We are absolutely not alone in the

universe. And I know these things are

real because I was asked to investigate

UFO incursions into controlled US

airspace by the Pentagon. These videos

here, there's no question what you're

seeing.

And there's more videos like this that

you've been exposed to.

Oh, yeah, but they're classified because

there are a lot of people that don't

want us talking about this.

Should we be worried about this?

Luis Elizondo is a respected

intelligence officer and former head of

the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat

Identification Program, where he led

efforts to investigate UFO sightings and

unidentified aerial phenomena.

There were real things that we were

encountering over controlled US airspace

by an unknown technology that frankly

could outperform anything that we had in

our inventory. And there was a big

national security issue because there's

potential for these things to be

interfering with our nuclear equities.

There's evidence to suggest that they

turned on the nuclear facilities in

Russia, right?

Yeah, that's a big deal.

Has there ever been anyone sent to jail

because they've spoken about this

subject matter?

Worse, my life has been threatened many

times. I've taken huge risks, but I

think we deserve the truth. So, let's

go.

People say that they were abducted by

aliens. Do you believe any of those

reports?

I can tell you that we definitely have

people that are now on US government

medical disability because they were

involved in a UFO encounter.

And then one of the rumors is that at

Area 51 they found UFO materials.

I cannot comment what Area 51 might or

might not have. All I can say is that

the government is in possession of

material that doesn't look like it's

made by us.

Do you have any theories as to why they

might be visiting here?

Oh gosh, well, where do I start?

You eventually resigned. Why?

I resigned in protest because

This has always blown my mind a little

bit. 53% of you that listen to this show

regularly haven't yet subscribed to this

show. So, could I ask you for a favor

before we start? If you like this show

and you like what we do here and you

want to support us, the free simple way

that you can do just that is by hitting

the subscribe button. And my commitment

to you is if you do that, then I'll do

everything in my power, me and my team,

to make sure that this show is better

for you every single week. We'll listen

to your feedback, we'll find the guests

that you want me to speak to, and we'll

continue to do what we do. Thank you so

much.

Luke.

Steve.

Who are you?

Wow, depends who you ask.

I think to some people I'm probably a

a patriot, to other people

I'm a father

and a husband, and to other people I'm

probably the devil.

What's your professional CV? What does

your professional resume say?

Went to college, went to the University

of Miami.

I studied uh microbiology, immunology,

and parasitology.

Uh I consider myself a disciple of uh

scientific method and scientific

principles.

I then joined the army,

uh United States Army.

I went in as enlisted. I had an

opportunity to go in as an officer

because of my education.

But uh the words of my father always

rung in the back of my head, and he

said, "In order to be a leader, you must

first know what it means to follow."

And so I joined the army as an enlisted

soldier,

um spent some time in deployments Korea,

spent lived a year in Asia.

Um

was in military intelligence, and then I

was recruited very shortly thereafter

into a special program where I became a

civilian special agent in

counterintelligence running

investigations.

Um supervised investigations throughout

Latin America, South America, Central

America, and then um

spent the rest of my time after 9/11 uh

uh over in Afghanistan in the Middle

East.

Primarily uh dealing with uh terrorism

issues, uh running operations against uh

Hezbollah and and ISIS and other other

organizations.

And then um

after probably several years of that, my

wife got very tired of it.

Missed too many birthdays, missed too

many uh

holidays, and

she said, "You really need to come back,

and more importantly, I'm afraid the

next time you leave you may not come

back. Uh we are losing some people over

there quite a bit, and so

I listened to my wife. I came back, took

a supervisory job, ran uh investigations

worldwide, um

terrorism investigations. And then from

there I went to several other

three-letter agencies. I worked for the

NCIX, National Counterintelligence

Executive. I worked for the DNI, the

Director of National Intelligence.

And uh it was in 2000 uh shortly

thereafter um that I was asked to be

part of a

very interesting program in the

Pentagon. Um what my CV is, I'm probably

uh a jack-of-all-trades, but an expert

in nothing. I've done a lot of things.

Mostly national security crimes,

terrorism, espionage, um some

counter-guerrilla operations,

counter-narcotics,

uh counterinsurgency uh missions.

You said in 2000 and sort of 8, 2009 you

were asked to come back to the Pentagon

to work on a particular project. What

project was that?

So, well, it wasn't the one that wound

up being the project that everybody

knows me for. So,

uh in 2008, they asked me to run a

program to help integrate

national-level intelligence

to with law enforcement, local and state

law enforcement agencies. Now, why is

that important? Because and then to kind

of lead to the next thing.

After 9/11, people think here 9/11 was

was caused by by unfortunately some

terrorists doing some bad things.

That was an effect, that wasn't the

cause. The actual cause was us here in

the United States not being able to

share information with ourselves very

well. We had pockets of information at

the CIA, pockets of information at the

FBI, pockets of information at the

Department of Defense, but we weren't

sharing it with each other. And thereby

there was an information gap, an

intelligence gap, and the folks in 9/11

were able to do what they did,

unfortunately.

So, we learned that lesson

by trying to create um better

integration. So, how do you take super

secret information and get it down to a

level that can be consumed and usable

without compromising sources and

methods. So, that was the problem I was

asked to come back and fix.

It was shortly thereafter is when I was

visited by some individuals and had some

conversations with some other

individuals about a program that I had

no idea was that was I was ongoing, but

it was.

And it was a program involving the

investigation, the government's

investigation into UAP or in the

vernacular

you might call them UFOs.

Who approached you?

So, there were two individuals. One of

them I can talk about, the other one is

identity is protected.

It's a gentleman named Jay Stratton

uh, who at the time was another

intelligence official like me and

another one of his colleagues. And they

came to me and they started asking me

questions. They had a blue badge, so I I

knew that they were cleared. They had

the same security clearance I had. We

all worked in SCIFs.

And it's not uncommon when you need

expertise in a particular portfolio or

mission that you you outsource. You find

the right people to do this right job.

And so,

I was told they were looking for

somebody to run counterintelligence and

security

for this capability that they had. They

didn't tell me what the capability was.

Um, and I was a counterintelligence and

security guy who was an expert in it.

So, after several conversations um, a

bit of a dance if you will, you know,

kind of like

trying to figure each other out. They

arranged for me to have a meeting with a

individual and I met

uh, the what I would consider is the

premier rocket scientist for the United

States government. Now, when I say

rocket scientist, I mean literally a

rocket scientist.

This is a gentleman who can tell you the

fuel consumption rate of a first stage

solid rocket motor booster. He can tell

you the the orbital velocity of a MIRV

vehicle, multiple re-entry vehicle

coming in from lower Earth orbit. I

mean, the best of the best of the best.

He was running a program, and I still

didn't know what the program was, but he

said, "Look, you know, we've been doing

it we've been given a lot of money to do

it right, and we're looking for somebody

with me with your skill sets." And his

name was Dr. James Lacatski, and the

epitome of a rocket scientist. And at

the end of the conversation, I remember

him looking at me over his glasses, and

he said to me, "What do you think about

UFOs?"

And so, I thought for a moment, and I

said to him, I said, "I Sorry, I don't."

And he said, "Well, what do you mean?

You You don't believe in UFOs?" I said,

"No, I I didn't say that.

You asked me, what do I think of them?

And my response was, I don't, because I

don't think about them. I I'm too busy

chasing bad guys and trying to fix

problems for the government. I I never

really had the luxury to think about

them."

And he said to me, "Okay, that's fair,

fair enough, but let me just warn you,

um don't let your

analytic bias

get the best of you, because you may

learn things here that will challenge

any preconceived notion or narrative

that you have

about the topic."

And so, I left that meeting thinking to

myself, is this some sort of

psychological evaluation? Was it that a

serious question, you know, or

And it was very soon thereafter that I

learned the reality that the United

States government was absolutely

invested in a UFO investigative program,

and more importantly, that it was

legitimate. I It was real. There were

real things that we were encountering

over controlled US airspace, over

sensitive military installations,

um by an unknown technology that frankly

could outperform anything that we had in

our inventory.

So, that was my uh that was my

introduction to now what is known as

AATIP. My focus was specifically more on

the nuts and bolts investigations of

these UAP incursions into controlled US

airspace, encounters by military

aircraft of these things.

Um we weren't really focused on

civilians information, right? We This

wasn't like a grandma seeing some lights

in the backyard.

These were These were well, to lack of a

better term, close encounters by trained

military pilots, trained observers.

By the way,

who could recognize a silhouette

between an F SU-22, a MiG-25, and an

F-16 from 10 mi away and make a

split-second decision if it is a friend

or foe?

And what these pilots were encountering

were also being backed up by by gun

camera footage. And and FLIR footage,

forward-looking infrared footage. And

oh, by the way,

that was being further backed up by

radar data, airborne data, airborne

radar data, and also ground-based radar

data, and sea-based radar data.

How did you go from the project you were

working on into AATIP? Cuz that was the

first sort of meeting, right? That was

like an introductory conversation.

So, there were several meetings before

that where they were trying to vet me,

see if I had, I guess, the the right

background of skill sets. It wasn't

until that meeting with Jim Lacatski

that the word UFO was used. Um

and how did I how did I go about that?

He's the one who made the decision. It

was his program. I had nothing to do

with that. I just, you know, said,

"Yeah, I'll do it." I didn't even know

what I was signing up for until after my

meeting with him.

So, did he say to you, "Okay, well, we'd

like you to work on this program, this

AATIP program. Um the acronym that

stands for Advanced Aerospace Threat

Identification Program."

Correct.

Um and eventually you became the

director of that program.

Yeah, so it there was a there was a

natural evolution of it. Um initially, I

was just there were brought in to

provide counterintelligence and security

uh expertise.

Um but as that program, ASAP, faded

away,

the the necessity and urgency of some of

these incursions were were it was

getting to a a desperate crescendo. It

was getting really There was a lot of

these incursions happening. There was a

big national security issue that that we

were all recognizing. And there were

some elements in the government that

were trying to kill

the effort. Um and not for reasons you

might think, believe it or not.

Completely different. Um

And so, the decision was made to bring

it up to the Pentagon, up to where I

was, take it out of DIA, Defense

Intelligence Agency, and with the

authorities I had, I was the Director of

National Program Special Management

Staff. And so, that was my job. Um I ran

special access programs for for the

White House and for the National

Security Council.

And uh

we uh we put the program under that, uh

keeping it out of the the prying eyes of

some of the folks that previously were

trying to kill the program.

So, this program, Advanced Aerospace

Threat Identification Program, was

really focused on

um investigating

reports and incidents of

UAPs or UFOs um

in military environments. So, if there

was a UFO {slash} UAP in a I don't know,

in a military base,

then this project would investigate what

that was. Is that Is that correct?

Correct. That's Correct. So, it was only

military-focused.

Um it wasn't interested in civilian

data. At the time we were running it at

the Pentagon, it was really looking at

for example, nuclear carrier strike

groups that were encountering these

things all the time. It would be, for

example, an Air Force base or a Navy

base or uh there was a special

operations unit on a particular patrol,

and if they happened to encounter a UAP,

those type of reports. And

I also want to emphasize here, we

weren't looking for UFOs. You know, we

were we were always coming into a

situation

with the understanding that there's some

sort of prosaic

un- there's a prosaic answer to what

this is, right? It actually wasn't a

UFO, it was a drone, a test fire of a

missile, it was a drone, it was a

balloon, it was whatever, whatever.

Because there are certain signatures and

profiles that you can look very quickly

determine, oh, that's just conventional

technology.

But there was a guideline that we use

that al- helped us understand when

something really was anomalous. When we

really we're talking about

it's not our technology and whatever

that is, it's probably not adversarial

or foreign technology. So, now we're

getting into the real world of UAP. That

that's that's anomalous.

What's a UAP?

Unidentified anomalous phenomenon. So,

let me if I can for let me backtrack a

little bit.

For years and years and years the term

UFO, unidentified flying object, was

used.

Um

there were several reasons, but later on

the term was changed to UAP and it stood

for unidentified aerial phenomenon. And

that's probably in the last year, year

and a half, you're starting to see yet

another definition of UAP, unidentified

anomalous phenomenon. And there's a

reason for that. I'm happy to explain if

you want, but um

the decision was made to change from UFO

to UAP.

I read that it was because a lot of the

sort of military personnel stopped

reporting their sightings because

there was a stigma associated with the

term UFO.

Correct. So, it's two two reasons.

Uh there was stigma and taboo associated

with the term because the moment you say

UFO, people think tin foil hats and

They think you're crazy.

Yeah, Elvis on the mothership and you

know, nonsense like that.

Um

but the reality is is that this this was

a real issue, a national security issue

for our nation and other nations too, by

the way. But also the term UFO isn't

really accurate anymore. So, what do I

mean by that? Well, unidentified flying

object. What is flying? Well, flying

means you have four fundamental forces.

You have thrust, lift, drag, and weight.

And when you understand that, you can

create wings and create lift and that is

the definition of flying, right?

These things didn't have wings. They

didn't have rudders, elevators, control

surfaces, ailerons, cockpits,

um and yet somehow they were able to

remain aloft in our atmosphere. So, they

weren't flying, technically. So, the

name was changed to anomalous uh I'm

sorry, unidentified aerial phenomena cuz

they were being seen in the air, but

then they realized, you know what?

They're also being seen underwater.

They're also being seen in high altitude

and possibly low Earth orbit. So, to say

that they're aerial isn't even accurate,

either. So, then they said, okay, it's

unidentified anomalous phenomenon to

cover all the separate domains or

environments that these things are being

encountered in.

Before you had the meeting regarding

this project at the Pentagon,

what did you believe about UAPs and

{slash} UFOs?

I didn't. I was never interested even in

science fiction as a kid.

Did you believe they were If I'd asked

you then, if I'd come up to you and

said, "Are UFOs real?"

And I say UFOs because that's the sort

of

Sure.

social term, but

what would you have said?

Probably not.

I mean, I would have said literally,

probably not. I wouldn't say for for

sure not because I didn't know.

What about now?

Oh.

Yeah, give me. I mean,

yeah, it's These are real. I mean, don't

take my word for it. Our government's

already said it. I mean, we

You have a former director of national

intelligence

telling the world, yeah, these these

things are real, whatever they are. You

have a former director of CIA. You have

a former president of the United States.

Um

we've known for a long time they're

real. And by the way, it's not just our

country. There's other countries that

are very forthcoming.

Um there's countries in South America

that have been dealing with this for a

long time. Japan just entered into a uh

bilateral information sharing agreement

with our country for the express

purposes of sharing UAP information and

data. China's interested. Russia's

interested in this. Um

several European countries have a fairly

robust capability and have have a lot of

information on this.

Was there a moment when your belief

changed? Was there a moment that you can

remember where you thought, you know

what?

What I thought about UAPs

was wrong?

Sure. Um

And what I often tell people, there's

there's there's two types of individuals

the way that we process this

information.

In one category, you have people that

will sit there and say,

"I had this epiphany. This revelatory

moment where all of a sudden it's like,

oh my god, they're real. Right? Are you

kidding me?

And then there's another group of people

which I probably fall into that second

category, the latter category, which is

more of a slow progression

and realization of what we're dealing

with is not a conventional technology.

It's not

our technology. It's It's something

else.

Um

At some point, the preponderance of

evidence is so overwhelming. Let me give

you an example. I am

I spent my life in in investigations.

Terrorists

spies, whatever.

And um I've always been what I

considered just the facts, ma'am, kind

of guy, very very data-driven. I don't

really care about innuendos and

suppositions and your opinion very much.

I care about what the data says, right?

What does it What does the data suggest?

And in this case, this particular case,

you have

eyewitness testimony.

You have it backed up by gun camera

footage. You have it backed up by fleer

footage. You have it backed up by radar

information. You've got five, six,

sometimes seven pieces of corroborating

sensor data.

That's all reporting the same event at

the same time at the same place

under the same circumstances.

Now, if I was in a court of law and I

was presenting this as evidence,

we are well beyond reasonable doubt. The

jury would have no choice but to convict

because the evidence is the same

collection sensor suite that we use to

prosecute and win a war

and forgive the vernacular, but

literally drop warheads on foreheads, is

the same information the same same

systems we're using

to collect the data on the anomalous

vehicles we're seeing.

Um and so

you know, I know it's a very

uncomfortable conversation to have. I'm

not saying it's not.

What I'm saying is that we have to deal

with this. And it's not me just telling

you that. This is our government. We

know we've already we have laws now on

the books because this topic is now so

serious. We have whistleblowers ready to

come out and testify before the American

people because this is so serious. We

have set up an organization specifically

its sole purpose is to investigate UAP

because this topic is so serious. So,

this is not a

you know, flight of fancy here. We're

we're investing millions of dollars

taxpayer dollars

to try to figure this out. And

interestingly enough, I think when the

investigative body first came was was

realized was was created, there was this

hope that in the first report they said,

"Oh, there's these 143 incidents that

remain uh

unidentified, but we're going to whittle

them away." What happened the next time

they had a report? There was now 300.

And what happened after that? Now 800.

The number's going up, not down.

They remain unresolved. And so, um

you know, we've we've we've got to have

this uncomfortable conversation with

ourselves.

You eventually left.

I did.

Um your that project, but also more

broadly you you resigned uh from working

with the Pentagon in the role that you

were working with them. Why did you

resign?

I resigned because that's what you do

when you can't fix a problem internally.

My concern

was that

we were spending time and money

on an issue

that leadership didn't want to know

about.

That leadership didn't want to inform

the boss, the then Secretary of Defense,

General Jim Mattis,

um

the details about what was going on. And

there's reasons for that, and we can

certainly get into that if you want. I

understand them. I don't necessarily

agree with them, but I understand them.

But at least here in in our country,

when you can't fix a problem, you don't

stay and make it worse.

You leave. You resign. And then if you

still want to do something, you do it

from outside, but you don't create

problems inside. And um it's not that

uncommon, is it? Because if you look

just a year later after I left,

Secretary of Defense himself resigned.

Right? So, I resigned in protest, but

not out of disloyalty. I resigned

because of my loyalty

to this country and to this government.

And

What is that protest, sorry? Just to be

clear.

The protest is that we weren't able to

get

the information and the help we needed

with with this issue up to the right

level of people. They were happy with us

doing it, but they said, "Don't tell the

boss." But wait a minute, the boss needs

to know. We're we're having almost a

mid-air collision

with our fighter pilots. We have

captains and admirals of Navy ships

asking us, "What do we do about these

things?" Like I there's an email that

said, "Hey, Lou, we can't keep these

guys below deck forever. What do you

want me to do? They're all over the

ship."

You know, so a decision has to be made.

What are we going to do about it? And

that decision has to be made by the top

guy, the Secretary of Defense. And for

whatever reason,

the upper echelon of leadership didn't

want to tell the boss. And then the And

we weren't getting any guidance on what

to do about it. Now,

keeping in mind, these things are coming

over our sensitive military

installations as well. And there's

potential for these things to be

interfering with our nuclear equities.

That's a big deal.

And nobody wants to have the

conversation?

Now, wait a minute. Let's let's let's

put this on the backdrop of of other

national security issues, right? Like

terrorism. If you go to any airport in

the United States today or any train

station, you always hear over the

announce- ments, "If if you see

something suspicious, say something.

Report it."

Well,

that wasn't the case

with these things. In fact, people were

told not to report. Yes, if you saw a

UFO and you saw it over a sensitive

military installation,

don't report it cuz they'll think you're

crazy.

And that is dangerous. That is a

dangerous mindset because if these

things had a Russian star on the tail or

a North Korean tail number,

this would be

huge. But because these things didn't

have a tail at all and didn't have any

obvious signs of propulsion or whatnot,

it was cricket. People would know about

it. It was a worst-kept secret. People

like, "Yeah, we see them all the time,

but we don't want to report it." Well,

you have to report it. Well, there's no

reporting mechanism. Okay, well, let's

create one. Well, we can't create one

cuz we need permission to do it and this

person needs to be briefed up.

Meanwhile, you're being told, "No, you

can't. You can't. You can't. You can't."

Why wouldn't they want to

report this information? Why wouldn't

they want the public to know? Why

wouldn't they want the boss to know?

Well, I think cuz of stigma and taboo.

Well, there's several reasons, but I

think superficially stigma and taboo. No

one wants to be known as that UFO guy or

gal. I I get it, you know, especially if

you're a pilot cuz historically, you'd

be taken off flight status. You you

know, put behind a desk and you'd fly a

desk the rest of your career because

people think you're mentally unstable.

Could affect your security clearance. I

mean, there's all sorts of things that

can happen. Um and so, people were being

being reinforced not to report this

information. Even civilian pilots today,

if you talk to them, they'll tell you

quietly, "Yeah, yeah, we see things in

the sky, but we're not going to report

anything cuz I need a job, you know."

What did you see?

Oh my What day? I mean, I

videos, reports, photographs. I mean, we

have There's videos that are so

compelling in high definition that

there's no question what you're seeing.

It's not our technology.

It's not our technology and the

capabilities are beyond anything we can

do.

I mean, I can I'm happy to explain some

of those capabilities if you like, but

but you know, when you when you look at

this from a rational perspective,

you only come to one outcome.

That's only one outcome. The other one

is so remotely possible that the mental

gymnastics to get to that and we can go

into that in a minute. It's It's It's

absurd. And so,

um

let's go into a little bit about what

make these things

unique, okay? Cuz planes fly and UAPs

are in the air, so that doesn't make

them unique and you know, things go fast

and whatnot.

So, you have to in intelligence, if you

want to

filter out

data and and and only focus on certain

data. You have to create parameters.

So, we realized early on in the

government that these things had five

parameters, five observables that made

them stand out away from everything

else.

And so, the first one was instantaneous

acceleration. So, what is acceleration?

It is the change of velocity, right? It

is the ability to change your velocity

very quickly. And as a result, as a

consequence, there are inertial forces

that are experienced. So, for us human

beings, we express those inertial forces

as G-forces. So, the force of gravity is

pulling on us equally at 9.8 m/s

and that's that's that's experienced as

1 G.

A human being can withstand up to 9 G's

for a very short period of time before

you start having medical consequences,

right? You have things like blackouts

and redouts and ultimately death.

To compare that to, let's say, standard

technology, um one of our most highly

maneuverable aircraft, manned

maneuverable aircraft, let me emphasize

manned, is an older aircraft. It's

called the General Dynamics F-16, built

by General Dynamics. It's the F-16. Um

and that at an unclassified level can

pull about 17 G's before you start

having structural failure, meaning wings

snap off, right? The plane begins to

disintegrate while you're flying it.

What we are seeing are objects that are

performing in excesses of 2,000 and

3,000

G-forces. Okay?

Well beyond the healthy limitations of

anything biological to withstand and

certainly from a material science

perspective,

more than

more than we have.

It It There's an advanced technology

here.

The second observable is hypersonic

velocity. So, what is hypersonic?

Hypersonics are those speeds in excesses

of Mach 5 or above. What's a Mach? It's

the speed of sound, roughly 760 some

miles an hour at sea level. So, it's

really fast. Now,

do we have technology that can do hyper

Sure, we do. Absolutely. We have a

One of the best examples is a Lockheed

YF-12A SR-71, otherwise known as a

Blackbird.

It can get to about Mach 5, which is

really fast.

But at that speed, if the SR-71 wants to

take a right-hand turn,

takes roughly half the state of Ohio to

execute that maneuver.

We are seeing things not doing Mach 5.

We are seeing things doing in excess of

10,000, 13,000 miles an hour, and

executing immediate right-hand turns and

even 180s, right? So,

that is another observable that is

significantly above and beyond anything

we have.

Another observable, it's a bit of an

oxymoron, but it's called low

observability. Meaning, you'll hear from

the pilots, "Lou, I was there. I saw it,

but I can't describe it."

Didn't have wings, didn't have rudder,

a tail, anything. No rivets, nothing.

Uh and then also on the radar, you will

get these non-senticle returns. These

returns like uh it's there's some sort

of active jamming or spoofing going on

uh with within the radar system. So, low

observability. Now, do we have low

observable vehicles? Sure. For example,

the B-2 bomber and the Valkyrie. These

are stealth vehicles. Well, this is a

little more than that because it's

actually also with the human eye very

hard to discern.

The fourth observable is something

called transmedium or multi-multimedium

travel. So, that means the ability to

operate in multiple domains, or more

specifically, multiple environments.

Now, once again, do we have multi-domain

vehicles? Absolutely. A seaplane is a

perfect example of a multimedium

vehicle. It can fly and it can float.

But let's face it.

A seaplane is neither a really good

airplane or a good boat. And why?

Because there are design compromises

that have to be made in performance and

design in order for it to operate in

multiple domains. And that's true with

just about every technology we have. The

more domains we want something to

operate in, the more sacrifices we have

to make. That's why a submarine looks

like a submarine cuz it's designed to be

underwater and a plane looks like a

plane, and a rocket looks like a rocket.

Um these things

can operate in multiple different

domains. It can operate in air,

underwater, and possibly even space, but

they don't have that performance and

design sacrifice that we have to do with

our technology.

So, is it like a when you get this job,

do you get to see like a folder

on a computer? All right, like I'm

trying to understand what access you you

you're given to these things.

you you are you're seeing the

investigations that were done

uh previously by other members of UAP.

You're seeing video. You're seeing

photographs. You're seeing the

historical reports.

And are these classified?

Oh, absolutely. Very.

Okay, so the so the general public can't

see these kinds of things and they

haven't been published.

Correct. They have not been public made

publicly available. They are highly

classified.

Okay, so it's videos, it's photos, it's

various accounts, it's

Correct.

You know, a lot of people talk about

Area 51 when they talk about UFOs and

and such.

I think one of the sort of rumors is

that at Area 51 they've found and um

retained

UFO material, spacecraft, etc. that

they've studied to understand the

technology so that they can introduce it

to the US military. Is there any truth

in that?

You know, the US government invests a

lot of money in research.

They have a lot of test facilities where

we want to be able to test things

outside the prying eyes of um of our

enemies. And so we we we we create these

test ranges for that purpose.

We do all sorts of things at those test

ranges.

Um

you know, I I cannot comment on on

what Area 51 might or might not have. Um

I would not be authorized to to talk

about that.

Um all I can say is what is in the

public domain, which people already know

that is a

it's a sensitive test facility where

where we we experiment with with things.

Because there was a a gentleman, I

think, from that worked near Area 51

that's talked a little bit about this

publicly, Bob Lazar.

Mhm.

I I actually didn't know anything about

Bob Lazar until about 2 hours ago. So,

what is exactly is it that Bob Lazar is

claiming?

Well, to be fair, you'd probably have to

ask Bob. I I don't know Mr. Lazar. I've

never met him. I've never spoken to him.

Um his claims were that he worked at a

particular facility and he had access to

uh and privy to

one of recovered vehicles,

um crash retrievals

uh that was uh allegedly performed by

the United States

uh and acquired and and and brought

there. Um that is what is in the public

domain. Um I I I cannot and will not

comment on on Bob Lazar cuz I don't know

him.

So, when you say you can't comment on

something and as it relates to something

that's classified, um is have you had to

go through some process? You've got

There's a book in front of me called

Imminent, which is the book you've

written. It says Inside the Pentagon's

Hunt for UFOs. What is the process in

when you're writing books like this to

get information cleared so that you can

share it?

It's like birthing an elephant.

Right.

I can only imagine uh if I was ever a a

woman and had to had to give birth.

Um

Cuz they probably

don't want you talking about these

things.

There's a lot of people that don't want

us talking about this. Um but there's

also a lot that do. Um so, you go

through a process, it's called DOPSR. In

the US government, we love our acronyms.

It stands for Department of Defense

Office of Pre-publication and Security

Review.

As a former defense official, if I want

to write anything, it has to go through

a review process to make sure it's not

classified and I can talk about it. That

book went through an exhaustive almost

1-year process through the government

before they allowed me to publish it.

And even then they redacted portions

out. If you look in there, you will see

grayed-out portions

because I wanted Americans to see

what

some people don't need to see. And so

those redactions are there by the

government. Um

and it is it is a very exhaustive

process, but it's important because

that's what keeps us legal. That's what

keeps people like me not going to jail

because

you I I go through the proper

procedures. I'm I'm not a leaker. I have

never leaked classified information. I

will never discuss classified

information. An unauthorized disclosure

is something that that should be avoided

at all times.

Um I'm like I said, I'm a patriot. I'm

loyal to my country. I'm not disloyal.

So, there's a right way and a wrong way

to do things. So, if you want to write a

book uh and you want to talk about

things you're not sure you can talk

about, you go through this Doxer

process, and that's exactly what I did.

And that's how that book was able to be

published. Otherwise, right now I'd

probably be in jail.

Is there a single most compelling piece

of evidence that you were witness to as

it relates to your belief in UFOs and

UAPs?

They were they were all significant.

There wasn't one that said, "Oh, that's

it." because they were all compelling in

their own way. Whether you can go back

to the USS Nimitz incident in 2004 or

the Roosevelt incidents in 2014 and

2015,

there was so much data. Every time you

think you had one that was great,

another would come that was even better.

Um So I mean, you've put one on the

front cover of this book there, right?

Yeah.

What is this incident on the front cover

of your book?

That is known as the Gimbal incident.

That is a video

that was taken by

uh an F-18 and uh you can hear the

exasperation. If you listen to the

actual video, you can hear the pilots

um trying to discuss what it is. And

then you also hear on it the discussion

of there's a whole fleet of them. Look

at the ASA. And oh, by the way, it's

going 120 knots against the wind at

roughly 20,000 ft. So, it's not a

balloon and you begin to see this this

this vehicle orient itself in a 90°

angle. Now, if this was a plane like you

see your wings, if you go in a 90°

angle, you lose altitude, right? Cuz

that's how the principles of lift work.

That's not the case there.

I think this is the video.

Yep.

Dude, this is a drone, bro.

There's a whole fleet of them. Look on

the SA.

My gosh.

They're all going against the wind. The

wind's 120 knots to the west.

Holy dude.

That's not a that's not a missile, is

it?

That is not a missile, dude.

Well, the flares look like the same

thing.

It's rotating.

And that was shot by two US

sort of fighter pilots.

Yep.

There's a lot more of those out there

and a lot clearer, too, but they're

classified.

It The So, there's more videos like this

that you've been exposed to.

Oh, yeah.

But they won't

But they won't release them.

They will not release them.

Why?

Because of of sources and methods,

because they remain classified because

how they were taken, where they were

taken, under what circumstances, what

technological capabilities were used to

collect the information.

The US government wants to keep out of

its out of the hands of its adversaries

what our true capabilities are. So,

let's say you're flying a mission over a

denied area and you don't want the enemy

to know that you're over it, right? The

last thing you want to do is release a

video where you can look and say, "Oh,

we're in this location and now the enemy

knows or we have this capability or we

can see this this good. These are the

technologies we have." These videos

here, ironically, are probably some of

the least compelling videos. Now, people

say, "Oh, these are incredible." But

these are the ones that were

unclassified that could be released. The

other one, some of these are so clear.

The problem is is how they were taken,

the collection capabilities that were

used to take them, where they were

taken, under what circumstances, the

metadata in the video,

all that is a consideration.

Okay.

And did do do you the US government and

the Pentagon generally want people to

believe that UFOs UAPs

exist or not?

I think it's both. I think

up until recently

nobody wanted to have this conversation.

The problem is the government backed

itself up after 70 years of denial into

a corner and it it it has to figure a

way out.

There are some elements now that want

the conversation to occur. And so that's

why you see Congress getting engaged,

why the creation of AARO, but there are

still elements unfortunately in the in

the Pentagon that don't want this

conversation to occur and they will

continue doing what they can to

discredit individuals and and launch

this campaign against them. Uh one of my

colleagues, David Grusch, who was a

decorated Air Force officer and a senior

intelligence official, the moment he

broke rank and went public about this

topic, within 24 hours uh they released

his medical records trying to discredit

him and they did it illegally.

Um so there are people there that

definitely don't want this conversation

to occur.

Why?

Well, there's a lot of reasons why. Um

you know, back historically

Great question. Let's um can I unpack

that a little bit? Do you mind that?

Okay, so

let's start really at the heels of World

War II, you have these foo fighters that

are being observed by Allied pilots.

Um these these these luminous balls that

would follow them into combat areas. And

then after um particularly as we started

developing in the atomic weapons, we

started releasing a lot of UFOs over our

controlled military

airspace and over our sensitive military

installations, our research facilities.

And so at the time you have this

mindset, you have

height of the Cold War, United States

versus Soviet Union. And by the way,

they had nukes and so did we, right? So

you got a real potential threat over

there.

And then you've got these other things

over here. So as as a general in the

Pentagon, you say, look, I know these

things are real, but they're not showing

any over hostilities. Meanwhile, we've

got this real issue over here, this real

threat called Soviet Union.

Let's focus on this threat, and then

we'll worry about this other stuff

later.

The other part of that is the the

mindset of look, um

it's really uncomfortable

as a government to have a conversation

with its people

about a problem that there's no solution

for, right? We can see what they do, but

there's not a damn thing we can do about

it. That we we we can't stop what

they're doing, and so do you really want

to have a conversation

with the American people and admit a

problem for which we don't have a

solution for it? That governments are

solution-focused.

And that is not a great spot to be in,

right? And it's by the way not the first

time this has happened. Let's look at

the U-2, for example, spy plane.

When we first built that, the CIA

commissioned it through Lockheed Martin

Skunk Works, and we were flying that

vehicle in contravention to a standing

treaty we had with Russia that we would

not fly with manned reconnaissance

missions over Russia, mainland Russia.

We were.

But we built this plane to fly so fast

and so high, we thought they couldn't

detect us, right? And for a while we

thought they couldn't, because we went

unchallenged until

the Russians were able to develop the

surface-to-air missile, SA-2 missile,

and successfully shoot one down. And

then, and only then did they admit to

the world we've been tracking these

things since day one.

The reason why they didn't talk about it

is because he didn't have a means to

shoot it down. So, why admit

a problem for which there's no solution

until you have a solution? So, that's

another mindset in the Pentagon. And

then you had

several studies done that were

commissioned by the US government in the

past that asked the question if we were

to be honest and truthful about

disclosure, about we're not alone in the

universe, these things are real, what

would the consequences be? And the

studies came back unanimously said you

can't do it. The American people are not

ready to have this conversation. It'll

cause civil discord, and it'll cause

it'll upset the population and people

will lose faith in their religions and

the economy may crash. You can't do it.

And so the decision was made, okay,

we're not going to do it. In fact, we're

going to actively suppress this

information. We're going to stigmatize

the heck out of it so bad that no one

will ever want to even mention the word

UFO.

And it was very successful. That that

that campaign to stigmatize this topic

was so successful, in fact, that even

now it's hard to unwind the tape and

have the conversation.

And so therein lies

part of the problem. Why doesn't the

government parts of the government want

to have this conversation? Then you've

got a legal issue, which is probably

probably the biggest issue now.

You have elements in the government that

were making unilateral decisions not to

inform Congress and not to inform the

President of the United States, right?

That's illegal.

There are oversight committees that have

a

designated need to know on all

intelligence matters, especially when it

comes to funding, right? We're spending

billions of dollars on these projects.

You've got to inform Congress, certain

elements of the certain oversight

committees like the Senate Select

Committee on Intelligence.

They weren't being briefed to this.

There's also this fear by some people on

the inside of the government that oh my

gosh, I used to work on a secret UFO

program.

Am I going to be in trouble now because,

you know, I

we've been lying to Congress.

And so it it's a little more complicated

than than necessarily just saying, oh

well, we want the truth, be honest.

It's not that easy.

To your knowledge, has there ever been

recovered um UAP or UFO materials?

What I can say is what I've been allowed

to say, which is yes. Up until recently

I wasn't even allowed to say that.

When did that change?

When that book got reviewed. Up until

that point I had signed documentation

from the government saying I will never

discuss that, ever.

What happens if you did?

Uh jail.

Oh, yeah.

That's why that book I had to go through

the process because what I wrote in that

book I am allowed to talk about. I can't

go beyond that, but at least I can talk

about that. And in the book I talk about

Yes.

That the government is in possession of

material, exotic material that doesn't

look like it's made by us.

Has there ever been anyone sent to jail

because they've spoken about this

subject matter?

Worse.

Worse.

And that that story has yet to be told.

Yes, there are people who have had faced

uh extreme disciplinary actions and and

and potentially worse.

The death penalty?

I'm not going to elaborate right now um

because there's some things happening to

try to This is why Congress is working

hard for whistleblower protections.

Because um

we want people to feel safe to come out

and have a conversation. And right now

they don't feel overly safe.

Um they've seen some of the tactics and

techniques that were applied to try to

keep people quiet in the past.

Um let me say this in general terms.

People say, "Oh, well, the government

would never

kill anybody to protect a secret."

Try going to Area 51 and look at the

signs on that chain link fence where it

says lethal force authorized.

You cross that fence and they can kill

you dead.

Okay? So,

the government can, under certain

extreme cases, under certain extreme

situations and conditions,

they can do whatever they need to do to

protect national security and they will.

Which department is that?

I cannot go into that conversation,

unfortunately.

Because people think of it as maybe the

CIA or something, but

I I can't I can't elaborate,

unfortunately.

You know, I I cuz I I don't know very

little about American uh

governmental departments and such, but

obviously most of the world knows about

the like presidential assassinations and

things like that. So, and I've spoken to

a few CIA agents and stuff like that on

my podcast before, but um

I've never really understood

frankly who would who would be making

such an order and how those things don't

leak,

you know?

Well,

you know.

good question.

Um

Look, we we we've done it in the past

in other situations, some pretty

recently. Um

you know, let me give you a case in

point, and this is not, you know,

attacking anybody.

Um we have uh droned, used drones to

lethally kill people, Americans, an

American citizen specifically, and and

and the person's child

without due process.

In the US?

Not in the US. He was a US citizen.

Oh.

Uh he was suspected of being a

terrorist, and there's some other things

there I'm not going to go in there.

But, um

we as American citizens are are as

American citizens we are afforded

something called due process under the

law of peace.

Um and meaning you get your day in

court, no matter what. And there've been

Americans where that hasn't been the

case.

Um they didn't get a day in court. Um

someone made the decision to

uh liquidate them. Um you know, there

are examples of that happening. You

know, there's one with

with uh Rosenbergs,

the uh those who were accused of selling

uh the atomic secrets to the Russians,

actually giving it to them.

And uh if you know a little bit about

what happened with his wife, um

turns out that

sh- she was innocent.

What happened to his wife?

They hung her. Hung her and him for for

for espionage.

Uh but because of the information that

we had at the time, we was so sensitive,

we'd have to reveal a capability, so

unfortunately, uh

it looks like maybe we may have we have

done something that we maybe shouldn't

have done.

Um I wasn't around for that, so I can't

tell you definitively what happened. Um

I can only tell you what what

what my understanding of it is.

I could absolutely be wrong, and I

really hope I am.

But, it turns out that, you know, there

are extreme examples where we will take

drastic measures to to national

security.

So, in writing this book and in s-

talking about this subject, you

understand that there's some people that

don't want you talking about these

subjects.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

So, and you also understand that

punishment for talking about these

subjects can range from jail or worse.

Yeah.

So, you're not scared?

I didn't say that. I didn't just say I

wasn't scared.

Mhm.

I mean, I'm I'm taking huge risks. I I

but I've been My life has been

threatened many times.

And it's very concerning for me. It's

the reason why I I live in Wyoming and

I'm heavily armed and have now six

German Shepherds.

Yeah, I'm very cautious and careful, but

I'm also understanding I also know the

left and right limits of the law, and

I'm not going to break the law under any

circumstances.

I didn't This book isn't a leak. I'm

authorized to talk about that book

because I went through the proper

processes of getting it reviewed.

Whether they like it or not. But yes, I

am absolutely worried. You know, this is

why I'm very careful

when I say things cuz I don't want to

stop walk up to the line. I will not

step over the line. I will not violate

my security oath and compromise national

security for disclosure. And I don't

think I have to. I think the proof is in

the pudding, the fact that it's been 7

years and we've come this far in the

conversation and I haven't gone to jail.

And I'm still here to have the

conversation. I think it's indicative of

the fact that there is a right way and a

wrong way to do it. I understand people

want disclosure and they want it now.

But I've told people before there's a

difference between doing things

right and doing things right now.

They're different and we only get one

chance to do this right. And so,

hopefully we can have this conversation

this collective conversation in a way

where we don't have to be disruptive. No

one has to be threatened. No one has to

go to jail. No one has to lose their

jobs or anything like that.

You mentioned presidents of Iran. Do you

Presidents of the United States know

about UFOs?

Some do, some do not. Unfortunately,

there's a mindset by some people that

think

that politicians and presidents are

temporary hires. They're here today,

gone in 4 years. So, why brief them up

on something, especially if they have no

military or intelligence background?

It's a risk. So, you know what? Don't

brief them.

Which presidents do you do you think

were aware of UFOs and

this sort of these kinds of programs?

Sure. Well, we know for sure there were

several, you know.

For sure, for example, Carter was. But

then

How do you know?

Well, well, because Carter was briefed.

I I know somebody who actually worked

with Carter to get information on this

topic. I can't almost say the person's

name. The person's still alive, so I

don't have permission to talk about

that. But, we know that for a fact, and

there's records of it. But, there's

other presidents like Bill Clinton who

wasn't briefed, but wanted to be

briefed, right? And so um

And again, I this this this is the crux

of the problem. Who's making the

decision on what president gets briefed

and what doesn't?

That's that's nonsense. President George

Bush Sr.

was briefed. And he was also the

director of the CIA, so he was very well

aware of this topic. But, then there's

other presidents that weren't. And so,

this is again, this is that this is

highlighting the very problem that I

have.

Who's making the decision to choose who

gets briefed and who doesn't?

What about Obama and Trump?

I can't answer for them. Um

Obama has uh recently stated for the

record that these UAP are a national

security issue, not a threat, but an

issue. That there's something there,

that these are real, whatever they are,

whatever it is.

President Trump recently uh former

President Trump said uh week and a half

ago, for the record, when he

that he would be willing to release the

UFO files, and that he wanted to do it

in the past, but he faced fierce

resistance.

Now, think about that statement for a

minute.

Who the hell is giving him resistance to

releasing UFO files when you're the

president? Right? That is that is a very

significant statement. That is what

needs to be fixed. If the president

himself can't get or herself can't get a

briefing,

who in the hell has the authority to

make that decision? Nobody.

What is that fifth resistance that

Trump's talking about?

I don't know. You'd have to ask Trump.

What do you think it is?

Uh I think there is a huge amount of

influence by the military-industrial

complex.

And they they it it is a enormous

business. Always has been.

Um

It's it's it's it's huge.

It is probably the world's largest

business

globally.

And why wouldn't the military-industrial

complex want those files to be released?

Well, because they'd have to admit that

they're part of the part of the

programs.

Some of these folks, you know, have had

been

a lot of their successes

is being able to work super secret

programs for the US government. And

maybe there's technology that they don't

want released.

Maybe there's capabilities that we had

that we don't want to tell our

adversaries. And there's a lot of

reasons for it, which are understand.

Some of them are actually legitimate. I

can understand. I don't agree with, but

I can understand.

How much do you think the average person

on the street knows about what goes on

in

the Pentagon and behind the scenes of

the government?

Rather

It's

Forget the government and Pentagon. How

many parents

they can tell you who's a quarterback of

their favorite football team, and they

can tell you their stats, but how many

parents know who their kid sits sits

next to during lunch

or in second period math class?

The government is I mean, that's

basic facts, man.

We

As humans, most of us we suck. We don't

know anything, and we're so used to

being force-fed information by whatever

outlet du jour we want to tune into, you

know?

If I'm a liberal, I watch this. If I'm a

conservative, I watch that. I'll I'll

I'll go straight to my echo chamber,

and, you know, just hear what I want to

hear, and have people tell me not only

information that I that they think I

need to know, but even my opinion of

what what it should be about.

Th- This is a much, much bigger issue

than just UFOs and UAP.

We as as as people have become extremely

lazy.

And we we no longer are

willing to ask the hard questions. We're

not.

You were part of one program, but you

also referenced a second program called

the legacy program.

Mhm.

What is the legacy program?

It is the traditional long-held effort

by the US government to study UAP.

People think AATIP was the only program

and ASAP. Before that there was there

was Blue Book and before that there

The legacy program

is the collaborative effort of

individuals over the course of several

decades that have been looking into this

topic for the US government and by the

US government.

And okay, so it's doing similar things

to what AATIP did.

Yes, and and more robust and much more

well-funded.

I wonder why they don't fund it as well

these days.

Uh

there's a reason for that too that I I I

I

I would need permission to talk about.

Um there were some distractions in the

early 2000s that

lifted and shifted resources away from

from efforts to something else.

Um

and I probably can figure out what this

what that was. But um there was an

enormous resource drain and refocusing

um

in the early 2000s to focus on something

else. And so

I I heard you talk as one about these

one of different types of

aliens per se. Cuz when we think of

aliens we think we reflect on movies

that we've seen and they have like the

big heads and

things like that and maybe they're like

like white, tall, skinny with like the

big arms and the big like legs and stuff

like that. Is that what people at in the

Pentagon consider aliens to be? What we

see in movies.

Uh I can't speak on behalf of other

people. I can only speak on behalf of

me. Um I've been very very careful not

to

to stereotype anybody or anything. I

think it's important we have to

keep an open mind because when you say

the word aliens, you are automatically

presuming that these things are from

outer space.

Mhm.

They might not be. There's lots of

different options. It doesn't have to be

from outer space.

What do you believe? Do you believe

they're amongst us?

Well,

let's

Can I Can I explore this with you? This

question? Okay, so it's it's not a

either or.

So, in the beginning of our conversation

I told you I went to the University of

Miami and I studied microbiology,

immunology, and I studied parasites.

Now, if you go to some anthropologists,

they will suggest to you that modern

human beings, Homo sapiens sapiens, has

been around roughly between 100 to

possibly 200,000 years.

So, on a 24-hour clock, right? It's It's

only the last 2,000 years

and it was the Greeks that proposed

there were two fundamental life forms on

this planet. And you were either a plant

or you were an animal. And human beings

were

an animal.

And so, the 24-hour clock, you're

probably talking maybe

I don't know, 10 minutes ago before

midnight.

Well, it was 300 years ago during the

Renaissance or the days of

enlightenment,

uh that

we discovered an entire new life form on

this planet that's been here all along.

And that And that was that it was

neither plant nor animal. It was the

world of fungus.

And we patted ourselves on the shoulder

and said, "Hey, we found a new life

form."

In this 24-hour clock, it's been

probably the last maybe 10 seconds, last

120 years only,

that

we discovered for the first time the

true dominant

alpha life form on this planet. And in

fact, if you take all the biomass of

every plant

and all the biomass of every animal and

all the biomass of every fungus and

added it all up together, it still will

not equal the biomass of this hidden,

yet dominant life form that's been on

this planet all along.

And it wasn't until we could have the

technology to curve glass and look

through a little tube and famously shout

the words "Little beasties, little

beasties."

Did we discover the world of

microorganisms? Okay? The true dominant

life form on this planet that's been

here all along. In fact, it's inside of

us. It makes us up. It's pervasive

everywhere.

And we just discovered it. So, what I

say to people, you know, but people say,

"Oh, do you think they're from outer

space?"

They can be from outer space, inner

space, or frankly, the space in between.

These things could be just as natural to

our environment as we are. Maybe we're

at the point now where technologically

we can start interacting. Maybe they're

from under the ocean. Look, less than

10% of the ocean floor has been mapped.

We know more about the surface of the

moon than we do of our own oceans. Is it

possible these things are just as

natural to this planet as we are?

Possibly. Or is it possible these things

are from somewhere else? Yes, that's

possible, too. So, we have to keep all

options on the table until they're no

longer on the table. Well, we live in an

infinitely, infinitely complex universe.

Let's see if I can And I've I've often

used this before to try to help people

wrap their heads around around this.

We perceive life through five

fundamental

five fundamental senses. And if we can't

touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it,

etc., we can't interact with it. We have

no idea it's there.

Where I live out in Wyoming, we have

these beautiful night skies, unclouded

night skies, and you can see all the

heavens, beautiful Milky Way in front of

you.

If you were to look through that at that

same night sky through a radio

telescope, you would see something

different. You would see nebula, you

would see things that you can't normally

perceive in the ultraviolet and infrared

spectrums and x-ray, right? It's there,

you just can't perceive it. It's just

like if you had cell phone vision, all

of a sudden now you can see in Wi-Fi and

5G, you would see an entirely different

reality around you.

So, we perceive light we perceive life

through a very narrow spectrum of

visible light the visible light spectrum

when reality is

most everything else

kind of lies beyond that.

And then you have a scale issue. You

have a scalability issue. What do I mean

by scalability?

We are a human being you and I are

having a lovely conversation here

somewhere in some some place

uh on this planet uh revolving around an

obscure star in an obscure part of the

Milky Way galaxy amongst the super

cluster of other galaxies.

The visible horizon from any direction

we look at of light of the size of the

universe has been estimated to be

between 13.6 to 13.9 billion

light-years. B billion.

What is a light-year?

A light-year is the distance that a

photon of light can travel in the course

of a year. And how fast is that? Well,

light travels at roughly 186,000 mi per

second or 7 and 1/2 times around our

planet in 1 second, right? Really fast.

Imagine how far that goes in a year.

And now imagine how far that goes 13.9

billion years, right? So, we're in the

middle of the universe here. Our

universal horizon in any direction is

13.9 billion light-years.

And in that direction another 13.9 so

you roughly 27 billion light-years

across and we're in the middle. Now,

scientists are estimating that's that's

less than 10% of the actual size of the

universe. The universe is actually much

much bigger than that. This is just the

universal horizon because the expansion

of the universe light this far will

never reach Earth.

So,

now you're talking about a size 100

billion light-years and as small as we

are right in the middle this

infinitesimally small speck keep in mind

in our visible universe alone, visible.

There are more stars than there are

grains of sand in all the beaches in all

the world. Think about that

incomprehensible number. And as small as

we are

now

humor me with this.

Take one

atom, one hydrogen atom, Avogadro's

number 1 * 10 to the -23,

okay?

That's roughly the same order of

magnitude

as we are to the universe.

So, we have this entire huge universe

outside and this entire little universe

inside every single human being, and we

as a human beings can only interact with

one or two orders of magnitude up or

down. Otherwise, the universe is simply

too big or too small. We just will never

be able to know.

And that is reality. That's where most

of everything lies. That's where most of

reality is. It's either up there or

inside or everything in between.

So, I guess my point is

every time when people say, "Well, you

know,

aliens."

What does that mean?

What does that mean? Because most people

say aliens in Hollywood and little

eggheads running around.

There's so much more to it. It doesn't

This is This is us imposing

a Hollywood idea of what an alien should

look like. And by the way, let's not

forget their anthropomorphic morphic

values, right? They They They look like

us, have arms like us, and heads like

us, and eyes like us. Um because we view

everything through anthropomorphic eyes.

It's the reason why we we call our dogs

human names and we treat them like

humans.

Because we treat everything as if they

have human values, human motivation,

human intent when we may be dealing with

something completely different. This

could be like artificial intelligence.

It's just binary. Input in, input out.

We don't know. And so

these are some of the questions we have

to, you know, really as we were

moving down this this pathway. This is

why I always tell people, "Look, all

options have to be on the table until

they're no longer on the table." Cuz we

simply don't know.

We also don't know what their intentions

are and why they might be here.

That's right.

Why they might be visiting here.

That's right.

Do you have a any theories as to what

their intentions might be?

Rather, there's a whole range of

theories. I mean, it could be simply as

like when we're on the African Serengeti

and we see the wildebeest and we're in a