into meditation this is a beautiful color you'll see you'll never forget the color this is huge yes this is a major event at three minutes and 32 second mark the first light disappears ignoring the light slow but obvious altitude declines greer states that they've uh they've stayed pretty much the same altitude though let's invite them to come to us close

And I know that's gone into the ocean. Korean includes now the way that you know that's not like something, like a flare. So shoot up, so on and so on.

But were these UFOs? Were they something terrestrial? - Well, keep reading. It's pretty compelling. - Flight aware of flight tracking data attained that Washington Exam suggested that later is true. At 9:11 p.m. January 27, 2000, at Beach 76, Dutch's registered N110SU was recording flying at 85 miles off Vero Beach, this is lower than aircraft normal cruising speed, would feasibly allow the air crew to deploy parachute flares

or some other illumination device the aircraft took off and returned to the airport and fort pierce the screenshots below showed the aircraft's location at the time of the event the owner of the aircraft is listed by the federal aviation administration as re ben aviator inc said fort pierce when i reached out to the aviator in the maintenance commission for years told me that the college never does things like dropping flares after sending a spear a copy of the flight record he did not respond to any further emails

Incidentally, another aircraft listed to RE was forced to land on section interstate 95 on Florida on January 30th, 2017. After running out of fuel, CNN has also reported that RE received a loan of between $350,000 or a million dollars under the federal government's coronavirus relief. Got it. Okay. So what's your point with this? You're saying that some of the stuff that he's doing, by the way, is that the video? Can we see it, Rob? Can you just play that? I just want to see what it looks like.

Can you go to the flair part? Imagine what's possible when learning doesn't get in the way of life. At Capella University, our game-changing FlexPath learning format lets you set your own deadline so you can learn at a time and pace that works for you. It's an education you can tailor to your schedule. That means you don't have to put your life on hold to pursue your professional goals. Instead, enjoy learning your way and earn your degree without missing a beat. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University.

Learn more at capella.edu. This episode is brought to you by CarMax. Boldly searching for your next used vehicle? With CarMax, you don't have to settle on anything when it comes to your ride. Instead, steer clear of the ordinary and buy the car that's right for you. Because CarMax makes it easy to stop settling and find a car you'll love today. Start shopping now at CarMax.com. CarMax, the way car buying should be. Orange, orange, orange object. Look how big. Oh, whoa. Oh, my God.

Whoa, whoa, just don't pop too much. Don't stand up, please. Crouch down and look because we'll block our cameras. Wow. Those behind me may move and stand up.

Well, what is he saying they are? I don't know. I don't pay attention. I don't know the gentleman, so I don't invest any time. So to me, though, where I go with this is I had him on twice. And I listened to him. By the way, I don't know if you watched the documentary he did about the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. No.

I don't watch his material. In your world, who is Stephen Greer or types like him in your world, in the military? How do folks...

Look at someone like Stephen Greer. We don't deal with him. AATIP was only focused on military encounters. And so, you know, as a civilian, I'd never met him. I don't know much about him. And, you know, I've never worked with a guy. I'm aware of his feelings towards me. He's certainly entitled to whatever feelings he wants. But, you know, proof is in the pudding. You know, we got videos released. We've got Congress involved. We've got an arrow now, an organization that's been established. We've got...

Whistleblowers coming out, you know, I don't know what to tell you. You know, people are free in this country to do what they want, listen to who they want. It is a free country. And I encourage people to get all sides of the narrative. I will never tell anybody, don't talk to somebody. Go ahead. Do you want to be my guest? Yeah, I see. That's the part. That's the part for me where...

As a viewer, you sit there, me, or anybody else that's watching this, you're like, oh, shit, who the hell do I believe? Do I believe the free market, private, somebody doing independent work? Do I trust the government that for many years have lied to me? You don't believe anybody. You believe the data. This is the problem. When anybody gets up there and says, believe only me,

That's a problem. You don't hear me saying that. I agree. That I agree. What I think, it doesn't matter what Lou Elizondo thinks. What matters is what you think. Here's the data. My job is simple. Here's the data. You figure it out yourself what it means to you. I'm not going to sit here and tell you some, weave some little narrative about, you know, history. Look, here's the bottom line.

You can analyze it yourself. There it is. You figure it out, right? So these are the facts behind it. X, Y, Z. Here's the videos. Here's FLIR footage. Here's the telemetry. Here's the study and the analysis that's been done. Here's the radar returns. Here's the eyewitnesses. What else you want? That's up to you at that point. You know, that's a problem I have with a lot of people out there who prescribe narratives, right? Like, oh, this person's a disinformation agent. Do you even know what that means? Have you ever held a security clearance? You have never been in any meetings I've been in, you know? So...

this is my trouble I have with people. And this is why when people ask me my opinion, I don't really like to share it because I've learned one thing in the intelligence community. You can be absolutely sure of something and still be absolutely wrong. And that's important because I know my own limitations. I'm the first person to say, hey, Lou, what do you think about this? You know what? It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what you think. Here's the data. And then you figure out what this means to you because this topic is

is a lot more like, you know, people talk about, oh, the military industrial complex and they're trying to look, I don't want it. I don't want it. A general telling me how to feel about this topic. If it's national security issue, great. If you're going to tell me how we're going to stop these things from interfering with our nukes or how to stop them from coming over a sense of military installations. Great. But this conversation is much bigger. It's a conversation that involves people.

both the psychology and the sociology and the theology and the philosophy of human beings. And maybe this conversation is better off talking to your

or you're a mom or you're, you're a rabbi, right? Or maybe you're, you're, you're, you're family around the table. I don't want some two, three or three star general telling me what I should think about this. This is why I think transparency is so important. Who's the two, three star general? No, I mean, I'm just being, what I'm doing, I'm kind of giving you a hypothetical, right? That there's someone in, in, in the Pentagon and the government say, well, people always say, well, how should we feel about this? Don't ask that question. The,

That's sacred. Don't just give it away easily to somebody to tell you what the narrative is. You figure that out. Yes, you're going to have to engage your brain. You're going to have to actually work that gray matter in there, but you'll be better off. Trust me. Don't be so quick to give up your ability to think. And that's my concern. By the way, this is not directed towards you. This is my argument when people ask me my opinion.

you know, as tempting as it is to tell you my opinion, of course I have an opinion, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Does it? What matters is what does the facts say? And then follow the facts, follow the data. That's how you get to a conclusion. Well, you know, the challenge is also when, when you have people from the government who let's just say they have Intel and, uh,

I remember one time I was part of a group called Vistage. I don't know if you're familiar with Vistage. Vistage is like the biggest CEO networking group. They got 15,000 members and there's a chair and each Vistage group has like eight people in a group from eight different industries. Anyways, and...

I was part of one. And every month you're supposed to host it at your office. So one day I'm hosting it at my office at Warner Center Marriott. Keynote speaker was one of the former directors of CIA or deputy directors of CIA. We're talking 2012, 11, timeline like that. I'm not even creating content out of it. I'm just a business guy. So he comes in. It's okay. You know, today's guest is such and such. So what happened with this?

Well, I can tell you this, but I can't tell you all because it's classified. Why about this? It's classified. How about this? It's classified. How about this? It's classified.

Hour was gone. I'm like, what was the purpose of this guy? Everything. I didn't learn nothing. So part, sometimes when you're dealing with the guys from, from who are working for the government, everything eventually hits the wall because they say, well, that's classified. Well, that's classified. But you know, here's, here's the problem. People don't realize there's laws out there, right?

You classify something to protect sources and methods. It is illegal to classify information to cover up malfeasance or to save embarrassment to the United States government. It's illegal. It's in writing. And yet that's what happens. And most people don't even know. Is it really? It is. Absolutely. In fact. What is it called? By the way, Rob, did you know that? So type in this. DOD directive. Type in DOD directive.

And then type in classification. It's probably either classification system or classification guidelines. Classification guidelines. Yep. Now...

Pull up that DOD directive, the instruction on developing security. That might be it. What's the title of that? I have terrible eyes. There you go. Gosh. So if you scroll down a bit, you will see in there where it says you cannot classify information for the reasons of. So keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Let's see here. Procedures. Okay. Administrating change above. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going.

There we go. So let's see here. Consumability, determinants, state of the art, when to declassify, classification decisions. There you go. So go to page nine. Sorry, guys, in the infinite wisdom. I'm actually so interested in this. I can't even tell you. Okay. So classification decisions, either originally or derivatively, blah, blah, blah. Keep scrolling down. Okay. Keep going down. These are the things that we classify. Keep going down. Getting close. A little bit too far. Let me see determinants, specifics.

There is a paragraph in here that says type in the search word embarrassment, and it'll probably pull up right to it to the one of the prohibitions. But my eyes are terrible. What? It's not allowing you to search? Not in the actual document because it's a PDF. Oh, shoot. Okay. So if you find you do word search,

Rob, send that link to me. If you can do me, what is the, what is the search call? And there's also a DOD CIO directive as well that talks about you can't classify information. You know, I actually had a link on my phone. Embarrassment. All right, let me see if I find it. Oh, there you go. I found it. Excellent. There it is. So in no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law, inefficiency or administrative error to prevent embarrassment or

to person, organization, or agency to restrain competition or to prevent or delay the release information that does not require protection in the interest of. There you go. So then let me ask you though, how many times do they do it? Okay. Welcome to my world. This is exactly my point, right? So,

Rob, I'm sending you the link. American people have no idea this goes on all the time. This is why I'm doing what I'm doing. This is exactly the reason why, because people are making a unilateral decision to abuse that process simply for covering up something that they don't want the American people to know. Rob, can you search exactly those words? That's it right there, right? Can you zoom in a little bit so the audience can see it? Zoom in.

That that's it right there. So section one, six limitations on classifications. Okay. So, so then this is what this does to me, Lou. It makes me think a lot of the stuff that the government, how many of these things that the government is hiding, like for example, the,

Do you think the government isn't embarrassed on the fact that they know who assassinated John F. Kennedy? So if that's the case, doesn't this qualify on that same guideline that because of the lack of the embarrassing job that was done to protect and them being involved, they're so embarrassed that they don't want to leak it? Doesn't that qualify under this? Well, it depends. If that is the real reason, yes, it absolutely does qualify. Now, if there's a reason because maybe...

There was a foreign asset that we were using as a spy to collect certain information. We're trying to protect that source. That is protection of sources and methods. Which one outweighs which one? Well, you always have to protect sources and methods. National security always outweighs...

anything else. So they can always use that card. Yes. That's a problem, right? So you can always say something like, well, we're protecting sources and methods, right? So for example, a lot of the videos people want to see, because there's some really good videos that the government has. The government says, well, we're not going to release those because we're trying to protect sources and methods because the way the camera was and where we were flying over. That's the part where civilians, I'm a civilian now. I've

since 1999, right? I'm not, I'm not in the service. This is why civilians get so annoyed with,

with these types of methods where eventually you're like, look, man, am I going to ever find out about what happened here? Well, no, we can't, you know, expose our source that gave us this information. And because of that, da-da-da-da-da. And so where guys like Stephen Greer and all the other ones on the private free market that go and try to do it on their own and they bring all these other whistleblowers and whatever they want to call it that they find,

they do it independently because these guys are not telling us shit. Anyways, every time they're going to be like, I can't tell you, I can't tell you, I can't tell you. Well, at least on this side, these guys are trying to recruit whistleblowers that are going to come out and say certain things. Yeah, no doubt that, that there's, there's like organizations like move on. They do a good job. There's organizations out there, private organizations, mutual UFO network. Um,

Independent. Independent. They're a civilian organization. Highly credible? Well, some are. An organization is only as good as the people in it, right? Just like a government or anything else or a company. So you've got some people that are really good. They have some really good investigators and they collect a lot of information from average private citizens, right? And that can be corroborated and you can look at law enforcement data and say, actually, you know what? There were three reports of

people calling in at 11 o'clock at night of a UFO, you know? And so they do a really good job with it. And I do think you're absolutely right. There's, there's always a need for the private community to be part of this, this conversation. There are, you know, there's also a giving perfect, perfect case in point right now. I'm working with some attorneys,

Some of their names I can say. Some of them are still a little bit sensitive about it. But these are private citizens working to try to protect whistleblowers. So there's an organization right now. Danny Sheehan has one organization called the New Paradigm Institute. I have several attorneys with me. One is named, they call him the bull, Ivan Hanel. He's got a team of lawyers working with him trying to figure out how do we, how do we

protect people who want to come out of the shadows that may have been working these legacy programs.

and get them the protection they need so they can have the conversation with Congress, so they can have the conversation with the American people, maybe through, like we saw with David Grush, right? Maybe a public hearing or something like that. He's your lawyer? So Daniel Sheehan is, do you know his background? Isn't he also Stephen Greer's lawyer? He was Stephen Greer's lawyer. He is very much involved in this topic. He has a program called

a new paradigm Institute where they are looking to, uh, create a grassroots effort. And, um, there's another one called, uh, uh, UAP disclosure fund, which, uh, I'm on the board, which I, which I help, um, give them some advice and assistance once in a while to help try to give people the protections they need to come out. Another one, like I said, is the, um, yep, that's,

So that's an organization. Very interesting. Also bipartisan. So you have a... Independent. Independent. Private, non-governmental. Correct. Okay. Correct. So, so look... Who does a better job, by the way? There's no such thing as better. They're different. They're different focus areas, right? It's like to say, what tastes better, wine or beer? Well, it depends what mood you're in. Well, no, the reason why I asked the question is because like, you know, um...

Who does a better job? PMCs or actual U.S. government, right? Military. Okay. Would I rather have private military contractors or would I rather have Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, you know, where the government taxes are being used to train the next level? There are certain things that you may say or make an argument of. They do better. Okay. UPS, private, not even close, right? I'd much rather do private FedEx, DHL, then go trust the other way, right?

In this specific topic, when it comes down to the level of curiosity with UAPs, who's historically done better? - So let me, again, great question. And it's not an either/or, okay? It's not a binary solution. It's not like they do better or they do better. It's not. It's two different focus areas. Let me give you an example.

MUFON, for example, that organization, they are across the country in every state. They've got investigators and they can go out if there is some sort of UFO sighting and they can be boots on the ground within usually about an hour or two, right? So they can canvas a huge wide area. The U.S. military can

we're around military bases. They're not going to go ahead and just cut off some folks from, you know, Air Force, special police or, you know, Army CID or MPs to go into the middle of downtown Detroit and start interviewing civilians. They don't even have the authority to do that, right? They're Title 10 authorities. So they don't have those authorities to even do that. They can only focus on the military equities, military contractors, military civilians, et cetera. So you

it's not that one is better than the other. In fact, some of the people, for example, in MUFON are former military investigators themselves. So they have all the same training as guys like me have, right? But they're civilians. Now, the problem is they don't have security clearances necessarily. So they're not going to get the super classified sensor data off a certain collection platform that we might be flying in a denied territory, right? Where we happen to see a UAP in full 4, you know, 4 HD, you know,

you know, for KHD. They're not going to have that because that organization doesn't have the capabilities. They don't have the ability to task platforms. They don't have the authorities and they don't have the security clearance. So it's apples and oranges. You can't say one is better than the other. What you can say is some have the ability to do some things where others have the ability to do something else. It's not really a, a one for one. Is it competitive or no? No, actually I think it's pretty simple now, especially with, with,

the way the organization's going. Collaborative? It's starting to get collaborative. I like that. Which is great. Yeah. Which is great. Now, so you have the National Archives now. There's a law that was passed just recently, last year, that requires all agencies, federal agencies, that have UAP information to submit it to the National Archives. NARA. Now, think about that. Now we've got a single belly button, right? Unlike 9-11,

where CIA and FBI and DOD all had their little pockets of information and nobody was sharing. Now you've got a central repository in law that says you will CIA, FBI, DOD, and everybody else, DIA, NGA, NRO, you name it,

If you've got UAP information, you will eventually submit it to NARA, to the National Archives, right? And there it shall stay. And so, and there's also downgrading instructions for classified information. So the American people will eventually be able to get access to it, right? So it's beginning to work. I know it's frustrating for a lot of people, you know, that they want their disclosure now, damn it. And I get it. But I've told people, look, disclosure is a process. It's not an event. This is a marathon, right?

It's not a sprint. And we have come farther, I think, in the last seven years than we have in the last 70 years. So it's working. And guess what? No one had to go to jail. I didn't have to go to jail for breaking my security oath. Congress is now engaged. You now have an organization, an executive branch. You now have, for example, former President Donald Trump saying for the record, if he were to get elected, he would actually consider releasing the UFO files. Right. That's

Holy smokes. You have a president saying that for the record just last week. So we've come so far in this conversation and, you know, I, I hate this conversation to be about personalities. You know, there's an old saying that, that, uh, I'll say it in reverse, but you know, great minds think about ideas, good minds, strong minds think about things and weak minds, you know, think or talk about people. Um,

I think this topic is more important than any personality. It's way more important than me. I'm just a mechanism to have the conversation. I always tell people, what do you think? Don't ask me that. It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what you think the people, that's what matters. Our job here is the data. You figure it out what this means to you. And if it means nothing, great. But at least you've had the opportunity to see it for yourself. The problem with this community that people call the UAP or UFO community, it's full of personalities that...

desperately seek attention, whether they want to tear somebody down or they want to pretend that, you know, they're the next Messiah. And that's dangerous to the conversation because that stigmatizes. That's the very, that is the very reason why people in the past didn't really take this topic very seriously, because you had this weird collection of egos all vying for attention, trying to, to somehow stake their claim to being, you know, the one who has the answer when no one has the answer. Nobody has the answer. I don't have the answer. Right.

All we have is the data. And that's why this topic is so important because we need more data. Get that data in front of the right people. Take it out of the DOD. Bring it to academia. Bring it to the science community and let those people figure this out. Who's holding back and what will it take? What decision, what one person can say, let's let's do that.

Well, I don't think one person can. You have to have the legislative branch create laws requiring things like they're doing now with NARA. They have a new law that's hopefully going to pass for this year, part of the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA. So, you know, it's kind of a string of laws that have to be passed. You have to have an executive branch that's willing to have the conversation and set up the organizations and give them the authorities they need to actually do the job they were set up to do, right?

And then you need people that are willing to have the conversation with the American people, right? And hold those organizations accountable to ensure that they are only classifying information that really needs to be classified, right? Not abusing your authorities to classify information.

So all those things are necessary. You also need your allies, international partners and allies to be part of this. You need the media engaged and you need the public. You need the general public engaged so they can then contact their elected officials and say, yes, we want this topic covered. We want you to champion this, right? The media needs the public engagement so they know it's okay to report on this. So they don't, this isn't professional suicide, right? They're like, oh my gosh, we're going to report on a UFO. No one will ever watch our show again. So,

So mainstream media needs to feel secure in the fact that they can actually report on real UAP type issues without being discredited or being considered, you know, put in that corner of stigma and taboo. In other words, we've got a lot of work to do. Heck yeah, we've got a lot of work to do. We've got a lot of work to do. Absolutely. This is, hey, this is...

this is only the beginning. Yeah. This is not the end. This is the beginning of the conversation. Last thing about the book. If you want to say a couple of things about the book for the audience to place the order, that'd be great. Oh, listen, I appreciate it. I'm not here to actually plug the book, but I appreciate it. They can buy it anywhere books are sold.

my purpose for being here is to have a conversation. That's always my motivation. I really enjoyed it, brother. I got to tell you, I really enjoy talking to you. Thank you for your service. Thank you for yours. Yes, but you've given more than half your life to public service and I have a lot of respect for that. Yeah, but you're doing it right now too. This is a public service. You're doing exactly, I mean, you are a voice that many, many people listen to. The same conversation I had with Joe Rogan. Look, you guys are in a very unique position

I mean, you have, for the first time in the history of our species, your voice can be heard by millions of people simultaneously, right? And everything you say, words have meaning and they have influence. And that is a huge burden to carry. That's an enormous responsibility that even leaders of countries in the past never had.

had that ability to reach out to people. And so that is, you know, you can either make or break a society that way. And it's a huge responsibility. So thank you. And of course, ultimately the biggest thanks goes to your audience, right? Because they're the ones tuning in. They're the ones that want to listen to your opinion and want to listen to your material. So, you know, this only works because your audience is interested.

And this only works because you are actually communicating information that your audience finds interesting. So, you know, I could say the same to you. Thank you for your service. Oh, man. Thank you, brother. Thanks for coming. I appreciate you. Take care, everybody. Bye-bye. For the last four years, every time we do podcasts, I have to ask Rob or somebody, hey, can you pull up this news? Can you pull up that? Which way do these guys lean? Can you go back to the timeline of eventually after asking so many questions, I said, why don't we design the website that we want aggregated? We don't write the articles. We feed all of it in.

using AI. So nine months ago, eight months ago, I hired 15 machine learning engineers. They put together our new site called vtnews.ai. What this allows you to do when you go to it, if you go to that story right there, that says Trump proposes overtime pay, click on it. It'll tell you how many sources are reporting on this from the left. If you go to the right, Rob, it says left sources, click on it.

Those are all the left sources. If I want to go to right sources, those are the stories. If I want to go to center, I go there. Now, if I want to go all the way to the top and I want to find out a lopsided story, a story that only one side is reporting on, either the left or the right. So if you notice the first one, we'll say Zelensky announces release of 49 Ukrainians from Russia. Notice more people on the left are reporting on that than the right. If I go to the middle one, same thing. If I go to the right one, same thing. You can see what stories are lopsided.

And if I pick one of the stories, pick the first story, click on a Trump one proposes overtime tax cuts to the right on the AI. I can ask any question I want, but click on the first question that has it.

It says, what is the political context and potential motivation behind the tax? Trump's new tax cut proposal. Click on the question mark. It explains exactly what the motives are. So for you to use, whether you're doing a podcast, you're in the middle of a podcast, or you just want to know it for yourself. You're busy like myself. And last but not least, this is all AI doing. It's a machine learning engineers go all the way to the top. I can go to timelines, go to timelines, go

and see how far back a story goes. Pick the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

If I want to go to that and go back and see why are those two days a big spike, I'll have Rob pull it over to go to those two days with a big spike, and I'll see exactly what happened on that day or the previous day and many other features VTnews.ai has. So simply go to VTnews.ai. There's a freemium model, there's a premium, and then there's the insider. If you want to have unlimited access to the AI, click on the VT AI Insider. You can now become a member effectively today.