#168 Lue Elizondo - X-15 Rocket Plane, UFO Cover-Ups & a Mind-Blowing Google Search

This episode is brought to you by Shopify.

Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify,

the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell.

With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features,

trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands.

Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash tech, all lowercase.

That's shopify. Results vary.
All tax situations are different. Fees apply if you have us file an amended return.
Nice. I thought merengue.
Isn't that Dominican? Yeah, so my family's Cuban. My father was actually in the Bay of Pigs.
My father was a revolutionary. He was captured by Castro's men on the beach during the invasion.
He was on the USS Houston when it got rocketed. Some CIA guys also were there.
Didn't make it, unfortunately. But he was for two years in Castro's prisons.
My father was a wonderful human being, but he's also a very tormented soul. And now we can recognize, oh, he had PTSD, right? Or as the old timers used to say, shell shock.
So he struggled with anger and volatility for a very long time during his life. And as a young person, I had a really weird background.
There was always this idea, this understanding that after the Brigade 2506, which was what my father was part of. In fact, if you type in my name, Luis Elizondo and Bay of Pigs, you'll see my father's prisoner number.
There was always this understanding that there would be a reinvasion by the new generation, by us, by the kids, and part of Alpha 66. So I had a really weird upbringing as a child, always with smoke-filled rooms and dim lights and weird conversations.
And so at a very early age, I had my taste of paramilitary.

And I didn't even know it.

Damn.

I thought I was part of Boy Scouts.

And you go back to school and they're, what did you guys do?

Well, I got my how to light a fire badge.

What did you get?

Oh, we disassembled AK-47s.

You didn't do that?

Shit.

We should dig into that.

We should dig into that on the show.

Whatever you want.

Yeah, we will. So Luis should dig into that on the show.
Whatever you want. Yeah, we will.

So, Luis Elizondo,

welcome to the show.

You can call me Lou if you want. I know I look more like a Bob or a Bill or a Joe.

Thank you very much.

Sean, if I can say something

just for a moment.

This is an incredible honor and privilege

of mine, and not for the reasons that most

people might think, not because

you have a very

successful show and you have a big

I'm going to go. This is an incredible honor and privilege of mine, and not for the reasons that most people might think, not because you have a very successful show and you have a big audience.
It's because of who you are and what you have done in the service of your country. There's a lot of people on the outside that will see things that people like you or maybe I've done, and they tend to glorify that.
But we also know the other side of that. We know the truth.
And we know the pain that it causes for the loved ones we leave behind. It causes even to us to some degree.
You keep a piece of those experiences with you at all times. And some of us try our best to try to suppress it.
But what you have done for our nation, I'm not sure most people in your audience can really appreciate. And I only know because I've been there and experienced those things with you guys.
And I just want to say from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of a very grateful nation, although maybe they don't realize it, thank you for what you do. We are only here today having this conversation in a wonderful country that we are in, we have in this incredible experiment because of the sacrifices you and your colleagues have made.
So before we begin, please accept my humble appreciation, sincere appreciation for the sacrifices you and your family has had to make for us, for the rest of us chickens. Thank you, man.
Thank you. That means a hell of a lot.
Thank you. But, wow, thank you for saying that.
Yeah. And likewise.
Sincere. Likewise.
Let's get into the interview, huh? So everybody starts with an introduction here. So I think we might wind up doing a little bit of a life story here.
I wasn't planning on doing that, but this sounds super interesting. Lou Elizondo, Lou Elizondo, you're a former U.S.
Army counterintelligence special agent and former employee of the office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. You led a previously covert program within the Department of Defense investigating unidentified aerial phenomenon UAP.
You came forward to the public about advanced aerospace threat identification program ATIP bringing to light what the government knew about these mysterious objects in our skies. Since then you've worked to educate both the public and policy makers about the potential implications of UAPs for national security, science, and human understanding.

You've been involved with organizations like To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science aimed at advancing research into these phenomena. us.
You're a fixture in the UAP transparency movement and have appeared in numerous interviews,

documentaries, and media segments discussing UAPs, where you've shared insight from your experience while critiquing the government's approach to transparency on this subject. Welcome to the show.
Thank you. One point of correction.
The UAP program at the Pentagon was not a co- I did run covert operations and activities, but that was for another effort while working for the US government. The ATIP program, Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, which I helped lead and working with some of my colleagues, was a very sensitive program, but it wasn't covert.
I know people like to, and forgive me for saying that, I don't know why it says that, there's a legal definition of covert activities, and then there is from a Department of Defense, which is Title 50, and then from a Title 10 or DOD perspective, you have clandestine type operations and sensitive operations, but ATIP was not covert. It was sensitive in a lot of classified aspects to it, but it was not a Title 50 program, although I ran it under, when I was wearing my Title 50 hat, under the covert umbrella.
But in itself, it was not a covert program. It was a highly sensitive program with a lot of classified aspects that I ran while I was running covert operations.
Okay. Did you start AATIP? I did not.
No, no, no. It's fascinating, actually, the way AATIP started.
It actually started off as a program called ASAP, the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Special Application Program, ASAP. You know, in DAD, we love our acronyms, right, in the intel community.
It was in 2007, Harry Reid, Senator, who was, by the way, the Senate Majority Leader at the time. You had Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Inouye, so Alaska and Hawaii as well.
So Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, and even former astronaut John Glenn. All got together on the Hill and somebody like bipartisan, so Republican and Democrat, got together and put funding together to create a program called, the contract vehicle was called OSAP.

OSAP was a big program in order to look at, from the Pentagon's perspective, the UAP or UFO in vernacular, the UFO issue. From there, there was an aspect of OSAP.
OSAP was kind of, think of a big umbrella. and then you have a little umbrella fitting underneath this bigger umbrella,

which looked at a lot of stuff to include elements of what now is known as Skinwalker Ranch and some other things. AATIP was really focusing on nuts and bolts of the UAP phenomenon.
So ASAP did too, but they were much broader. Think of a shotgun approach versus a sniper approach.
The shotgun being ASAP, the sniper being AATIP. And so I was actually part of the ATIP program.
Although I worked with a lot of the elements in OSAP, my focus was really nuts and bolts on ATIP. Interesting.
So that was started by Jim Lekatsky and Jay Stratton on the OSAP side. You mentioned, so it was three state centers that started in Alaska, Nevada, and Hawaii.
Is there, I mean, interesting, a lot of UAP activity in Alaska. Well, Ted Stevens had his own UAP encounter while he was a pilot, believe it or not.
No shit. And let's not forget that he was in World War II.
Senator Inouye actually gave his arm for his country, all of our veterans. Stevens was a pilot, and he had his own UAP experience.

And then, of course, interestingly enough, you had—

He was Alaska.

He was Alaska.

Okay.

Ted Stevens.

What was his experience?

Well, he reported, you know, classic Foo Fighter experience,

these objects that would pursue him while he was a pilot,

and they were performing in ways that he couldn't explain. They were outperforming anything that he was aware of as a pilot.
Instantaneous acceleration, very, very fast maneuvers, well beyond the structural limitations of what we had at the time, technologically. And so, and this is, by the way, this is not isolated.
If you get a chance to talk to members of Congress privately, a lot of them will share with you their own UAP experiences.

They're like, hey, man, I was fishing with my son,

and all of a sudden this thing comes out of the water.

You saw it right there in front of us.

I think politically they're a little shy to have that discussion publicly.

Now maybe it'll come out.

But you'd be surprised how many people, members of Congress,

have had their own experience.

Is there a lot of, I mean, the reason I brought up the three states, Nevada, obviously a lot of activity. Alaska, a lot of activity.
Hawaii, is there a lot of activity down there? Well, there is some. It's hard to say there's a lot.
So there's an issue with Hawaii. It's population density and surface area.
So Nevada, Alaska, lots of land mass. And you have people all around, so you've got pretty much a good persistent eye in the sky.
Maybe there's a farmer. Maybe there's someone driving a truck.
Maybe there's a military person, a military bases. Hawaii is a much smaller landmass.
So you have fewer people in a smaller area looking up towards the sky. So we don't really know if Hawaii is necessarily a hotspot.
We do have a military presence there, as we know. And we do have a couple sensitive facilities there because of geographically where it's located.
And so it shouldn't be any surprise that we've had UAP activity there. But whether or not it's as much or as consistent as some of these other areas, like we've seen with now New Jersey, for example, with the drones, right, where they're being reported everywhere, you don't have that type of population in Hawaii, and you don't have the landmass.
So we really don't know. We don't know if there's actually more activity occurring around the waters.
We don't know if there's actually an increase or a decrease simply because we don't have enough persistent, I guess I hate to use the word persistent surveillance there, but we just don't. Remember, it's a few little islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
So unless you're right there at the time something's happening, you're not going to know. You'd mentioned Skimwalker Ranch.
I'm just going, I don't want to lose anything. No, no, no.
Have you done any work out there with Brandon? Well, so before Brandon, there was a gentleman named Bob Bigelow, and he owned Bigelow Aerospace. By the way, this is a gentleman who made his fortune in the hotel industry and then decided to jump to aerospace and actually succeeded, right? So this is a guy who put together these inhabitable, inflatable-type modules that could hook on to the ISS space station, which, by the way, they're there right now.
He actually has them connected. And he had these projects, Genesis 1, Genesis 2 projects, to create these inflatable habitats for NASA as kind of NASA's future space program.
And he was very successful. So he actually helped fund, through his own money, a lot of what OSAP originally did to include Skinwalker Ranch.
He owned the ranch before Brandon Fugle owned it. And there was a very robust research effort ongoing.
People don't know that. But, oh, it's just a bunch of hooey.
No, it wasn't. There's a lot of real stuff going on, a lot of real research.
And I had access to a lot of those files. That wasn't my portfolio specific, so I don't usually talk about it.
There's other people that are far more qualified than me to talk about Skinwalker Ranch. And by the way, there was more than one ranch.
People don't know that. There were other facilities.
Wow. Yeah.

I mean, I would imagine there would be.

But yeah, I've been trying to get Bigelow on here for a while.

He is an elusive guy.

And then at inauguration, I actually shared an elevator with him.

And I didn't say anything.

I didn't want to bug him.

But I just let him be. I consider him an American hero, and I don't say that lightly.
People can think what they want of individuals, but I've seen what he's been able to contribute to our country. If you ask him whether he likes me or hates me, it's really irrelevant.
I've seen what he's been able to do and what he has done for our nation. So I'm eternally grateful for what he's done.

And there's a part of that story that hasn't come out yet.

I think our country owes him a great deal of gratitude

for what he's been able to do for our nation.

So you were affiliated with it before when Bigelow owned it.

I was, yeah.

What was some of the stuff that you, I mean, what was going on there?

Is it similar to what's going on with Skimwalker right now? Very intense. You know, again, I want to be careful not to speak for other people.
But I can tell you that there are some very strange things that occur on that facility, on that ranch, that certainly warrant additional investigation. Are there national security implications? Well, it depends what your definition of national security is, but there's certainly enough going on there that warrants further inquiry.
So I applaud what they're doing, what Brandon Fugel and others are doing. I think it's important.
Why do you think Bob never shared any of the research with Brandon? I've interviewed Brandon. He's a friend of mine now.
And he did not give over any of the prior research to Brandon when he bought the ranch. So they're starting from square one.
I don't want to speak on anybody else's behalf. Certainly not Bob Bigelow or anybody else.
And that's probably one thing you'll notice during interviews. I never speak for anybody else.
And I don't offer my opinion very often because that opinion could be wrong. I'd rather stick to the facts.
But there could be one of two things. Let's look at the full spectrum of why.
It could be that maybe Bob says, look, I don't want to predicate the science. I don't want to prejudice, forgive me, I don't want to prejudice the science with predicated information, meaning here's access to all my data and you take it from there.
Start from scratch so we have a fresh set of eyes on it and remain objective. Maybe that's why.
Or it could be, hey, you know what? I paid a lot of money and put a lot of time into this. I consider this information proprietary.

And, you know, you're going to have to figure this out yourself.

Maybe that's why.

Or maybe, I don't know, maybe because there was some government involvement,

maybe he can't.

Maybe he's like, look, it's proprietary to the U.S. All this information we did is proprietary to the U.S.
government.

I can't release it without the U.S. government's approval.

I mean, those are just some of the what ifs.

I don't know why. I've never had a chance to ask Mr.
Fugel that question directly. But I do know Bob Bigelow, and I don't think he'd ever do anything just out of spite or to be mean.
I'm sure he had a very good reason. He's always very calculated.
I'm sure he had a very good reason for that. The second half of basketball season is here, and the race to the playoffs is heating up on PrizePix.
With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePix has made daily fantasy sports more accessible than ever. It's simple.
Get the app, pick two or more players across any sport, pick more or less

on their projection, and you could win up to 1,000 times your money. Don't miss your chance to cash in as the league's best fight for playoff positioning.
Join PrizePix, America's number one daily fantasy sports app available to play in more than 40 plus states, including California in Texas. Download the Price Pix app today and use code SRS to get $50 in bonus promo funds instantly when you play $5.
That's code SRS on PrizePix to get $50 in bonus promo funds instantly when you play $5. Win or lose, you'll get $50 bonus credit just for playing, guaranteed.

PrizePix, run your game.

Must be present in certain states.

Visit prizepix.com for restrictions and details. If you're like me, the answer is never.
There's a growing real estate scam targeting American homeowners and their home equity.

Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee, and file with your county.

Boom. Your home title has been transferred out of your name.

Then they take out loans using your equity or even sell your property.

You won't even know it's happened until you get a collection or a foreclosure notice.

Stop what you're doing and find out today if you're already a victim.

You're not going to be a good one. or even sell your property.
You won't even know it's happened until you get a collection or a foreclosure notice. Stop what you're doing and find out today if you're already a victim.
Use promo code SRS at hometitlelock.com and you'll get a free title history report to find out if your title is still in your name. When you sign up, you'll also receive a free 14-day trial of their million-dollar triple lock protection.
That's immediate 24-7 monitoring of your property's title, urgent alerts if there are ever any changes, and if fraud should happen, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix the fraud and restore your title at no additional cost. Your satisfaction is guaranteed, and you can cancel at any time.
Get peace of mind now at HomeTitleLock.com, promo code SRS, or click the link in the description. So in your experience, are the things that they were experiencing, are they very similar? Well, compared to Brandon Fugel, who's doing now, I think there's some overlap, but again, I'm not

really tracking now currently the skin

walker stuff. That's another group of

folks. It's not that I'm not interested.

I just don't have the bandwidth.

I'm simply, as I tell

people, I am dancing as fast as I can.

I cannot turn the tempo up anymore.

As fast as these legs will move.

So to spend my time and energy now on yet another portfolio, I just simply, I'd have to clone myself. Yeah, yeah.
Well, Lou, we have a Patreon account. They're a subscription account.
They're our top supporters. Good for you.
And they've been here with us since the beginning. Fantastic.
It's growing. It's a community now.

And I wouldn't be sitting here without them, and neither would you be.

Great. One thing I offer them is to ask each and every guest a question that comes on the show.
Absolutely. This one is from Jake Gillian.
Given your unique insight into the UAP phenomena and its potential implications for humanity, what do you believe is the single most critical piece of information the public should understand about UAPs right now? And why do you think this information has been withheld for so long? Wow, wow. Jake, great, great question.
So let me see if I can deconstruct this a little bit. What is the one single aspect about the UAP topic that should be...
That the public should understand about UAPs right now. Right, the public should understand and should be revealed now and understand its implications and the importance of it.
Wow. There's not just one.
Let me see if I can break this down for Jake. there are fundamental reasons

why you classify information by law, by law, and then later on policy as well. Usually it's to protect two things called sources and methods.
And then sometimes you can use it to protect some other things we won't go into here. But those are the primary reasons.
What you can't do is classify information to cover up malfeasance or illegal activities or something that might be embarrassing to the United States. You can't do it.
It is against, we used to do it as a nation and finally Congress stepped in after all these nasty little things that we were doing like the syphilis experiments, for example, or the CIA and the LSD experiments. We did some pretty nasty things.
So Congress stepped in and said, no, Moss, if you're going to classify information, these are the reasons why you classify information. And if you do it for any other reasons, you're wrong.
I don't believe that any organization, any institution, any government, any religion has the right to classify information that should be universally provided to all the people of the world and all the citizens. Now, what do I mean by that? Galileo Galilei when he first proposed

looked through his telescope

and first proposed

the heliocentric model

for our solar system, was met with so much resistance that the church almost burned him alive on the stake. And he had to recant and say, no, I was wrong.
In fact, they even refused to look through the very telescope to prove his observations. Now we look back and we say, well, that's silly.
Why would anybody care that the sun is the center of our solar system and not Earth, right? Well, at the time, that information was thought to be very threatening to the Judeo-Christian belief system and the institutions at the time, primarily the church. So they, you know, in essence, they tried to classify that idea.
Don't tell the world that, because this goes against what we've been telling people. And I don't think, you know, we look back, hindsight being 20-20, we realize that was dumb.
Why would you ever do that? Why would you stop somebody from telling the truth? I think this topic is very much the same thing. Look, we tell everybody in modern terms every day that North Korea has atomic capabilities and that's not classified.
The fact that the Earth is not the center of the solar system is not classified. Now, what is classified is the fact that maybe North Korea, how those atomic weapons are delivered and their flight characteristics and their targets, gotcha.
And you want to keep that classified. But the fact that North Korea has atomic weapons is not a classifiable fact.
Just like we're not alone in the cosmos. These things are here.
It's becoming the worst kept secret. It's now a liability.
There are two fundamental philosophies about secrets. Some people believe secrets are like fine wine.
And the longer you keep a cork on it, the better it gets, the longer it ages. I disagree with that.
I've told people all along since day one, secrets are perishable. They have a shelf life.
They're like vegetables in your refrigerator. And if you leave them in there too long, they're going to rot and they're going to stink.
And then you've got a really big mess on your hands. So if you allow a secret to go on longer than what's necessary,

it actually will start working as a liability against you. And ultimately, we've seen with

the JFK files, it will start to erode the faith and confidence and public trust in the very

institution that secret was there to try to protect. This is no different with the UAP topic.

It is so obvious at this point, and our adversaries know it's real too, to keep the mere fact of the existence of UAP from the public knowledge, I think is a disservice. I don't think any organization, like I said, or government has a right to keep that fundamental truth away from the American people.
That's not their business to do that. Now, if you want to say, well, how these things actually work, because we obviously don't want North Korea or some rogue nation having that capability to hurt us, I got you.
But to deny the existence of it, I think that's counterproductive. I think it actually works against trying to reinforce and instill faith and confidence in our government.
I don't think that's the way to do it. I think ultimately, at the end of the day, everything is going to come out anyways, just like we see with the JFK files.
There's an old saying from Bob Marley, you can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time. And I think that's where we're at.
I think we now have to, we have to reconcile and come back to the table and say, yeah, it turns out, you know, we've been investigating these things for a long time, even though we haven't told you, or maybe we didn't tell Congress and we didn't even tell presidents, certain presidents, what we were doing. Now, is that a problem? Yes.
But we can figure that out. We can get over that hill.
What we can't do is afford to erode any more faith and confidence. The faith and confidence right now in our government at least was at an all-time low.
Most people do not trust their government. That's a problem in a democracy.
That's a very— I'm one of them. Hey, brother, we both served our, you know, Uncle Sam.
I got you. And sometimes, you know, if you really love something or love someone, you have to tell them what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.
And this is a case, I think, this is why I'm having this conversation. The government needs to hear, look, it's time for you to be honest with the American people.
I know what I was part of. My colleagues know what they were part of.
We know what we've seen, and so do the pilots, and so do the radar operators, and so do the special operators, and so do the CIA personnel. Cat's out of the bag, guys.
Cat is out of the bag. So back to the question here, what is the one thing that should be revealed? The fact that we are alone in the cosmos in our in our in our 200 000 years of existence as modern homo sapien sapien as a species and only really been the last hundred years we had the technology to even begin to explore our cosmos is it possible for our search for intelligent life that in all that time earth being four and a half billion years old approximately that that intelligent life found us first yeah statistically yeah and then when you look at the evidence suggesting that and reinforcing that look someone is flying these things around they are intelligently controlled they can outperform anything that we have so So who's behind it? That's fine if you don't want to consider that option.
It's either Russian, Chinese, or ours. And it's not ours.
We've already said it's not ours. We don't have that capability.
And we damn sure hope it's not Russian or Chinese because then we're really screwed. And oh, by the way, we've been dealing with this topic now for the last, what, 70-some years? Can you imagine? Look, when these things, Foo Fighters, we talked a little bit about Senator Ted Stevens and Allied pilots seeing these Foo Fighters during World War II.
Let me ask you a question, Sean. Right on the heels of World War II, we had this rash of flying saucers being seen and UFOs that were, in some cases, radar returns in the early 50s doing 10,000 to 13,000 miles an hour.
Where were we? Well, we had just come out of World War II. We became the world's premier superpower.
We had barely broken the sound barrier, and we hadn't been into space, and we were transitioning from propeller to jet, to the jet age these things forget about 13,000 miles an hour we could barely break Mach 1 right who had that capability at the time if we didn't well, where was Russia they were just entering the atomic age themselves China, they're in the middle of a famine, right? So there's no one who had that capability. I always use this analogy.
That would be like going back into the 40s. That would be like going into King Tut's tomb for the very first time.
And as you're breaking down the rock wall and peering into the vault, all of a sudden seeing a fully assembled 747 jet sitting in the tomb. Temporally, it doesn't make sense.
The Egyptians did not have that technology. So what is that aircraft doing in that tomb? It doesn't make sense.
So, you know, there's the adage, in the face, there's two types of people in the world. In the face of new information, you can change your opinion based upon new facts or, like some people, reject the facts and stick with your own narrative because it's more comfortable and convenient.
I think it's probably smarter and wiser in the face of new facts, we need to recalculate our thinking. And that's why I think back to this question here, it's important that the people know that the U.S.
government has been spending your taxpayer dollars, a lot of it, trying to research these things that are very real. You don't spend millions and millions of dollars and billions of dollars on a wild goose chase.
You don't do it. And hiding black budgets and things.
You do it because something's real and legit. And I think that's where we are.
Certainly my experience in the Pentagon and the intelligence community, this is substantiated. Well, I mean, I think a lot of people think maybe the Germans had some higher technology.
Well, they did, though. Well, they certainly did.
We know that, right? They had the German Wunderwaffe program, Wonder Weapon program, had the Messerschmitt, the ME, what was it?

108 ME, the first jet

airplane, really, that was the Germans

that came up with it. The V1 rocket,

the V2 rocket, the buzz bombs,

and the long-range rockets.

Those were all German technologies.

In fact, with Operation Paperclip, when World War II

ended, what did we do? We stole it all and brought

it here. Werner von Braun

and the Saturn V rocket, that was just, I hate to say it, but that was a glorified V2 rocket, you know? So, yes, the Germans did. And then they had these other very interesting programs, you know, not too dissimilar to what the Pentagon had.
They had, the Nazis had something called the Ananerva, which really looked at some kind of far out stuff. Now, some people will look and say, oh, it was nothing but cult and witchcraft.
Okay, but there was enough there, there, enough data to suggest that whatever they were doing worked or could help them with the war effort. So they invested a lot of time and money into that.
And that's not just, you know, I'm mentioning this because you said Germans, but other countries did the same thing. There's other countries that were always looking for that strategic advantage.
What would it take for me to have a decisive advantage on the battlefield, in the battle space? So people say, well, why would they spend? But look, our country did. But one of my colleagues, Hal Putoff, the godfather of the US government, the CIA's psychic espionage program.
That's right. I just said psychic espionage program.
Your tax dollars paid for programs like Stargate and Grill Flame before that and various other names before that. Why? Because there was some information to suggest that it worked.
And oh, by the way, the Russians were doing the same thing. You know, so people look at things

and say, well, that's silly.

That would never work.

And it turns out that sometimes

it does work.

Look at the Navy SOSA,

your Navy guy,

the Navy SOSA's program

back in the 50s.

Who would have ever thought,

well, I can just drop

some microphones in the ocean

and maybe I can listen

to Russian submarines.

It worked, right?

So is it really that?

Is it pseudoscience? Well, it's pseudoscience until it works. Now it's just science.
I mean, I also think that maybe as Americans, we're a little arrogant thinking that we, you know, that nobody else could have this kind of technology because we're so advanced. And, you know, maybe somebody else has it, and they're just not revealing it because they don't want to play the fucking world police.
We get ourselves involved in everything. Why would you want to tell somebody, look, we're in this wonderful room here, but if you're like me and sometimes paranoid, I've always had contingencies.
I have contingencies for contingencies. If you were a country that had some super secret technology, would you want to advertise the world that you have it? Well, it's kind of what I'm getting at.
Right. So it is possible.
We think we're the smartest. Right.
But this is why I say temporally, I think now you're right, because we know that near-peer adversaries are absolutely ahead of us in certain areas. I won't say what they are, but we know that, and it's a problem for us.

But if you go back to the end of World War II,

we're really-

Who are some?

Who are some that are-

I can't say that.

I don't want to, you know,

I want to let our folks in government do their job,

and they don't need me spewing out vulnerabilities

that we might have where other countries are ahead of us.

But, you know, quantum computing, for example, for example, certain type of capabilities may be in space. We have to maintain that competitive advantage.
But again, let's go back to what we originally said here. If you look at this from a temporal perspective, time perspective, at the end of World War II, we really were the only world superpower at the time.
We had dropped the atomic bomb and decisively ended World War II.

What was referred to as the greatest generation then began to invest in the United States

and became the world superpower, a dominant power.

There was no real near peer other than the Russians at the time.

And they were still nowhere near what we were able to do.

So I can buy now if you say that there is a foreign adversary that has this capability. Okay, I doubt, but maybe, but not 70 years ago.
And let's look at this because Marco Rubio, the new Secretary of State, when he was Senator, said something very interesting. He said, you know, I almost hope that these things are not human because if they're human, that's almost more scary who's created this technology.
And I think he's absolutely correct. To put this into perspective, we spend billions, with a B, billions of dollars each year to maintain a strategic advantage from an intelligence perspective, all 17 agencies of the intelligence community, to know more than our enemies.
Now imagine if there was a country that had the ability to develop a technology and deploy this technology that could come into our country completely unimpeded, unchallenged, unseen, be able to do whatever we wanted to do, collect ISR on our military equities, and interfere with our nuclear strategic capabilities, turn them off, right? And then go back home, no sweat, and nobody would ever know. That would be, and by the way, have been in development for the last 70 years on this technology, that would be the greatest intelligence failure this country has ever experienced, eclipsing that of even 9-11.

Because despite the billions of dollars that we invest, there wasn't a single indication or shred of information over seven years that some country had managed to develop this technology. Think of the resources and infrastructure required to develop and deploy a technology like that.
And you didn't get one shred of evidence in 70 years that country X was doing that. So choose your poison.
It's either someone else's or it's foreign adversarial. If it's foreign adversarial, you need to fire every single person right now in national security and start from scratch.
And you better not provoke a war because we're going to lose. So that's the other part of that argument.
If you say, okay, maybe some country did develop this in secret. Okay, well, how? When? Where? Right? Under what circumstances? And now China, you mean to tell me it's going to be so brazen in 2004 to fly this right off the coast of California and oh, by the way, tangled with two F-18 Hornets? That doesn't seem very smart.
That's certainly not where I test my secret stuff. We test our secret stuff at Area 51 of these places out of the prying eyes of people to see it.
Now, maybe it's some sort of red force probe, right? Some provocation to see our response. Sure, but there's also counter arguments to that as well.
So it simply doesn't make sense from a time perspective that some country had this technology 70 years ago. Now, sure, maybe.
I doubt it, but I would buy that more. That, okay, yeah, China, Russia in the last five years has been able to develop this.
Not bad. Look, 2004, how many people had quadcopters? Drones didn't even really exist in 2004.
You had these fixed wing remote control airplanes that you threw in combat maybe for 15 minutes to get a sight picture on something. What type of drones did we have? I mean, when I was in the Army, right before 2001, we were dealing with model airplanes, Hunter UAVs, Pioneer UAVs.
I mean, it could be us just not revealing it too because if we are that technologically advanced, then there's not really any money in that. I think we both know that a lot of these, the wars that we were in has to do a lot with KBR, with the military industrial complex.
I'm going to hold my comments to myself. So for that advanced, and I mean and we can end things that quickly, there's not really a lot of money in that, so they have to develop all this other shit that's advanced, but it's not really that advanced, so that we can spend all our fucking money developing all this shit that's not at the top, because if we just went straight to the top, then it just ends immediately.
Well, I think it's certainly a possibility. You're right, Sean.
It is something we have to consider. But again, I go back to how is the...
Nobody talks about that. No, you're right.
How is the... Well, because that gets into a very uncomfortable part of the conversation.
But it's fucking real. Oh, I don't disagree.
It's real. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But, you know, that can, that, I'm not disagreeing. But if you look at Blue Force capabilities and how we test Blue Force capabilities, especially sensitive capabilities.
What do you mean Blue Force capabilities? U.S. capabilities, good question, U.S.
capabilities. So if you look at the way we test new types of capabilities, right, for our military, for intelligence, we do it in places out of the prying eyes of eyewitnesses.
We do it in a place where it's going to be safe and I don't have to worry about a potential mid-air collision, right? I'm not going to test this capability without letting, let's say, the fleet commander know that, hey, while you're out there in that range, I'm going to be testing my stuff there and see how you react. You don't do that because you could have mid-air collisions, flight safety issues.
I mean, that's why you have a joint staff to coordinate these type of things and say, look, I'm going to do an exercise. And if I want to test a new capability, I'm going to do an Area 51.
I'm going to do it out of the prying eyes of anybody in a place that's safe. And oh, by the way, if it crashes, I don't have to have a recovery issue on my hands, right?

Where is he going to see?

And I have a big profile.

So I don't, and we've already said for the record, and certainly when I was in the government,

we looked at Blue Forest capabilities.

We've got some pretty cool stuff.

I'll tell you that.

I mean, even Area 51, though, it's not, you're talking right after World War II, objects going 13,000 miles.

In low Earth atmosphere. That's not, Area 51 isn't big enough to conceal.
No, that's my point. That's exactly my point.
If you're going to test a capability like that, you'll go to Antarctica if you really have to, right? Or you're going to drop it from the bottom of B-52 at an altitude of 60,000 feet and test what you've got to test, which, by the way, you've done. The X-15 is a perfect example.

But we do it in a way that is, it's safe and out of the prying eyes of people that are not read onto the program.

You don't test it right off the coast of California in the middle of a fleet exercise

with an aircraft carrier, dozens of destroyers and support vehicles and submarines and F-18s.

You don't do that.

That's not how you conduct a classified program because too many people see it.

So I think there's an argument there to be made that, you know,

obviously I would rather this technology be ours than Russian or Chinese,

but I think we're pretty clear now as a government it's not our technology.

And our government has already said for the record, very senior people, this is not our technology. So if it's not ours, it's somebody's.
Whose is it? What's the X-15? X-15 is a rocket powered aircraft. So right on the heels of the supersonic H, we had just, I think it was the X-1, was the experimental aircraft that Chuck Yeager used to break the sound barrier for the first time.
Roughly 763 miles an hour at sea level, plus or minus. The X-15 was a hypersonic vehicle that was to take people into space, believe it or not.
In fact, pilots have astronaut wings. It is a, think of a little, a long skinny pencil with stubby wings on it.
It doesn't even have landing gear. It has skids.
And it's dropped from the wing of a B-52 at high altitude and then accelerates up to hypersonic speeds and goes to the upper limits of our atmosphere and into a low Earth orbit. In fact, if you look at that platform, the X-15,

not only does it have wings and control surfaces,

but because it flies so high, it has to have thrusters.

It's just like a rocket, just like a space shuttle.

And that was really, when you look at how we were testing,

I think there were only six of those ever built.

They started off with twin 500,000 horsepower engines.

Then they switched it to a general electric 1 million horsepower engine. And in fact, there was even a death associated with the X-15 because apparently it had an issue with telemetry.
And it flew so high that when it was coming back down to earth, it burned up. It didn't re-enter properly.
And unfortunately, the test pilot was killed. But the X-15 was really our first early attempt, and you're talking maybe 4,000 miles an hour.
So Mach 5 is hypersonics. The definition of Mach 3 is supersonic, which is the speed of sound, faster than the speed of sound, roughly 760-some miles an hour at sea level.
Mach 5 is defined as five times the speed of sound. So five times that speed.
So the X-15 was one of those preliminary early efforts to get into the area of hypersonics. It was manned.
And so the X-15 was, and so when you compare that to objects that are doing 10,000, 13,000 miles an hour, and we had barely broken 4,000 miles an hour with the X-15, again, who had that technology?

And more importantly, who had that technology to deploy it over the United States?

Because we were seeing these things, and they were being reported over and over again since

the late 1940s.

There's a very interesting document, Sean, I'll share with you, that really, I think, emphasizes,

and later on in the interview,

if you want me to read it to you, I will,

there's a very interesting document

and the date of that document

that really is, I think, rather profound

and really demonstrates that we're not dealing

with our technology or foreign adversarial technology.

Let's read it right now.

That way we don't forget.

Actually, you know what? It's on my phone and I don't have my phone here. Let's take a break.
Part of the reason I do what I do is for my family. I want to leave them a better country than the one I was born into.
I also want to make sure they're taken care of financially. And that's why I make it a priority to help protect the money I've worked so hard to earn and save.
And one of the ways I do that is by diversifying into gold and silver. Precious metals have been a store of value for thousands of years and they are known as a hedge against market risk and inflation.
If you're interested in learning about how precious metals can help you, you should reach out to my partners at Gold Co. They're an amazing company.
They support this show, and I trust them. Right now, they're offering a free gold and silver kit.
All you have to do is go to seanlikesgold.com. You'll also learn about a special offer to get up to a 10% instant match and bonus silver for qualified orders.
So go to seanlikesgold.com. That's seanlikesgold.com.
S-H-A-W-N likesgold.com. Make sure you do everything in your power to help protect what's yours.
I'm always looking for ways to make sure I feel comfortable in what I wear through the whole day. That's even more important when the weather is changing from winter to spring, and True Classic helps make it easy.
Their active wear is moisture wicking and quick drying. And for spring, they have short-sleeve comfort knit button-ups that look as good at the gym as they do in meetings.
True Classic makes premium clothes at an affordable price with shirts designed for your best features with a perfect fit. Their best-selling t-shirts and more come in three, six, and nine packs.
The more you bundle, the more you save. Plus, you get free shipping on all orders, a 100% perfect fit guarantee, and easy returns so there's no risk.
Whether you're bundling up for the cold or getting ready for spring, level up your style with the clothes that actually fit right. Just go to my exclusive link at trueclassic.com slash SRS to save.
That's trueclassic.com slash SRS. Shop now and elevate your wardrobe today.
So I think, Sean, you'd be really surprised to know that there's documentation, historical documentation that substantiates what we've been dealing with, and we've been dealing with it for quite a while. So if I have your permission, I'd like to read something out loud.
Yeah, let's do it. Let's do it.
You have to forgive me. I need my old man glasses because I am old.
This is gray, not blonde. I'm an old timer.
I'm also a lot slower than I used to be. Tell me about it.
Yeah.

I got my kid a trampoline.

Trying to burn some energy off.

I got on there thinking like, oh, yeah, this will be great.

It's terrifying, isn't it?

And dislocated my shoulder again.

Exactly.

I'm like, oh, I don't remember.

I don't remember this happening. I can't be flips anymore like I used to.

So I'd like to read to you just briefly a very, it's a two-page official document. And it's the, when you look at the letterhead, it's Headquarters, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C.
With another header, the Inspector General, U.S. Air Force, I think it's 17th District Office of Special Investigations.

Is this the, before you read, is this the one you were telling me downstairs that hasn't been released to the public yet?

It has, well, people, a lot of people don't know about it.

It has been officially released and downgraded from its classified original form.

Okay.

Through the Freedom of Information Act.

But it's been lost to a lot of people.

A lot of people don't even know where it exists, and I've got a whole bunch of these. But let me just read you one, if I can, to kind of emphasize what I'm saying.
The subject of this memorandum, basically from the Pentagon, right? Summary of operations of aerial phenomenon in the New Mexico area. And I'm not going to tell you the date yet.
In the first paragraph, it was determined that the frequency of unexplained aerial phenomenon in the New Mexico area was such that an organized plan of reporting these observations should be undertaken, right? So they're seeing so many of these, they need to start an investigation. The observers of those phenomena include scientists, special agents of the Office of Special Investigations, Air Force OSI, airline pilots, so civilian pilots, military pilots, Los Alamos security inspectors, military personnel, and many other persons of various occupations whose reliability is not questioned.
So these are the best of the best people of security clearances and whatnot, trained observers. And they talk about some of the morphology of these phenomena to include disks or variations thereof.
And so in the conclusion sentence, which is paragraph six, this summary of observations of aerial phenomenon has been prepared for the purposes of re-emphasizing, so obviously they wrote reports before this one, and reiterating the fact that phenomenon have continuously occurred in the New Mexico skies during the past 18 months and are continuing to occur.

And secondly, that these phenomenon are occurring in the vicinity of sensitive military and government installations. Interesting.
Now, what's the date of this report? 25 May 1950. That's from 1950? It is from 1950.

And there are a treasure trove of these things that anybody can look at now and see.

And this is not World According to Lou Elizondo.

I'm not telling you this.

Your government's telling you this.

Not me.

The same government that later on told people, oh, nothing to see here, folks.

In secret, they're saying there's a lot of things to see here, folks, and we've got to pay attention.

Yeah. Yeah.
folks. In secret, they're saying, there's a lot of things to see here, folks, and we've got to pay attention.
So, therein lies the conundrum. I wish we had recordings of people's reactions instead of these fucking typed up reports that have to sound...
Well, you can see in that last paragraph where it says the purpose of this is to re-emphasize and restate, right? So you can sense the frustration that action isn't being done. There's CIA documents that talk about how we're going to go ahead and collect information on these things.
There's radar reports, track reports, multiple radar systems, tracking these things between 13,000 miles an hour in a low-earth atmosphere environment where the friction of air is. So put it this way, the Lockheed YF-12A SR-71 Blackbird, when that thing is doing about 3,200 miles an hour, the entire aircraft had to be made out of titanium to keep the plane from melting because it gets so hot because it's flying at that speed.
And in fact, the coolest part of that engine on the SR-71, they played it in gold, is 800 degrees Fahrenheit.

That's the heat you're talking about.

Now, that's at 3,400 miles an hour.

Imagine 13,000 miles an hour.

And by the way, no signature.

No sonic boom, no acoustic signature, no contrail like you see with a jet plane when you're flying at 33,000 feet, no signature at all. I got a question for you.
Totally off. You know, I was just thinking about the recording stuff and you've obviously been involved with a lot of the stuff.
I know you can't talk about everything, but why is it always these fucking reports that have been, you know, I mean, what about the initial interview? You know, somebody goes out there and does the initial fucking interview. Why don't we have, where are those recordings? Exactly.
Rather than some bullshit, you know, typed up thing. Hey, this came from the interviewer.
They got passed to the analyst. They got passed to whoever reports to the whoever.
You whoever. Where are those initial recordings? Are they recorded? Well, sometimes.
Sometimes they're auto recordings. Sometimes they're written reports.
So in this particular case, as you probably already know. That would be the most descriptive account.
Right. Well, from one person.
Keep in mind, when you want to get all the different perspectives, right? So the idea of a report like this isn't to just give you one compelling story. It's to take all those reports that you're getting from various different, remember, pilots, OSI agents, military personnel, right? It's in the report.
So obviously there's a lot of people reporting these things. And so this type of report is really an amalgamation of all those reports to send up to headquarters.
What you don't typically do, and I can tell you this as a former special agent myself, in the field when you're taking notes and you're writing reports, you understand that the report that you're writing isn't necessarily the one that's going to go to headquarters. The one that's going to go to headquarters is usually by the senior person who's taking all the reports and creates a comprehensive single report and says, this is what we're doing.
So that two-page memorandum that I just read portions of, there's probably hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages that are used to substantiate that one report. So where are those documents? Well, they're usually in the hands of the investigative agency.
So, for example, whether it's Army or the Air Force OSI, Army Counterintelligence, Air Force OSI, or Navy NCIS, right? They don't typically share those reports because some of them are what they call law enforcement sensitive. Some of them are intelligence sensitive.
And a lot of them are very, very classified because you're talking to people in key positions who have key jobs. Maybe they're working on special access programs.
So you've got to compartmentalize that information. And then in order to distribute that information up to the highest level, you've got to start whittling away some of the more sensitive information.
Say, here's the salient facts. Here you go.
It's just like when you go to court. I mean, I'm aware of that because of what I used to do.
But what I'm asking is, where do those go? Most of them, I think that old are probably gone. They're supposed to be archived.
I can tell you when I, and this is, you know, God, I can't believe I'm going to say this is one of my greatest disappointments in myself, professionally speaking. So when I was a younger agent, one of my jobs was to go to a particular military base where they had all the old archives of classified reports back to Korean War, Vietnam.
And there was this huge archive in the basement of a particular office on Fort Meade, I won't say where it is, where the army and some other elements kept all their old historical reports, intelligence reports, talking to sources. It became so big and so cumbersome that there was

an effort to try to digitize all of that. It couldn't be done, and this was in the day and age where we didn't really have very good technology.
Everything had to be hand jammed into a machine and scan them, cataloged, and blah, blah, blah, blah. So very labor intensive.
So the army decided, okay, anything over 25 years old, unless it's obvious we need to keep it, we want you to shred it. And so one of my jobs was to go in to this place, into this huge room, and go through file after file after file and shred stuff.
And now we look back and say, wait a minute, that could be considered evidence. You're right.
But that was what we were told to do. And it wasn't that they were trying to cover their butts.
It's just too much. You have room after room after room of file cabinet after file cabinet of classified information that's 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 years old.
Try what the FBI's doing right now before cash gets up. God, I hope not.
I hope that they're not doing that. But that's what was going on.
So I suspect a lot of this may have just been lost. A lot of it may have been chewed up, burned up over the years, shredded.
You have people that come and go, they put something in a safe, a five-drawer security container with an XO10 lock on it. Someone forgets a combination.
They drill it out. Oh, there's some documents here.
Go ahead and shred the documents. These are from 25 years ago.
Nobody cares. They don't even bother to look at it.
Some of it

just may be

that incompetence. Maybe some of it

is not

pretty sure a lot of it's not

deliberate. People just don't know what the hell they're looking at.

They see a project code name, Blue Phoenix.

Okay, so I don't know what that is.

Obviously, it's not that important. It's 35

years old. Shred it.

I mean, you're an investigative

guy, right? Well,

they said I used to be. I don't know if I could

Thank you. Obviously, it's not that important.
It's 35 years old. Shred it.
I mean, you're an investigative guy, right?

Well, they said I used to be.

I don't know if I could.

So you had mentioned ancient Egypt earlier, and it was just an analogy. You know, what if we went in there and there was a 747 in one of the fucking pyramids? Look, a lot of people think that the Egyptians, the ancient whatever the tribe was, or the Peruvians, all these places, Easter Island had some kind of, that they were way more advanced than what they've been made out to be.
I mean, they still can't explain how the pyramids were made. They got these underground caves that, you know,

Graham Hancock kind made out to be. I mean, they still can't explain how the pyramids were made.

They got these underground caves that Graham Hancock kind of brought to life.

I think they're in Turkey.

It's like entire cities underground.

I mean, is anybody looking back at that and trying to piece any of this stuff together?

Great question.

I think there's a lot of people on the outside of the government

that certainly are.

They see... Nobody within.
Well, let me get to that. I think there's a lot of people on the outside of the government that certainly are.

Nobody within.

Well, let me get to that. I can't say that.
There's a lot of people trying to find congruencies. Can we see things in the old world and make some sort of analysis based upon what we know now and make, compare, and contrast capabilities? I can tell you when I was in ATIP program, several of us spent a good deal of our time looking at ancient script of human beings, whether it's ancient Sumerian and cuneiform or hieroglyphics or runes and looking at a lot of different things because several of the UAP that we were investigating were reported to have some sort of writing on the outside.
Now, that's very significant. Writing, runes, some sort of symbols.
And so the idea was, is there a way to decipher these by looking at ancient human writing and see if there was any overlap? Was there ever a time where maybe some of that ancient script that we have was actually influenced by an external source? Meaning someone saw something in the sky that landed and it had these writing on and therefore that inspired for them to write stuff, right? Are there any stories like that? Are there any cave paintings that maybe ancient humans came into contact with something? And if you look at the indigenous people here in the United States, they talk about the ant people, right? And some of their Genesis stories talks about things from out of there. And same with the Aboriginal people in Australia, some even in Africa.
A lot of them have very similar type Genesis stories. So one of our efforts in ATIP was to look at ancient human texts in all various forms to see if there was any correlation.
Now, interestingly enough, what the scientists that I was working with came up with, which now looking back seems obvious, but it wasn't obvious at the time, the mere fact that there is writing on some of these vehicles, whatever they are, can allow you to formulate several conclusions. One is, let me ask you, Sean, what do we use as humans? What is writing for? What do we use writing to do? Communication, documentation.
Nonverbal communication, right? A thought, an idea, an order, something. I'm going to give you an order.
Write it down, right? I'm going to tell you something. I'm going to write it down in a document and give it to you.
It's indelible. It's there always.
What do we use? What are we communicating? Well, it depends. Sometimes we're communicating, you know, like if you go to a Jeep Jamboree and you see a sign that says, if you can read this, flip me over.
I've turned over, right? Or if you can read this, something went wrong, call home. Or it could mean something else.
But it also means that whoever is using the writing, that human eyes, the way we look at eyes and the electro-optical spectrum, the way we look at data, whether it's a magazine or a report or whatever it might be, dictionary or Bible, you have to have eyes. That's why blind people use Braille, because they can't see.
They can't read. So whoever wrote that, A, is smart enough to know that they want to communicate a message, and two, that whoever is going to read it has to have eyes of some sort, some sort of eye that can differentiate and actually see that and then interpret that as an actual message.
And so that's a huge deal, because that's fundamental. You're talking about a higher about a higher functioning brain because there is no animal right now on earth other than humans that use

writing to communicate information and knowledge, right? So that's a distinctly human thing.

That's a very high brain functioning thing, or at least for most people,

high functioning brain capability. And then it also means that whoever's reading it,

the audience has to have eyes. So two fundamental things, whatever is behind these things,

Thank you. brain capability.
And then it also means that whoever's reading it, the audience has to have eyes. So two fundamental things, whatever is behind these things, they have eyes of some sort, some way to visually see something, recognize it, and interpret that information, and that they have a higher functioning part of the brain that can take those symbols, and those symbols have a meaning.
And so that was kind of a pretty big moment for us in ATIP because we realized, hey, there's maybe a lot more similarity here than we think, right? There's some things that we share with something that seem to be only humans can do, and now it turns out that maybe something else can do too, or something else can do too. So, we do look at ancient.
I know your question is more like about ancient technology and capabilities. Not necessarily.
I mean, there's even that other, I can't, man, I'm going to butcher her last name. Diana.
Pasulka. Yes, Pasulka.
Yeah. Just interviewed her not long ago.
We haven't released it yet, but, I mean, she talks about a lot of the stuff, you know, within the Vatican and some of the, you know, I mean. I've seen some of it.
Yeah, legit. I had a senior academic share some information with me.
And it was in Latin, and it was a communication over 2,000 years old between a Roman soldier and a Roman general. And the Roman shield at the time they called Eclipus.
Eclipus in Latin means like eclipse, the sun, because it's shaped like the sun. And they discussed there how these flaming Roman shields in the sky were following them from battle space to battle space, right? Saucers, lenticular objects.
So think about that for a minute. Going back to your point about ancient Egypt, look, you're absolutely correct.

There's ancient knowledge that we don't know how it was done.

Look, Baghdad battery.

What the hell in Iraq were they building ancient batteries for?

But that's exactly what it was.

What do you mean ancient batteries?

I don't know about that. Oh, yeah.

Yeah, using copper and stoneware filled with a solution, probably orange juice, they were creating electric currents. You can look it up on phone.
You look it on your computer. It's called the Baghdad Battery.
This is before electricity supposedly was invented, before we ever discovered something called the electromagnetic spectrum, an electron. And millennia ago, they were using it for something.
They were creating electricity. It's called the Baghdad Battery.
That's a fact, right? You can go, I just came back from England. And in the museum there, the British Museum, there's an entire Sumerian art collection there.
And there's a wall. And I have pictures of it that depicts ancient Sumerian warriors doing what? Being frogmen, scuba diving underwater.
They had this sack that they would hold. And there's actually depictions of these people swimming underwater, breathing with these sacks.
So, you know, it's easy to look back and say, oh, the ancient people that were basic. But can you build a pyramid? I can't.
I mean, how much resources would it take now to build a pyramid? Yeah, you can go to Las Vegas and see one that kind of looks like one, but it's not a pyramid. You're talking millions of stones placed in an exact position, cut precisely, with tooling that even to this day we have a hard time replicating.
With all the tunnels inside of it. With all the tunnels inside of that.
Look at some of the H blocks down in Latin America, South America, in Pumapunku. There is an ancient technology.
Go to Greece and at the base of the Parthenon you'll see these huge, huge, huge stones that even today we're not quite sure even some of our largest cranes would have that capability. The infrastructure required is enormous and there's other places around the world that are just like that.
So, you know, we can turn around and say, oh, ancient societies, they were primitive. Well, you know, don't be so quick.
You know, I'll give you another case in point. There was a discovery done, talking about Egypt, about ancient mummies, where they found traces of what in their bodies? Cocaine.
Now, cocaine doesn't grow on that continent. It only grew in South America, the coca leaf, right? How in the hell are coca leaf and the derivative of, the processing of, to create cocaine found in some mummies thousands of years

ago in Egypt.

So you're saying these ancient mummies were

partying with cocaine?

Careful.

I don't know they were partying

with it, but anyways, but poison, whether it was used for medicinal

purposes or whatnot, but yes.

So that is a fact. You can

see it. They pulled the traces up.

How did that happen if these ancient trade routes didn't exist, right? There was no crossing the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean. So there's a lot of mystery with our ancients and our ancestors that, you know, I think it's foolhardy for us to just be dismissive and say, oh, they were primitive.
They were savages. No, they weren't.
Look at what the Aztecs were able to do with a calendar and predict even lunar cycles and to include eclipses. I couldn't do that now, but yet they were able to do it.
So I am not as dismissive, and this is why going back to ATIP and looking for UFOs, it was important for us to see if there was any context in which we could see any similarity, any inspiration that might have existed between ancient man and perhaps something else. So there is government officials that are looking back at this stuff.
I'm pretty sure there still are. I don't know if, I know we did.
I can't say they are right now, but they'd be foolhardy not to. You have to do proper research if you really want to solve a mystery.
Yeah. Now, keep in mind, let me also say, though, also in defense of some of the other folks who said we weren't interested in that very much because it didn't apply to today.
You know as well as I do. You're talking to a three- or four-star general.
I can't show up and say, hey, boss, you need to see this document from 1950. They don't care.
They want to know what happened yesterday and what's happening today. Yeah, that's great, Lou, but I don't really care what happened 70 years ago.
What happened to our F-18 yesterday that came into contact with the bogey? That's what I want to know. I don't give a crap about that stuff.
I care about this. So there is also that, this sense of urgency from an operational perspective, you know, to keep it focused.
From a national security perspective, you're really not going to spend a whole lot of resources looking in the past as you are going to be looking into the present

and trying to predict the future from a military and a national security perspective. I don't care about Japan's use of a Mitsubishi Zero back in World War II as much as I care about maybe Chinese stealth technology being used today.
Mm-hmm. I mean, Usually I wait till the end to ask these kind of questions.

Brother, whatever you want.

What is this stuff?

Is this nuts and bolts?

Is this, I mean, I didn't realize that you were connected to Hal Puthoff.

I've talked to Skip Atwater, Joe McMonigle.

I've done a handful of these guys, Edwin May, Angela Ford. I mean, I did not realize you were involved or whatever your involvement was with that.
I mean, could this be, and I don't know what you know that you can't say, is it nuts and bolts? If it's not classified, I'll talk about it.

Could this be some type of collective consciousness that all of these experiencers are experiencing? I mean, we got Neuralink coming online probably very soon, and I interviewed Huberman about, we had a little bit of a talk about that and how, you know, it would technically be possible for with Neuralink to create an entire false reality. Emotions, all of your senses, touch, taste, feel, feelings, you know, vision.
You know, I mean, that's one of the things Neuralink is going to do is hopefully help blind see. I mean, is that a possibility? Is that what this could be? It could be everything and all of it together.
Then we've got Grush who's coming out saying that they have crash retrievals where, I mean, and everything's so vague where we've recovered non-human biologics. Is that the terminology that's used? That's the terminology we're using.
I mean, that could be a deer carcass next to an airplane crash. I mean, I'm not saying that's what it is, but put a fancy term behind it, like non-human biologics.
Okay, well, is that a dead mouse? I mean, it doesn't really mean anything. They're using non-human intelligence, NHI.
So it's not just non-human biologics. It's non-human intelligence.
What does that mean? Well, intelligence infers that there's a higher functioning of the brain, right? And there may even be... So to answer your question thoroughly, we first need to break down and have an agreement on certain terminology.
So let's talk about, for example, consciousness. You hear that term used a lot, human consciousness.
But what does that mean? If you go to somewhere in California out by the beach, someone says, yeah, man, the world is a bud about to blossom and, you know, human consciousness, we're all together. Then you talk to a neuroscientist and they say, no, it's actually a quantum process.
It's actually probably based on quantum entanglement. And human consciousness is something that is distinctly different than human intellect and human physical sense.
There's another part of the human being, another component that makes us human, besides a brain and a body. So we have to first agree what that means.
Secondly, we also have to understand that the human being is an incredibly complex organism. My background is microbiome.
I went to school professionally to be a microbiologist and an immunologist. So I am a disciple of science.
Always have been, always will be. I was never a science fiction kid.
I always tell people I was more of a G.I. Joe kid than I was a Star Wars kid.

So I was trained in science and empirical data collection,

the scientific methods and principles.

And then I became an agent, right,

which is just a facts man kind of guy.

Just give me the data.

I don't care what you think.

I don't care how you feel.

Give me the data.

Let's see what the data suggests.

So, but I think we need to understand

the notion of human consciousness. Our

taxpayer dollars have been used

to explore that idea

over and over and over again because there

is enough information there

to suggest

that there is something to

this human consciousness. Like again, remote viewing

program with Stargate.

We actually did that

against the Russians and they did it against us and we did it against other targets. And to some degree, there was some real success there, despite what some people may tell you.
It was successful, and might still be. But with that said, let's take a quick exercise on human consciousness and trying to decipher what that means.
You said you have a daughter, right? Mm-hmm. Do you love your daughter? Very much.
Absolutely, and so do I. But what if I said to you, prove it.
Prove it to me you love your daughter. How do you know what it is and what is love? I mean, we all feel it, right? But how do you know you really love your daughter? Well, you can't prove it because it's something that we all recognize as being real, as part of us and our existence and our experience.

But it's really hard to define.

And you just know it.

And of course, I love my daughter.

I'll do anything for my daughter.

I'll die for my daughter.

But prove it.

Well, dying for my daughter is improving I love her.

It's just proving that I'm dying.

So how do you do that?

How do you define something that is inherently so hard to define?

Now, take that conversation and apply it to all of human consciousness. What is consciousness? What is it even, right? And is it possible that human beings have something indelible beyond the body and the mind, something that lives beyond, something that is greater than the physical sense and the intellectual sense.
Look, you and I are, if you compare us to a banana, I think we share like 75% of our DNA with a banana and like 99% of it with a chimpanzee. But if you were to compare our DNA, yeah, there's some differences, but for the most part, we both have two arms, two legs and fingers and two eyes and bilateral symmetry.
So we're not really physically that different, you know? And then if I asked you about your brain, well, maybe it's a brain that makes Sean Ryan who Sean Ryan is. Well, okay, but if you look at the neural pathways and you go to a neurosurgeon, they're kind of the same as mine and medulla oblongata and the frontal cortex.
And, you know, the parts of the brain are pretty consistent throughout other humans. That's why we can do brain surgery.
You know how things are wired for the most part. So that's not what separates us.
What makes Sean Ryan, Sean Ryan? What makes Sean Ryan willing to go to battle and go to war and potentially die for his country? Or Luis Elizondo to do what he does? Well, that's the question. Is that where human consciousness lies? Is that where human sentience is? And is that something that is shared with other higher life forms, or is it specifically humans? I have five German shepherds.
Love them. And they all have human names.
But let's face it, they're not really humans. And I talk to them like babies, because that's what we do.
Oh, you're so cute little bi, right? But in reality, it's a dog. Now, it's not a human.
But because we are anthropomorphic creatures, because everything we do, we judge our entire sense of reality based upon what we know and who we are. So we superimpose that on other things that are alive and sometimes even not alive.
Why people refer to their boats as a her, right? Oh, she's a beautiful boat. Because that's what we do innately.
We are trying to ascribe something else with our own values and attributes. It's just what we do instinctually.
So when you're dealing with something that is potentially truly non-human, truly potentially non-human and non-earthly, how do you deal with something like that? Well, the only way you know how is by ascribing human attributes to it. You say, well, they're maybe motivated like us, and they're scared like us, and they have whatever biases they have.
We have those too, and it's a way for us to relate to something that is, it's a way for us to know the unknowable potentially. And so when we talk about human consciousness and is it possible that these things are also part of a larger consciousness network? Well, it's possible.
It's possible everything sentient has that, you know, you have societies that will refer to that as a soul or a chi or an id or whatever name you want to put on a spirit. But is that what really needs to be human? Because this is not really any different than yours.
There's something else that makes Sean Ryan who Sean Ryan is. And it's not your physical self and maybe not even your brain.
So that's part of the discussion. And then, you know, you talked about the five fundamental senses in which we judge our environment and the universe.
And for millennia, look, Homo sapiens sapien in modern format has been around, talk to most anthropologists, maybe the last 200,000 to 400,000 years. Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.
So modern humans have only been here in a blink of an eye. Really, just poof, just say, I popped in and here we are.
We have five fundamental senses by which we judge our environment. And in fact, the way we process information.
And if you can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, et cetera, we don't know it's there. In fact, it's one of the reasons why we use radio telescopes.
Where I live in Wyoming, beautiful, unoccluded night skies. You see all the stars in the heavens.
And yet when when you look at that same part of the night sky through a radio telescope, what do you see? Oh, you see all sorts of new stuff. You see Magellanic clouds and you see nebula, things that you can't pick up with the human eye.
In fact, most of space lies beyond our ability to directly perceive it. If you look at the electro-optical spectrum between red and blue, the way we see the universe, that's only 0.0035% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Again, 0.0035% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. That little narrow sliver of window, that's how we perceive our reality.
So most of reality lies beyond that. Imagine if you had cell phone signal, a cell phone vision, and now you could see in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, and you could see in FM and AM and GPS, your perception of reality would be different, fundamentally different.
And your awareness would be different than what it is right now. And then you have a scalability issue as human beings.
If you look, I tell people, if you really want to get your mind blown, type up on Google or any search engine the words pale blue dot. And what you're going to see is this black, inky blackness, and right in the middle, about maybe two pixels large, a little blue fuzzy dot.
What that dot is, is when we sent out the Voyager spacecraft on one of its last commands, we told it, turn around and take a picture of home, of Earth. Everything you have ever known, you've ever learned, everything you've ever loved, everything you've ever feared, every person that ever lived in history, every person that ever died, ever, is all on that tiny little blue dot hurtling through the vacuum and inky blackness of space.
Now, that's uncomfortable for some people to think about. And then when you think about the size of the universe, modern right now, most astrophysics, physicists, and cosmologists agree that the visible horizon, meaning as far as we can see in any direction, from one end to the end of the universe, is about 40 billion, B billion light years.
Now, what's a light year? It's the time it takes in the distance traveled by a photon of light in one year. So, how fast does light actually travel? 186,000 miles per second.
That's seven and a half times around our planet in one second. Multiply that to a year and now multiply that to 40 billion years, right? That is an enormous distance.
And that's only 10% of the actual size of the universe as predicted now by some scientists because most of the universe is too big. It's too far away.
The light will never reach Earth. So now you're talking about a universe, 100 billion light years, and human beings, this infinitesimally small speck right in the middle, right? As mind-blowing as that is, if you take one hydrogen atom, Avogadro's number, 6.23 or 6.28 times 10 to the negative 23 in size, that's roughly the same magnitude, order of magnitude, that atom is to us as we are to the universe.
Meaning, we sit right in the middle of the scale of the universe. And mostly, we can only interact as human beings with one order of magnitude or two orders of magnitude, up or down.
Otherwise, simply the universe is too big or too small. We will never know.
And that's where most of reality actually lies. So for us to sit here and say, well, you know, these things, and it can't possibly be this, and we know nothing.
Our perception of the universe is so limited, it's like trying to look at the Grand Canyon through a soda straw. It's incomprehensibly large and complex, and we're always learning something new about our universe and our place in our universe.
And so when you talk about human consciousness, I know this is a very long-winded way to have the conversation, but it's important. Because we don't understand consciousness.
We don't understand how it works, right? If it's really part of quantum entanglement and where space and time is irrelevant, we live in a three-dimensional space with three axes, right? X, Y, Z, an axis plus time as a function of the fourth dimension. But we experience time linearly.
Unlike space where we can experience it three-dimensionally, for the most part, human beings experience time linearly, meaning it's one way. But is that really the way time works? Well, we know time is relative because GPS satellites that have an atomic cesium clock on board, which is the exact same atomic cesium clock we have at the ground station, we started noticing something very weird.
We had something called atomic drift, meaning depending how far the satellite was, the GPS satellite was from the surface of the Earth, the more there was a deviation in the time on that atomic cesium clock. Now, how is that possible if the atomic decay, the half-life, is exactly the same as the one on the ground? The reason is because time, the further you get away from a massive object, time runs at a different rate, literally at a different rate.
And so we now know that the very notion of time isn't actually linear. And so I've often explained human consciousness potentially.
This is just, I don't know for sure. This is kind of the way I've experienced it.
And especially if you talk to some remote viewers. You can imagine if I were to ask you a question, Sean, I say, Sean, give me your simplest and less than a sentence.
Few words as possible. If I were to ask you, Sean, what's your definition of the past? What would it be? And it's not a trick question.
You answer it any way you want. As simply as possible.
Definition of the past. Definition of the past.
What's your definition of the past? Prior experience. Right.
Something that already happened, right? It already happened. And by that same definition, if I ask you, Sean, what's your definition of the future? What would it be? What's going to happen.
What's going to happen? It hasn't happened yet, right? So very simple. It already happened.
It's going to happen. So by those definitions, if I say, define for me the present, what is it? Well, the present isn't a moment of time.
It's actually a transition process where the future becomes the past. And it happens so quickly and so fast that it's probably measured better in playing time than in actual human seconds.
And it's not really a point. It's a process.
And so if you look at, for example, let's look at a cigar where the ashes, I've used this example before, where the ashes of a cigar is the past. It's already been burnt up.
That's it. You can't put it back together.
The future is that part of the cigar that hasn't burned yet. And the present is the cherry.
It's that moment of ignition where the tobacco is being consumed and turned into ash. Now, if you had the ability to look very carefully at the cherry of that cigar burning, you'd notice something very strange.
Once you remove the glare and really focused in,

you'd notice that the cherry of that cigar,

the cigarette, is burning unevenly.

Meaning if you could get in there and squeeze inside and look,

you would see that there are parts of that cigar

that are igniting and becoming ash before other parts.

And you can actually have parts

that have not yet been consumed behind parts

that have been consumed.

There's this weird fuzziness there.

And it's why some now, some physicists theorize what they call the atomic, electron, sorry, the electron cloud. When you and I were in school, we learned that an electron orbits an atom.
That's not actually what's happened. We now realize it's a cloud.
The electron is both there and not all at the same time. It's this weird duality principle because scientists believe that at that small of a level, the electrons are so small that they're actually able to zip in and out of reality.
The fabric itself of space-time, they're so small they can zip in and out of. And so they're everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.
This is kind of more into the more quantum physics models of our understanding of the very, very small of our universe.

It may even apply to the very, very large, but also may apply to human consciousness, which may explain why we invested so much time and money into things like remote viewing.

Because if my brain is quantumly connected to your brain, then it doesn't matter how far away you are or what time it is.

We can always connect.

And maybe that is, as some neuroscientists have speculated, that human consciousness is actually a quantum process. It's actually, your brain is like a quantum computer.
And that's where, that's the realm, that's the domain in which human consciousness lives. And if that's the case, is it possible other higher forms of life also have that ability? And that is actually not unique at all.
In fact, when you see two dogs enter a room, some have speculated there's some sort of nonverbal communication going on. We don't understand it, but they do.
And is it possible that human consciousness is really not that unique or special? In fact, many forms of life share that consciousness, a consciousness, and have the ability to communicate. Maybe things like remote viewing are actually vestigial capabilities, meaning it's nothing new.
We're not evolving to become superhumans. We've always had this.
In fact, before we had verbal communication that is now global in virtually any language I can look up and translate, perhaps it was a survival technique. Perhaps we needed this type of ability to communicate

and transmit information for our very survival.

Well, Joe McMonagle talks about this a little bit.

When I interviewed him, he talks about before there was language,

before there was pointing and grunting,

that basically language has made us a lot more, we're not as efficient as we used to be. Correct.
And that the communications while there were no words it was a lot more efficient. I knew what you were thinking.
You knew what I was thinking. Look, people say oh that's a bunch of hooey.
We're doing it now. We have we can put on helmets and you can have an Air Force pilot sitting in a room with his thoughts, be able to fly a drone.

Talk about video games and these people that are really good gamers. It was only a few months ago that a gentleman, a quadriplegic, had a chip put in his brain.
And now he can play Call of Duty, of all games, better than most professional Call of Duty players. Why? Because it's a direct interface between thought to action.
There's no neurons and neural pathways and having to translate electrical signals into motor signals, right, which is inefficient. It's just direct, boom, brain to the interface to the game, which is arguably much more efficient, much faster.
Would that not be the preferred way if you had an ability? I'm seeing this wonderful portrait of you in a helicopter up there. Imagine being able to fly that helicopter without ever having to touch anything, and it's instant.
That helicopter goes exactly where you want it to go, when you want it to go, and how you want it to go, right? All with this. Well, technology, don't look now, but we're getting close to that now.
We can almost do that now. You have technical interfaces that are helping people do things now that were never even imaginable five years ago.
So we're almost there now. You all know what speed dating is, right? Well, if you're the owner of a growing business, what if there was a feature like speed dating, but only for hiring? In other words, you could meet several interested qualified candidates all at once.
Well, good news. There is.
It's Zip Intro from Zip Recruiter. You can post your job today and start talking to qualified candidates tomorrow.
And right now, you can try Zip Intro for free. It's ziprecruiter.com slash SRS.
Zip Intro gives you the power to quickly assess excellent candidates for your job via back-to-back video calls. You simply pick a time and Zip Intro does all the work of finding and scheduling qualified candidates for you.
Then you can choose who you want to talk to and meet with great people as soon as the next day. It's so easy.
Enjoy the benefits of speed hiring with new Zip Intro,

only from ZipRecruiter, rated the number one hiring site based on G2. Try Zip Intro for free.

It's ZipRecruiter.com slash SRS. Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash SRS.
Zip Intro. Post jobs today.
Talk to qualified candidates tomorrow. Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses.
That's right, more than 40 free online courses. Learn about the works of C.S.
Lewis, the stories in the book of Genesis, the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's free online courses.
I've talked pretty openly about my return to faith on the show, and Hillsdale offers some incredible courses to help discover the Bible's profound lessons about fatherhood, the nature of sin, and the consequences of sin on both a family and a nation. Their online courses are self-paced so you can start whenever and wherever.
Go right now to hillsdale.edu slash srs to enroll. There's no cost and it insanely easy for anybody who steals your phone to also steal your whole digital life.
Every time you connect to an unencrypted network, like in a hotel, your online data is not secure and hackers on the same network can try to steal your personal data like your passwords. ExpressVPN stops hackers from stealing your data by creating a secure tunnel between your device and the internet.
ExpressVPN is so easy to use and super secure, you just need to fire up the app and click one button to get protected. And it works on all devices, your phones, laptops, tablets, and more.
I know for me, helping to protect myself from hackers is a top priority, and I really like that ExpressVPN can be used and trusted when I'm on the go or in the studio. Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com.srs.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com.srs to find out how you can get up to four extra months for free. ExpressVPN..com slash srs so to say well that that's a bunch of hooing that technology would never exist hey buddy have you seen the news lately right so um i think i think you're right and i think going back to the original question you had which is i know forgive me, forgive me, way, way, way around, but it's important because we're talking about, you asked me, is this technological? Is it consciousness? Could this all be related? What do I think about when people say that? You know, we have to, there's a lot we have to unpack here.
We have to discuss what is consciousness? Is it something that is universal or is it just for humans? And is it the thing that mainly makes life life? And those are all really relevant questions. I can't answer that because I simply don't know.
All I can do is provide for you my own experiences and some of the work that we did in ATIP and some other efforts, but I think the jury is still out.

And I think in order to have that conversation, we first of all have to agree what it means.

Even terms like something like consciousness, because different people will interpret that word to mean something else.

It's like love, right?

I love my job.

I love my car.

Well, I love my kids.

Well, that's a different type of love. Well, wait a minute.
Love is love. No, it's not.
Love isn't love. I love chocolate, but I don't love chocolate like I love my kids.
And I love my wife differently than I love other folks and other things. So maybe consciousness is the same way.
Maybe there's not a single definition for what consciousness is. And I think that's part of it because we're trying to talk the same language, but in there, some of those words don't have the same universal meaning for every one of us, if that makes sense.
It does make sense. How involved were you with the Stargate program? What I'm comfortable to talk about is that early in my career, I was brought into a very interesting program.
The gentleman's name was Eugene Lessman. He was probably the top at the time, the top remote viewer for the United States Army.
And that was my first experience. I was brought into a very strange program early in my career after getting out of the Army.
I didn't understand it. I didn't know what they wanted from me.
Eugene had me do some things, I guess, to test if I was a good candidate. And then very shortly thereafter, the program had the plug pulled, the funding was pulled permanently, and I wound up having a regular, normal job.
So you were going to be a remote viewer? Well, I got trained to do some of it, yeah. I didn't say I was a good one.
There's guys out there a lot better and gals a lot better than I was, but I can tell you it works. And Hal Pudoff, if you ever interview Hal Pudoff, say, hey, Lou, wanted me to ask you about the whole DC metro incident on the red line.
And let him tell you the story. Maybe you can connect me with him.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
Yeah, he's an incredible human being. Him, another person, if you ever could get Dr.
Kit Green, Christopher Green, we call him Kit. Kit worked with me and Hal worked with me on ATIP.
The U.S. government has had a long interest in remote viewing.
I know some people find it funny, but... We didn't stop that.
I can't... I would not be able to elaborate if there's any programs that exist or don't exist anymore.
Well, I'm not right in. Look, it makes sense that if something works, you don't stop it.
I know we didn't stop that. But where I was going is, what do you make about...
I mean, Edwin May said that... Don't quote me on this.
You can go back and look the interview up but I believe Edwin May told me that remote viewers are only correct less than 40% of the time. What's correct, right? If you ask me to predict a lottery number He says what's correct is what can be verified which I tend to agree.
And Joe had two that stick out to me.

He remote viewed a mountain in Alaska.

I believe it was in Alaska where they said that he remote viewed some kind of non-human

beings inside of a mountain.

Sounded like basically like some type of a space center.

How about this?

Let me ask you this, Sean, and we'll

get back to that because Joe McMargo and those guys

really know their shit, their stuff.

Let me ask you something.

Let's say someone remote viewed you and said

you got into a motorcycle

accident when you were younger.

It was a pretty bad motorcycle

accident, total your motorcycle,

and it was a

it was an enduro Yamaha motorcycle. And you turned around and you said, no, actually, it was a Honda or a Kawasaki.
Is that person right or wrong? They didn't get Kawasaki right, but they got everything else right to include the injury that you sustained and the fact that you total your little enduro motorcycle. So this is my point when they say, well, they weren't accurate.
Well, what's accurate? That they got 90% of it right and 10% wrong? So again, it goes back to the metric that's being used to say if something's right. I will tell you that in my experience, some of this, yeah, some of this stuff was off, off target.
But some of this stuff was dead on. And I mean dead on to the point where the United States actually successfully located a down Russian supersonic test plane that was being flown and it crashed over the Congo, over in Africa.
And no matter what, all the satellites we used and airplanes, we couldn't find it, and neither could the Russians. Who found it? Remote viewers.
Look at the story behind General Dozier and Brigada Rosa, Red Brigade, and the killing of Aldo Moro, who was at the time the president of Italy, and then they captured and they kidnapped General Dozier. And they were going to kill him.
And remote viewers got pretty close to being able to locate him. If you look at what they were doing, they got damn close.
And some actually say that's the reason why he was saved. Remote viewing can be very effective.
But it's like any other collection data point know, there's bias. There's collection bias and then you also have other issues.
You have interference. You know, the human being, that's why I say remote viewing should never be taken as a single source intelligence capability.
It should be there as an additive capability, right? So just like when you're collecting intelligence now, you have a human source, but you never just go with human. You go with SIGINT, you go with ELINT, you go with whatever other ints you need, intelligence collection capabilities, to bolster or to negate pieces of information that you're receiving.
You never want to take single source reporting. You always want to have a comprehensive capability that has multiple sources of feeds of information, and then you base your conclusions off of that data.
So what do you make of stuff like that mountain, which I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. I do know what you're talking about.
What do you make of that? I find it interesting. There's people who have remote-viewed stuff in Antarctica.
People that have remote-viewed stuff. I mean, Joe remote-viewed Mars at, I can't remember the years.
He's not the only one. 2,000 or 3,000 BC, the pyramid.
You know what I'm talking about? Yeah, I mean, there's a book, really interesting book. This really all kind of blew up when there was an army captain, his ranger, sustained a TBI in an exercise.
I think it would have been Bright Star in Egypt. And he had a wound to his head.
I think it was caused by a grazed bullet that caused some damage. And he was on his way to getting out of the army because he said he saw things and he thought they were hallucinations.
And long story short, he got actually recruited into the Stargate program, because he was actually a very good remote viewer. And the name of the book is called Psychic Warrior.
I don't believe the gentleman is practicing anymore. I think he may have had some complications as a result of it.
But that was really the first book that came out that really kind of revealed the Stargate program and kind of the day-to-day operations of what they were doing and what we were trying to find and the type of things that were going on. So if you want an interesting book to read or anybody in your audience that listens, pick up the book Psychic Warrior.
I'm not promoting, by the way, let me just for the record, I'm not promoting it's a good book or it's a bad book, but it's an interesting way to kind of get a sneak peek behind what some of the people in the government, our government, our intelligence community, we're doing, both CIA and DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and even the Bureau to some degree, believe it or not, were involved with regarding remote viewing. It can be very effective.
I mean, the Mars thing, I mean, and the Alaska thing, it doesn't sound like there was a lot of follow-up on that. Well, so now you have, because now we have technology, right? We can confirm by sending probes to the moon and to Mars and other things to substantiate if what the remote viewer is seeing is accurate.

So, again...

Was there any follow-up?

So, if there was, I wasn't part of that.

That was significantly before my time.

My focus...

Now, there was a very interesting...

Boy, how am I getting mad at me for this?

No, I can talk about this.

So as a result of remote viewing, some of these reports were very classified. There was one particular incident with an individual.
It might have been with Ingo Swann, actually, if I'm not mistaken. I might be mistaken, so let me just caveat.
It was with a very good remote viewer where their target was a Russian submarine. And they were providing the description on this new, it might have been a Typhoon-class submarine, I don't know, probably before that.
But it was one of the latest new submarines that the Russians was deploying. This was Joe.
And you, well, did you find out what was following the nuclear submarine? No. UAP.
No shit. Well, that's interesting.
They're like, well, what else do you say? Well, that's interesting, but do you want to know what's following it? They're like, yeah. And he goes, there's a UFO following the sub.
Yeah. So people like Hal Pudoff, who I consider a national treasure, talk to him.
Talk to him if you can because he's not getting any younger. He really is an American patriot that did a lot for his country, took a lot of crap for what he was doing.
He got accused of all sorts of nonsensical crap from his haters, something I think we both can appreciate quite a bit. But in reality, he did a lot for his country, and a lot of that was extremely, extremely successful.
And the fidelity of the information was right on the money. Interesting.
It's a fascinating subject. Quantum entanglement.
Well, look, I'm not a quantum physicist. I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, but I'm not a quantum physicist.
I would talk to folks like that, talk to maybe Eric Davis, Dr. Eric Davis as well, Hal Pudoff, Kit Green.
Kit Green is also a medical doctor who understands things very, very well from a biological and medical perspective. And I'm sure he has his opinions on that as well.
What was Davis' name? Eric Davis, Dr. Hal Pudoff, Dr.
Eric Davis, and Dr. Kit Green.
By the way, all of them patriots, all of them great, great work for our country.

All right, let's get a little sidetracked there. Maybe I'll actually hit this outline eventually.
But, you know, let's talk about your involvement in Army Intelligence and how you got involved with ATIP. Sure.
How did that happen? Well, they weren't the same. It wasn't the same journey.
So I grew up, I think I kind of mentioned I had a bit of a dysfunctional upbringing. To tell you about how I got here, I need to really tell you about who I was and how I started.
So my father was a revolutionary. He was a revolutionary in Cuba.
At the time, there was this dictator named Batista, Batista in Cuba, and there were some corruption issues. So my father, with some other people, people like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, realized that Batista wasn't good for the country.
So they trained in the mountains and they overthrew the country in a coup. And Castro had promised freedom and democracy and elections and had a little bit of support from the U.S.
government to do that. And he took over.
And when he took over, he very quickly turned and pronounced himself pretty much president for life, which is a dictator, not a president. And he sided with the Russians.
And that was a problem. So my father basically telling his friends, hey, this is not what I signed up for.
He said he was going to offer freedom and democracy. And instead, he's just as bad as Batista.
So my father told his family that he was going to the United States to study English. Instead, went to Orlando, talked to some people in the CIA, and joined the revolution.
Brigade 2506. Brigada 2506.
And so he went to Guatemala, trained in the jungles of Guatemala, and then was on the USS Houston boat that went from Guatemala for the invasion of Cuba.

They landed on the beach, and my father was subsequently captured and for about two years spent his time in Castro's prisons.

The last one was called Isla de los Pinos, Isle of the Pines, where my father had a tooth that had, I guess, become, it had erupted and he had an infection. So they did surgery on him without anesthesia.
And for food, they ate boiled horse hoof, right? So a really bad experience. Long story short, two years later, he comes to the United States.
and my mom and him have what they call, my dad always called it the romance of the century. My mother was this beautiful bombshell model.
She worked as a Playboy bunny. She was a model.
Are you serious? Yeah. While you were alive? No, no, this is leading up to me.
And so they were, my mother was this beautiful bombshell, very free spirit, and she had a really troubled past herself. So never liked to talk about her family.
But this young, dashing Cuban revolutionary, and they fell in love. And although, interestingly, they never officially got married, I found out later.
even though they said they were married, they never were married. So as a young kid, I remember living in a wonderful, wonderful, loving family environment until it wasn't.
My father, you know, for 30 minutes of the day, they had, again, the romance of the century. The other 23 and a half hours were hell.
My father and mother fought very violent. And then when the marriage finally ended and they divorced, my whole world went upside down.
The bank repossessed the house my mother and I were living in. I had to sell my clothes at a flea market so my mom could pay rent.
Various male figures in and out of her life. She struggled.
She struggled so much. My father went from being a very successful entrepreneur and restauranteur to now working in a wood factory.
And I was making more as a busboy at Red Lobster than my father was making at the wood factory. And they were living separately.
And I was caught in the middle. I went to big public school, really bad for me, bullied bad, bad, bad, bad.
I was a pretty interesting kid. So because of that, I got angry.
And one day I decided, if I'm going to beat up I might as well you know grab one of these guys with me and take them down I guess and I did and that led and I got in trouble at school for it but that was very empowering for me because I never liked bullies I hated it but I was too afraid to do anything about it and so one day I fought back back. And I fought back hard, and I realized I was pretty good at it, and I started fighting a lot.
Too much. And in my public school, I wasn't very popular.
Really rough, really dark times for me. Bounced around a lot, many different homes.
I was angry. And I joined JROTC.
Now JROTC at the time is what it is now. I went to a big public school.
I went to a school that was still engaged in the now controversial practice of called busing, where they would take kids from different parts of the socio-demographics and underprivileged kids and they would bus them into a different school to try to give them opportunities. So ROTC was kind of a last ditch effort.
If you were a bad kid getting in trouble all the time, you were kind of forced into ROTC, I guess for discipline reasons. And so most people, if you weren't a popular kid and a jock, and you either went to ROTC or you went to juvenile Hall.
Really, it was kind of that way. I had a different experience.
I all of a sudden met people that felt just like me. And we had this sense of camaraderie.
And I found strength in that. And I loved it.
And it was the military that I realized would save me,

and it would teach me how not to be.

And so I went into college very poor, so I had to pay for it. So I became a bouncer at a lot of the various nightclubs.

I convinced myself I would take those jobs because I could go to school

during the day, and then I could make money at night,

cash under the table, and that was the way I was going to support myself through college. The reality is it was an excuse to fight.
And I didn't realize until I got older and I got more mature and I realized why I was doing what I was doing. I was still very angry.
And I just wanted to teach bullies a lesson. I had a lot of hurt inside.
So how did you come to that realization? Oh, fatherhood, marriage, time. I was an angry young man for a very good portion of my younger years.
And it was, you know, anger can be like rocket fuel. It's very volatile, and you can use it to really propel yourself.
But also, it's like rocket fuel. It's very caustic.
It can eat you up inside. It's like acid.
And over time, it can destroy yourself. and I realized that, that I needed to do so.

I needed to figure this out.

Because my motivation for doing things,

while I would tell myself one thing,

was really for some other reason.

Self-delusion can really be a powerful thing

when you're younger.

So I went to college,

studied microbiology and immunology for the wrong, again, the wrong reasons. I was told by my family who at that point kind of disowned me, extended family, like, oh, he'll never make it to college.
And if he does, he'll never make it past his first semester. So I chose the hardest major.
I said, fine, I'm going to go into the medical program. I'm going to be a microbiologist and an immunologist.
You? Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. And so I did.
Again, motivated for the wrong reasons. Fortunately, it worked out to my benefit.
I actually enjoyed it a lot and used some of that later on in my life and my career. So finishing college, I was in a lot of debt, really not a whole lot of options.
I didn't want to spend the rest of my life looking through a Petri dish and a microscope. So I joined the Army.
Now, what I didn't say is early on when I was a young man in high school, and before that, as a young, even seven years old, my father had this idea that I would join the new revolution, Alpha 66, and retake Cuba. So me, myself, and some other kids were always taught weird paramilitary skills, how to disassemble a Kalashnikov, and what's the difference between a 223 or a 5.6 and a 6.2 by 37 versus 39.
And my dad, when I was 8, taught me how to fly a plane. By 11, I was scuba diving.
How to build explosives and provide explosive devices in the kitchen using household products. Like really weird stuff that's not healthy for a kid to learn.
But my father had this desire, I guess, for me to accomplish the mission that was his mission. It was never really my mission.
But I think he felt that somehow that I would do it and help liberate Cuba. That was his number one prerogative for every Sun Tech member as a kid.
And he was volatile, man. He was volcanic.
When he blew up, man, someone was going to jail. And it was usually my dad.
He was very intellectual and very smart, but he was also exceedingly volatile. And as a kid, I was terrified of my father because of that, because he was unpredictable.
And I didn't want to be like that. I wanted to be like my father, but I didn't, if that makes sense.
I wanted to be like the good parts of my father, but I didn't want to be like that, like the anger. And I was turning out to be that way.
I was doing the same things, finding excuses to get into fights and kick people's butts. And it wasn't healthy and all for the wrong reasons.
So after college, I went into the army, had an opportunity to go in as an officer because of my college degree. And my father's words were always ringing in the back of my head and in my ears.
He said, look, son, if you want to be a leader, you first must know what it means to follow. So I enlisted.
Enlisted in the Army. And had a chance to learn some stuff in the Army.
Very short period of time. People will always go back and say, oh, you're this hero.
No, I'm not not a hero i know i'm not a hero because i know what a real hero is and most of those heroes aren't here to tell their story you know i suffer from really bad bad imposter syndrome because people see you in uniform they see the pictures of you in you know various situations and they're like oh my god that's you're so brave no there's people out there that had a hell of a lot worse that did a lot more than me. You know, the real heroes are the guys and gals that aren't here to tell their story.
It's the families that are left behind that have to have the Christmases and birthdays without the service member and going to PTA meetings and cooking dinners every night and doing homework. Those are the heroes.
What I did was easy, comparatively speaking. You know, the real hero is the female helicopter pilot who's low on fuel, but she's not going to leave her little ducklings behind, so she continues to stay on the LZ and stay and stay and stay and takes round after round after round until finally the helicopter gets shot down out of the sky, right? That's the hero.
So all this other bullshit, people come by, oh, Lou, you're a hero. Save that shit for somebody who actually believes it.
I'm not a hero. I'm just a patriot doing this job.
So long story short, in the Army for a little bit, and then I got recruited out of there to a special program. They called it special.
Maybe it was, but for different reasons. I am proof you do not have to be intelligent to be an intelligence.
Let me just say that. But it was an opportunity that I relished.
So I joined a special activities program. Did that for a while.
During that process of the recruitment is when Gene Lessman came into my life and I learned a little bit about the remote viewing program, you might say. And then spent my time early in my career doing counterinsurgency, counter-guerrilla operations, and some counter-narcotic support, mostly against in Latin America, because my language is being Spanish.
So think of FARC, right, and ELN, and Tupac Amarus, and Cinder Oliminoso, and stuff like that. You're probably too young for this, but we had something called Plan Colombia that was arguably probably not so effective.
What was that? Plan Colombia was a U.S. government effort, usually with Charlie III and VII Special Forces.
There was a DMZ area, demilitarized zone, between Colombia and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolución de Colombia, FARC, terrorist organization. They called themselves guerrillas, but they did bad stuff, kidnappings and dope and stuff like that.
So there was this demilitarized zone, and you had these three areas, Tres Esquinas, Apia, and La Randia, where these cities where we had SF and Intel people doing counterinsurgency, counter-narcotics missions, where we were trying to pump in a lot of American resources and money and support to help the Colombian government get rid of the FARC. Again, this is back in the days.
So this is, you know, late 90s, stuff like that. So we were involved in stuff like that.
Then, long story short, a little later, 9-11 happened. And very shortly thereafter, I found myself in some weird place in the middle of nowhere in Uzbekistan called K2, Kashikanabad.

And you probably remember that place a bit.

It was crazy.

Spent a little time there.

What were you doing there?

Prepping to go down south.

We were, I was only there for maybe four or five days, and then I was the next thing smoking into Kandahar back in 2001. Anyway, long story short, I digress.
Spent the next years and years after that as a special agent. Who were you attached to back then? Special agent.
So we were with J. Sodef Dagger.
Okay. So we had a small intel.
That's where I met General Mattis for the first time. Incredible human being.
Nice. Yeah, yeah.
But anyways, long story short, found myself there in the Middle East quite a bit, and then Iraq kicked off, and I did some work with that effort. And then I wound up promoting myself to a desk job.
So I went from being a special agent in charge and running counterintelligence, counterespionage, counterterrorism operations, some cross-border operations stuff, and to getting a job in D.C. Kind of what happens, you get promoted to a point where they pull you out of the field and it's like, okay, now you're going to manage budgets, right, and stuff like that and personnel.
So I did that. And then it was in 2008.
I was at the time with Director of National Intelligence as a senior intel official there. And the commute was killing me.
I lived on this little tiny island called Kent Island in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay, which was great to raise a family, right? Having daughters, kind of giving them a normal life. They can ride their bikes.
You don't have to worry about crazy people in the town.

But my commute was terrible.

So if you know a little bit where the direct DNI is,

it's actually past the CIA.

It's right past Langley.

And the commute was like three hours each way from me.

And so I was sometimes in the car getting and coming from work

than I was actually at work.

It was brutal.

So I had an opportunity to come back to the Pentagon for a one-year JDA, joint duty assignment. And that's when Clapper's like, you know, I need somebody to run law enforcement and intelligence integration.
We want to get local law enforcement somehow figured out how do we get national level intelligence counterterrorism information that's classified down to a level where people can do something with it, but they don't have a security clearance. So how do you do it, right? So you create this terror line and stuff like that.
So I was brought back for that. And very immediately thereafter is two people came in to my office.
I was in Crystal City at the time at a particular location. They still don't want me to talk about, so I won't.
But beautiful corner office. And two people come in, talk to me, and say, hey, you know, you've got some background in this and that.
And early in my career, I forgot to tell you this, I did some work on UASs, so unmanned aerial systems, so drones, all the different types of drones that we had at the time, which were fundamentally pretty basic, actually. But I did some of that.
I did some advanced avionics protection and technology, high-energy laser technology, first stage, second stage, solid and liquid rocket booster motor engines, some space platforms. So when they came and talked to me, they said, hey, we know you have a CI background and we'd like you to consider working with us in a special project.
Didn't know at all what it was. Had no idea.
And after several of those meetings, I said, look, our director would like to meet you. So I said, okay, sure.
We set up a meeting and I went to another undisclosed location where they were, he was at. I remember going up there, and it was so bizarre.
The epitome of a true, whatever you think a rocket scientist in your brain, that's who this guy was. Kind of disheveled hair, tie a little crooked, glasses.
And he happened to be, at the time, the U.S. government's premier rocket scientist.
Like, for real, real. Like, the best rocket scientist in the U.S.
government. Super, super, super smart.
And we had our conversation. Then he looked at me towards the very end.
And he says, so I got to ask you. I said, yeah.
He says, what do you think about UFOs? So, I thought about it and I looked at him. I told him the truth.
I don't. And he says, well, what do you mean? You don't believe in him? I didn't say that.
You asked me, what do I think about UFOs? My response is I don't think about them because I don't have the time. I don't have the luxury.
I'm too busy doing other stuff and chasing bad guys and stuff like that. I don't think about them.
And he looked at me and he said, that's fair enough. He says, but let me give you some advice.
Actually, he might have even said, let me warn you. He says, don't let your analytic bias get the best of you because what you learn here may challenge that.
And at this point, I still didn't know what they were looking at. I had no idea, but he just said UFO out of the blue.
I'm like, what? And this whole time, the two people that had come to my office were telling me, this is very sensitive, this is very sensitive. We can't tell you what it's about, but our boss can.
And they needed somebody with counterintelligence experience to run the counterintelligence and security aspect for their portfolio because they were worried that the Russians and the Chinese were trying to expose them. Which, I get it.
If America's running a secret UFO program, yeah, the Russians will want to know. So very shortly thereafter, I realized the true focus of AATIP.
And it was to look at and realize at that point, the US government was taking very, very seriously encounters of UAP over controlled military airspace and over our sensitive facilities. And the more we looked into it, the more we realized not only was it real, but it's a real national security issue.
Like, we got real stuff happening where these, I've got another document here. These things actually interfered with our ability for nuclear strike capability.
I mean, think about that, right? Restrict our ability to launch if we're attacked by the Russian. The UAP was able to turn off an entire flight of nukes.
Now, what's a flight of nukes? Think of a Christmas tree light where each light is a nuclear silo and you've got this kind of central command post. Well, they were all taken offline by a UAP.
And by the way, one of the intelligence reports I have, and I can read it to you, it's not conjecture.

It's like, oh, well, maybe.

No, they saw the UAP, and all of a sudden, boom, the entire flight goes down.

And only when the UFO left did the nukes come back online. And if that's not scary enough, we had intelligence reports that the same thing happened in Russia, but there, they were turned onto a ready position.

Like where ours were turned off, theirs were turned on.

Wow.

Yeah.

So we had serious concerns.

And while OSAP was looking at other stuff as well regarding the ranch, my focus was really the national security issue of, look, it's very simple. We have a capability, a technology that's been demonstrated that can enter our airspace completely unchallenged, of unknown origin, and who seems to be interested in our military equities, our military capabilities, and, oh, by the way, has demonstrated an ability to interfere with our nuclear technologies.
Now, if that's not a national security issue or a Department of Defense mission or an intelligence mission is, then I don't know what is, right? That's the very definition of a national security threat. So that was what, that was the impetus, I think, for a lot of my colleagues in mind.
And now, you know, being the new kid on the block, I'm kind of walking around with like, oh my gosh, wow, wow, wow. That's real? Wait a minute, Roswell's real? You know, and my scientists that have been, you know, there forever and part of other efforts with the U.S.
government kind of putting their hand on my shoulder and be like, yeah, you're going to learn a lot here, buddy. Buckle up.
It's going to be a wild ride. And boy, were they right.
I worked with some of America's finest in that capacity, really, really good people. And then in 2017, on October 4th, I resigned from my beloved department.
Why did you resign? So, we have to backtrack here. There was an aerospace defense contractor that had agreed to surrender their crash retrieval material to us.
Because we were the government, we were running the program, we had a facility specially built at a SAPF level, SAPF facility level. And so they said, here's a catch.
You just need, because we have this existing memorandum from the Secretary of the Air Force saying we can't, we have to possess this stuff. If you can get another memo from the Secretary of the Air Force saying we can give it to you, we'll give it you.
Because this is a lie. At this point, we're keeping the lights on.
It's very expensive. We don't want to deal with this anymore.
You can have the material. We've exploited what we can exploit from it.
The problem is Secretary of the Air Force didn't want to play ball. So along comes Mattis.
And thank God Trump gets there, brings Mattis in. I'm like, my old friend's back.
If we can't get a memorandum of approval from the Secretary of the Air Force, I'll just go above him, and I'll just go straight to SecDef. I'll just go to Daddy Mattis and say, hey, Jim, I need some help.
But you know, too, how command and control works, and we understand chain of command. So I was always very careful never to just intercept the boss and be like, hey, boss, I need to talk to you.
Because I had many levels above me that I would have to go through. The problem is one of my direct supervisors at the time, I knew this, but nobody else did.
I had several IG investigations against him. So I couldn't trust him.
And so what I did is I went around him and I was briefing with the concurrence of the secretary's front office. I was briefing the secretary's staff, the White House advisor, National Security Council advisor, and another advisor who I'm not allowed to say who they worked for.
Well, say they worked for the CIA, I can't say who they were. They were the three head people for the secretary.
They're up in the secretary's suite. If you've been there, you know who I'm talking about, right there on the E-ring, and on the river entrance.
And so I was briefing them on a weekly basis. Weekly basis, yeah, this is important, Lou, and I got the pilots coming, I got the radar operators coming, I got the reports, I've got the documents, I got the photographs, I got the videos, I got the briefings, I got a stack of crap this big every time coming in.
And they're like, yeah, this is important. The problem is we can't brief the Secretary of Defense just yet.
I'm like, well,

you can't wait. He has to know because if something happened, we're already getting, we have these ships, the Roosevelt, that's being literally stocked by UAP on a daily basis.
I have these emails on SIPRNet saying, hey, Lou, I can't keep people below deck forever. What do you want me to do? They're all over the ship.
I'm like, okay, don't worry. The cavalry's coming.
We're working this. We're going to get you the relief you're looking for.
I got you. The problem is that people in the head shed didn't want to do anything until the boss, until we had a, at the time, our undersecretary of defense for intelligence, the USDI, the head senior principal staff assistant for the secretary for all things intelligence, wasn't a Senate confirmed person.
So they wanted to wait and wait and wait until they got somebody in there, Senate confirmed, brief the USDI, who then we would brief the secretary Mattis. I kept telling him, guys, don't let bureaucracy get in your way.
Don't do it. We cannot afford the wait.
He needs to know now that what's happening in the field, I can't keep a lid on it anymore. It's going to know this.
I also think there may have been some, and to protect the boss, which I totally get, nobody wants to be the one to tell the boss, hey, look, we got a problem, boss. There's something in our skies.
We don't know what it is. We don't know how it works.
We don't know where it's from. We don't know who's behind the wheel.
And oh, by the way, it's interested in our stuff. It's not a great conversation to have with somebody, especially like Mad Dog Mattis, or others call him chaos.
He wants answers. And if you ever worked with a guy in the field, you know General Mattis is a very serious guy, very learned.
He's a guy who wants more information, not less. And then last but not least, I suspect what they didn't want to do is give the boss some information, only to be asked a week later by the media, have you ever been briefed on UFOs? And he would have to say, for the record, yeah, I've been briefed on UFOs, right? So there's many reasons for it.
And looking back, I can understand it. But at the time, I was very frustrated.
And so I knew that the only way I'd be able to get the Secretary's attention without breaking that chain of command, I could have walked in anytime I wanted to into his front office, and I have. But you and I both know, you don't break the chain of command.
I could have walked in any time I wanted to into his front office, and I have. But you and I both know you don't break the chain of command.
You can't break the rules to enforce the rules. You can't do it.
It doesn't work that way. You can't break the law to enforce the law.
And so I was very cognizant of that, so I did what most people do in my situation. I resigned, and I knew that my resignation, I addressed my resignation memo directly to him, knowing that they would not be able to stop that.
And they tried, by the way, even that they tried. But I told him very point blank in my resignation memo.
I said, sir, you need to be aware this is real. And this has the ability to impact our nuclear capabilities, our military readiness.
And it's a problem you're going to have to deal with. Have you been in touch with him since then? I have not.
No, I think he lives overseas right now with his lady. But there's some back-channel discussions that occurred.
It's for him to say, not me. I respect him tremendously.
He was a great leader in the military. Politically, I don't know.
I'm not talking politics, right? I'm not a politician. But he was a very effective leader.
And let's not forget, look, almost a year later today, he resigned too, right? That's what you do. When you can't fix something internally, you don't become a problem inside.
You leave. You do what you're supposed to do and say, okay, aye, aye, sir, and you roll out.
And then if you want to speak your piece outside, fine, but don't cause problems inside the chain of command. That is unforgivable.
And I agree with that. I know some people differ with me on that perspective, but it's the way I feel.
So, Lou, we keep talking about UFOs and UAPs interfering with our nuclear arsenal. What are we doing to combat that? Well, I think this new administration is going to do a lot.
Like what? Well, let me let the administration first get a handle on what's going on and decide what they want to do. You know, a nuclear facility isn't just Department of Defense.
It's not just Air Force. You have Department of Energy there.
You have all sorts of different organizations there that are part of the calculus, right? So you've got a lot of equities. First of all, they need to get a handle on what's going on.
And by the way, for the record, I am extremely optimistic about this administration.

I think this is the best thing that could have happened to this country.

I get a lot of shit for it.

But this is something I know several individuals on the cabinet, I'm not going to say who,

that are very interested in transparency for the American people, like sincerely, really want transparency, while also understanding we have to protect national secrets, right? So I think there is going to be some things done that will prevent any type of, hopefully, any type of interference in the future of our nuclear equities. Now, that's not to say, I mean, if something is super highly advanced and they're using a capability we don't understand, then how do you defend against that, right? Well, I mean, you know, now they have this, you know, I interviewed Joe Lonsdale, Epirus, the direct EMP weapon that can take out 100 drones plus at once.
I mean, is that something we could implement? Yeah. And we already should have implemented it.
You know, this last administration dragged their feet. No, we can't do anything about it.
Hell, you can. Yes, you can.
And you should. You know, this is my frustration.
When we allow politics to drive national level decisions involving security without having the expertise in-house or resident, then everything becomes a political calculus. And that's fine until you talk about national security.
There has to be an emphasis on national security, especially with our nuclear equities. I mean, what do you make of this? It was that video, the whistleblower that saw, I think it was an Air Force special operations guy that came out recently, the whistleblower that came out about the egg-shaped craft that we picked up.
There's a little video on night vision. We're going to overlay it right now on the video.
But, I mean, what do you make of this? He says it's an alien craft. Well, first of all, anytime a veteran comes out, I always give them deference.
Why? Because they earned it. I don't care if they're wrong or not.
They earned that privilege to speak their mind. Secondly, he is who he says he is.
He is a former special operator. That is a fact.
So whether you are a Navy SEAL or you're an Air Force PJ or you're an Army special operator.

These are folks that are not just trained observers, as you know, but they're highly skilled, right?

And you go through a battery of psychological evaluations and sometimes polygraphs and drug

testing.

And these are really representing the best of the best tip of the spear.

And that's why they're the tip of the spear.

Where was that retrieved?

You know what?

I'm going to let him, I don't want to talk too much about his story because it's really up to him. You asked me about him as a person.
I believe he is speaking his truth. I believe he is doing what he believes is correct.
And for that, I support him. I was not there for that recovery.
I was not there when he decided to come out. Had you seen anything like that before? There's reports of a vehicle shaped exactly like Lonnie Zamora.
I mean, read the case. He was a cop, and he talked about an egg-shaped craft.
Just like that, back in the 60s, right? So the morphology of this is not anything new. The question is, is that what it was? Or was it something else? I don't know, but the fact that he's willing to come out publicly and tell this conversation I think is important and I hope that other people do too and people come out and start poo-pooing him well you wonder why more whistleblowers don't come out look at the way I was treated I'm not poo-pooing him, I'm just asking no, no, no, no, of course, I don't mean you I mean that rhetorically people in general will say how come we don't have more whistleblowers? Well, look when the whistleblowers come out, how they're treated.
Look at poor Dave Grouch. Here's a guy who I served with.
We were at Space Force together working the UFO topic, working for the UAP task force. That's what we were doing.
That was our job, right? He comes out 24 hours after testifying in Congress. What happens? Two guys from the CIA apparently leak his information, medical information, and try to use his PTSD against him.
You know what? F you. Low-life, piece-of-crap person that would use somebody's combat PTSD against him.
That is, you know, you who never done nothing, never popped nothing, never served nobody. You don't deserve it.
Get your ass in the corner because that guy was a hero. He actually did the right thing.
I saw him every day. And by the way, everything he said was absolutely, everything he told Congress was correct.
And a lot more he knows that he hasn't said. And so what's his reward for speaking his truth? What happened? Oh, this guy, alcoholic.
Oh, this guy, PTSD. I mean, that is the reaction by certain elements within a corrupt system.
And by the way, that's my real issue. That's what motivates me every single day to come out.
It's not just the UAP topic. We've got a very significant issue on our hands right now.
And it's been there for a while. It's become a cancer in our government.
And that concerns me because that threatens everything. That threatens everybody.
And, you know, unless you ask me, I won't go down that road. But that, to me, is a much greater national security issue than UAPs ever were.
What do you think he's open

by coming out with this?

Do you think he's trying to force

the government to reveal something?

Yeah, he's trying to do what I did

and other colleagues of mine.

Let America know the truth

without getting in trouble

and without being thrown into jail

and wearing an orange jumpsuit.

The problem is that

there's a very sophisticated capability

to try to smear people like that. I've been...
Wait till the real truth starts to hit. People are going to go crazy.
When people find out the length that some individuals in this system were willing to go to to keep us quiet, you wait till that shoe drops. That's coming out.
You think it's going to come out? Oh, I know it's coming out. Absolutely.
Yes, sir. Is there any relationship between that and, I mean, did you watch my interview with Sam Shoemate, the Matthews-Livelsberger? You have to forgive me, Chris.
It's okay. You know about Matthews-Livelsberger is the Cybertruck.
He's a former Green Beret. Yes.
Blew up the Cybertruck. I know the story very well.
Okay. And I know what you did.
I didn't see the interview. I apologize.
It's fine. But I know very well that scenario and the email you received and the information you received.
In the email, he talks about gravitic propulsion systems. Is there any relationship between that and what the soft veteran just revealed in the short night vision video? There is a relationship to the story story if it turns out that that video is authentic and legitimate then the answer is an absolute yes but first that video again i wasn't there to shoot the video so i want to be very careful what i say um but anti-gravitics has always been the holy grail for us.
And there's several reasons for it. But if you can understand and somehow control and master anti-gravitics, then that is going, whoever figures that out is going to put you about 200 years ahead of everybody else.
And that's big. That's big.
We kind of talked about this at the beginning. Yeah.
Yeah. You know, antigravitics is the holy grail.
All sorts of things. It's not just being able to fly without any obvious signs of propulsion or without wings and control surfaces.
Again, space-time. If you understand anti-gravity and the warping of space-time, then distance doesn't mean so much to you.
Time is a little more flexible. And so there's a reason why the U.S.
government doesn't even like to talk about it, or any other government. Yeah, I mean, we looked into it.

It's just a science fiction term.

Is it?

It's all we could find.

Couldn't find anything.

You know, it's an interesting world we live in.

I mean, it sounds like you know about this.

Do you know about this?

You know, when it comes to certain capabilities, I'm not going to go there. You know, people just have to see.
I don't want to be, look, I'm trying to do this in a constructive way, not a destructive way. I'm extremely loyal.
People think I left the department I left the department out of disloyalty. No, I left the department out of loyalty.
But I want to do the right thing without, I want to have the conversation without being destructive. And the reason why I left the Pentagon was really just to finish the mission they gave me in the first place.
What about the New Jersey drones? Yeah. You know, that came out, what, about a month ago, whenever the...
It wasn't just New Jersey. It was New York, Massachusetts, Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, even in the UK when I was there...
And I think it kind of spun out of control. I mean, every asshole with a drone was throwing it up and taking videos of it.
Sure, and I'm not worried about those. On social media.
My concern is when you have some that have been reported the size of an SUV, or more importantly, aren't blinking. First of all, they're not squawking.
There's no transponder on them, which if there's a large enough commercial drone, they're supposed to. Then secondly, the light patterns were not consistent with, in some cases, with navigational aviation lights.
And then third, they were silent. And fourth, when we actually deployed drones to try to intercept, individuals tried to do that, there seemed to be an anti-drone capability on board, meaning some drones were disabled and fell out of the sky, the ones that were flown to try to intercept these other drones.
Now, let's talk about drones for a second in New Jersey. Most people are familiar with the quadcopters.
Commercially available hobbyists have little quadcopters. They fly for about 15 minutes, maybe a mile or two, and then they have to be recovered.
Now, imagine what it takes to fly a drone that's the size of an SUV. Let's look at technologically just for a second.
Most drones are line of sight, RF, right? Radio frequency, line of sight. Fly the drone, it sees me, I see it, and it's getting my signal, I can control it.
If you want to go beyond the horizon, beyond line of sight, you now need infrastructure to do that. You need a repeating capability, meaning an airborne capability or a land-based capability that will take that signal and then retransmit it out to your drone because you're now over the horizon where these signals are going to read.
So you need an artificial way, whether it's a balloon or a satellite or a tower, to relay that signal. Otherwise, the thing doesn't fly.
It'll crash. So you got to transmit that.
That takes infrastructure. Then if you're going to have a drone that flies more than 15 minutes, in some case, five, six, seven hours, and not fly two miles, but fly over 100 miles, think about that.
There's only two types of fuel we use for drones. One is internal combustion engine, like jetty fuel maybe you use, or gasoline for propeller, internal combustion engine, or battery.
Now, batteries don't last that long, and they're heavy as hell. And the fuel is even more expensive.
If you want liquid fuel, that's even heavier. So loiter capability, the reason why our drones now, like a Reaper or something like that, are fixed wing, because they've got to stay flying for a long time.
And so a helicopter, a rotary blade drone can't do that. You don't have that loiter capability, so you have a fixed wing capability.
That's not what these were. They weren't fixed wing capabilities.
And so if you want to fly a drone, even one of those, you have to have someone to launch it, someone to control it, someone to recover it, someone to maintain it, someone to refuel it or re-energize it, right? So now you're talking a group of individuals that have to be on flying just a single drone with that type of capability. Where are you going to launch it from without being seen or detected? Where are you going to recover it from without not a single one being recovered, right? Completely in the dark.
You know, that's, now you're talking about, okay, well, maybe I can launch it from a boat. Okay, well, how far out are you going to be in international waters? And are you sure the coast guard's not going to see you and your ship identifier and all these other things? I mean, as some people reported having a quote unquote mothership, that's a big profile in the water.
Okay, well, maybe they're launching some submarines. Okay, great.
But then there's another challenge with that, too. Is the submarine surfacing to launch them? Or are these things being launched subsurface? Meaning like the old Polaris missile, right? It blows out of a tube and flies.
Now, what about when it lands? And what about if one crashes? Because it's technology, right? It could be interfer jamming capabilities. You know, are you willing to take that risk and all of a sudden now you've lost a drone and it's paraded like the Russians did with the U-2 back in the 1960s when we were flying the U-2 over Mother Russia? No, that's a PR disaster.
So there's a lot of things that are inconsistent with some of the descriptions of some of these UAP or some of these UASs or drones. And I think, you know, the fact that we don't know is proof positive why we need to know.
For the government to come out, this last administration, I mean, this is embarrassing to say to the American people, yeah, y'all are seeing stuff. Every single one of these are being flown in a legal way, and they're all either high-risk drones or manned aircraft.

First of all, you don't shut down a military air base

because something's being flown over your base legally.

Get the hell out of town.

We're not that stupid, right?

And when you have all these people that are reporting,

to include members of Congress,

don't tell me that these are all legitimately, because if they were, then where's the paperwork from the FAA? Where's the squat code on this? How come they're not showing up on FlightAware, right? Nothing. And then they'll say, oh, these are all being flown legally, but we don't know whose they are.
Wait a minute. Then how can you say they're being flown legally if you don't know who they belong to? Right? Even the statement itself is contradictory.
And saying, no, no, folks, just don't worry about it. Nothing to see here.
You know, that's the same kind of crap they tried to pull with other things, like with the Afghanistan withdrawal. Don't get me started.
I mean, you keep feeding a bunch of line of people, a bunch of crap to people. You think that they're going to get used to eating crap.
No. They're going to get pissed off and throw the plate in your face.
And that's what we saw with this last election. The people got tired of being lied to and constantly being told something that was exact opposite of what was happening.
Politics aside, I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, nobody needs to do that. Just tell the American the truth.
And look, if you don't have an answer, say that too. But don't lie.
Don't insult the American public. Come on.
That's not why we put people in office. I mean, what are they? What are they? What do you think they are? Well, I think there might be multiple things.
It might be a combination of things. You might have.
So in the old days, if you had like, for example, if you breach the perimeter of a military base, you would have some Jeeps come out and maybe a helicopter to try to find what's going on. But we're more sophisticated than that.
We now have drone capability ourselves. And so if we detect something on the perimeter, break in a perimeter, we can just launch drones like that automatically.
We can geofence the whole place and automatically have drones take off without even a human being involved to figure out what's going on. And by the way, it's a lot cheaper.
You could cover a lot more area using a drone than you can with one or two helicopters. So imagine a scenario where maybe some people reporting some sort of really anomalous issue, a UAP perhaps.
And then the response by us is to launch drones to try to figure out what's going on. And so you have some people reporting something that doesn't look like a drone, size of an SUV that disappears, comes in and out of the water potentially, stalks Coast Guard boats in the middle of the ocean, right? Up to 20 at a time.
And then our response is to launch drones to figure out what these are. And then people report, no, I was whirring.
I could hear making sound, it was blinking lights like a plane, it was definitely a drone. They both could be right.
Both could actually be happening. Now, I'm not saying, for the record, I'm not saying that's what's occurring, but that could explain why you have this varying degrees of explanation between eyewitnesses.
Someone says it's huge, it's been loyting for hours and hours, it doesn't look like anything I've ever seen before, and then someone says, oh no, it's a little tiny thing with warring blades and blinky lights. So to ask your question, what is it, and is it one or the other, it actually could be both.
And it could also be other options that we haven't yet considered. But again, this is why it's so important.
This is why I've been trying to emphasize with the new administration to get a handle on this, because this will be a PR disaster. It will be, if it already has been, if we don't get a handle on it.
So there's been several recommendations that have been floated up to the new administration to help President Trump get a handle on this and do exactly like he said he's going to do. And I have full faith in confidence.
What are some of the other possibilities that we haven't considered? Foreign adversarial capability. It's not a blue force technology.
It's a red force technology that's being used to assess our reaction to certain things. I mean, I think that was brought up.
There was a lot of chatter that it might be Iranian drones. I mean, there have been reports that that's why the inauguration was moved indoors.
It was an Iranian drone threat. Yeah, could be Chinese.
Then there's also the other alternative which you discussed maybe it's it's a blue force response to a threat and we don't want to panic the public you know we've got a broken arrow situation on our hands we've got a lost nuke right or maybe some bad guy figured out how to do something and put something together you know under our noses that's a scary thought you know or could out, look, you know, let's see the response. If we wanted, if I was a bad guy and I wanted to use a drone to spray some sort of chemical or biological agent, right? How would we defend against that? Could we detect it, you know, an airborne aerosol attack? And so how do we detect it? Well, we'll send some drones out to spray something, nothing bad, just something, a tracer that we can pick up with other drones and send other drones out to say, yeah, we can actually pick this up and this technology works, right? So there's lots of different possibilities, excuse me, there's lots of different possibilities, and we really need to consider them all.
I don't understand why we wouldn't have used one of those directed EMP weapons. Brethren, we could have, and we should have, and we didn't.
This is my point. It is so ridiculous, and all it takes is someone in the administration say, you know, FAA, look, I will tell you, when I was in the Pentagon, I was part of a working group, the U.S.
Aerodomain Working Group, and it was co-sponsored by the FAA and Department of Homeland Security, DHS. And even when I was there like 2013 and 2014, they were still arguing who was responsible for what.
When you say, okay, who's responsible for drones? No one wanted to accept it. It's ridiculous.
And this is why I think the president, you're going to see probably some, maybe executive orders come out saying from now on, okay, you're going to do this. And if there's a drone in the sky, the buck stops with you.
And yes, you can shoot it down. If it's not ours and we're not squawking, then shame on you, zap it.
If it turns out to be a government contractor, well, you should have listed your flight path. Sorry, sorry your million-dollar capability crashed.
That your fault, not mine. So, yes, we do have the capability.
Very easy to do that, but we don't. Yeah, yeah.
Just like the Chinese spy balloon, right? How many have went over the northern continental United States before we actually saw one and shot it down? Oh, I was really upset about that. It did turn out that we did extract

some type of intelligence out of that balloon.

Well, you know, the story is now, right,

that we've been known about these flights for a long time.

Yeah.

And it never got reported up.

So that's a break in the chain of command, too.

And who had the unilateral authority to make that decision?

Yeah.

I guarantee you they did not have that authority.

Yeah.

Yeah.

How close are, I concerned are you that China, Russia, Iran, name, enemy of us, has this type of technology? As in the drone technology or the UAP technology? The UAP. Oh.
Sean, I am worried. I'm worried particularly with the two big guys, Russia and China.
China has already announced through the Five Continents Initiative to run the entire, be in charge of the entire United Nations effort for UAP investigations. They announced what? Can you say that again? I think it was the South China Morning Sun.
They announced through what they call the Five Continents Initiative, China has proposed to the United Nations that they set up and run the UAP investigation for the United Nations. Russia has had a long history in this.
In fact, right after the Berlin Wall fell down and there was this brief romance period, this marriage kind of honeymoon between the United States and Russia. Remember when that happened? The ball came down.
Everybody, actually, you may have been too young. There was this brief period for a few years where we were working with KGB.
KGB was working with us, and they were giving us all their files. And we gained a lot of insight into their UAP program, into the, well, better not say it.
There's some names, program names, that the Russians were involved with involving UAP. And it was very precise.
They were sharing a lot of intel with us. There was a lot of it.
And even at ATIP, we had a lot of that intel available to us. So we know for a fact Russia and China.
We also know for a fact that there were several key allies, Five-Eye partners. I won't say which ones they are because they might get mad.
But they were interested. And we had actually an information sharing agreement with them.

In fact, Japan, two and a half years ago,

came to the United States, two and a half years ago,

came to, actually about three years ago now,

came to the Pentagon and asked to enter

into a bilateral intelligence information sharing agreement

with the United States for the sole purposes of sharing UAP-related information. Interesting.
Is there any overlap with this information and intel? When you say overlap, I'm trying to define... What I'm asking, are we seeing any similarities? Oh, yeah, all similarities.
That's what ATIP did. That's what the five observables were.
Yeah, there's similarities.

They don't have totally different shit than we have.

No.

Well.

It's a little bit different.

When you say they don't have different, are you talking about other nations?

I'm sorry.

Forgive me.

When we're sharing files with Russia or Japan or China or whoever the hell it is, are we seeing similarities in the intel?

Absolutely.

Yes.

The morphology, the velocity, the performance characteristics,

the capabilities.

Absolutely we are.

Okay.

Absolutely we are.

What the Italian fighter pilot saw three weeks ago

over the Adriatic Sea,

we saw four years ago with a Navy Super Hornet pilot.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Okay.

Wow.

How much do you think they know that we don't know? That's my fear. That's why this is a problem.
I don't fear the UAP or the UAP technology. I fear some other country having that technology and using it against us.
And here we are. We're not even willing to have the conversation with our own people.
And they're totally open about it. They don't give shit.
They're spending lots of money into this topic. So that is part of my concern.
Well, I hope you're right. I hope we start getting some answers.
Well, the good news is I think we actually know a lot more than we've admitted, fortunately. Is that good news? I guess it probably is.
Well, what it is, it's at least, I think, encouraging that we've been, look, we've been looking at UFOs for a long time, brother. This is not new.
We have been involved in this topic since well before Blue Book. I just read you a document.
They're from 1950. Yeah.
There's stuff from the National Security Council, the president, from J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the CIA.
It's all in writing. It's all there.
I just sent you a small little, tiny little snapshot of some of the reporting. There's a bunch of it.
So people say, well, you know, our government doesn't know anything. Hello? Yes, they do.
That's just been a recent part of the narrative, so you don't look over there. We've known about it for a long time.
We've been investigating. There's documents on official investigations all the way to the White House on this topic.
We got it. So I would tell people, I think, look, here's the good news, because I don't want to be all doom and gloom and go, oh, you're fear-mongering and trying to say things are a threat.

No, I'm not.

The threat is our lack of knowledge on this topic, and our threat is not being transparent with the American people. You can't fix a problem, right? You can't recover from a problem if you don't identify it in the first place.
I think we're at the point now

there was a fear for a very long time

why our government didn't share this information with the American public. And I understand, I don't agree with it, for the record, but I can respect it and understand it.
At the height of the Cold War, what was going on? Well, you had this winner-takes-all approach to a chess match between then-Soviet Union and the United States. And we had a lot of things going on.
We had civil unrest, and we had conflicts over here in Vietnam and other places, and you had a nuke, real nuke issue. Russians had nukes, we had nukes, and we're building more and more and more and more and possibly go to war.
And there was this concern that, you know,

here's this real threat from Russia,

and then you've got this other thing going on here

that is interesting but doesn't show any obvious signs

of being a threat yet.

So why don't we focus on this issue here,

and then we'll kind of maybe at some point address that issue.

Then there's also the notion of you don't admit there's a problem until you have a solution. Look, governments are solution-oriented.
That's what we pay them to do, to have solutions. And let me give you a real case point of this.
In the 1960s, it was actually started in the 50s, the CIA and Lockheed at the time developed the U-2 spy plane. And the idea of this plane was to fly faster and higher than any other plane we ever had and fly in contravention to what? The Russian agreement we had, the treaty with the Russians that we would not fly manned reconnaissance missions over mainland Russia.
And what did we do? We did the exact opposite. We actually flew manned reconnaissance missions, but we did it in a way where we didn't think they would ever see it.
And what happened the first couple missions? We succeeded. Russians didn't respond.
Mission success. They didn't even know we were there.
Or did they? It wasn't until the Russians were able to develop and deploy the SA-2 surface-to-air missile and successfully shoot one down and parade powers, who was the pilot,

and show the wreckage in front of the United Nations, did the Russians ever admit that they

were tracking every single flight? It wasn't until they could neutralize the threat did they ever

admit, even to the Russian people, that there was a problem. Because that's what governments do.

And so, is it possible that some people in our government said, look, this is just too much for

I'm going to go think tanks by the U.S. government.
And in those studies, I said, what would happen with the American people if we disclosed the presence of UFOs? And the answer was, you can't. You will cause civil unrest throughout our population.
And people say, no, that's silly. You're not going to cause panic and civil unrest.
Well, look, it's happened before where people got freaked out. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were, I think it was 1947, right?

They were discovered, the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It was like years and years and years later before the translation of those Dead Sea Scrolls were publicly released.

Now, why is that?

Because they were afraid it was going to contradict the current understanding of the Judeo-Christian belief system.

We don't want, this will upset people too much, right?

Cause panic, cause anxiety, hysteria at a mass scale, mass scale. I can understand that.
I can understand that mentality, but the reality is the American people can handle the truth. In fact, the American people deserve the truth.
This generation, new generation of young men and women are different than mine.

They are different.

They have access to the entire world on their cell phones

in virtually any language instantly.

If I wanted to go learn something in school,

I had to go to the school library,

grab an encyclopedia that's probably 20 years old

and read a paragraph on something, right? If the page was even there so that some kid didn't rip it out and put it as part of his book report. Now, you've got the entire world history in the palm of your hands.
So I think this new generation is much more willing and readily able to accept some of these more profound ideas about humans and our existence, our place in this cosmos, they're not causing panic. Most of the young people I talk to, they go, meh, yeah, we know aliens are real.
You do? Yeah, why not? Well, okay. I mean, that's different than when I grew up.
And people thought you were crazy. In fact, the American Psychological Association once considered the study or research or belief in UFOs as being an extreme form of deviance.
Think about that. Same with tattoos, by the way, right? So, I think our mentality of our society is changing.
I think we're not, you know, the old saying, this is not your father's Oldsmobile. I don't think we're not, you know, the old saying, I'm not your father, this is not your father's Oldsmobile.
I don't think we're in the same place mentally, psychologically, sociologically, theologically than we were in my generation. I think with where we are as a society, things have fundamentally changed.
You know, the way we deal with new information and new ideas. Let's not forget that in the words of Arthur C.
Clarke, right, any sufficient technology, advanced technology, appears like magic. Right? But it's not.
It's just technology. I often tell people, you know, a little exercise.
I say, if I tell you the word parachute, para being a prefix, Latin prefix meaning above or beside. So if I say parachute, what do you think of? Well, I think of about a device that deploys over my head and helps me get to the ground with a thump and not a thud, hopefully, right? And if I say parachute, I mean, paramedic, what do you think? Well, I think of first responders, something positive, people there to save a life, you know.
So paramedic, parachute. But then when I say paranormal, what happens? You just did it.
You did exactly what most people do. They go, hmm, right? The reason why is because we have been conditioned, that word paranormal is spooky.
It's weird. When in reality, everything in science, everything in science is paranormal until it becomes normal.
The cell phones that we use and Wi-Fi signals and the laptop computers and all that at one point would have been considered paranormal. And now it's routine.
It's not normal. It's just advanced technology.
And so I think with this new generation of young people, they realize that. They understand that a lot of things that we grew up thinking strange and weird are.
I was at a time, you probably remember this probably. Yeah, you're in the military for this.
Do you remember the whole policy of don't ask, don't tell? Right? And people's lives were ruined, and if they suspected you of being homosexual, that you could lose your entire career and be discharged. Well, that's silly.
Who gives a crap someone's gay? I mean, right? But that was the mentality back then. And man, people were, you lose your career over that shit.
Now we look back and say, being patriotic has nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Who gives a shit, right? But that was real back then, and it affected a lot of people's lives.
This new generation, I think, realizes that. They're like, hey, man, you guys were really kind of stuck in this old paradigm of doing things.
Maybe you should reconsider and reevaluate. Because at the end of the day, the topic of UFOs and the UAP, UAP aren't going to change.
It's here, whatever it is. The only thing that changes the way that we deal with it, the way we look at it, the way we think about it, the way we handle it, right? We can't change that fact that something exists.
I can't change the fact that there's a lion or a tiger or a hippopotamus on that side of the wall. What I can do is change the way that I view that.
Is it a threat or is it an opportunity? Can it hurt me? Well, yeah, but if it's behind a cage, then probably not. And can I learn something from it and things like that? That's my perspective.
I don't have all the answers. I have some answers that hopefully will continue to be developed and come out in a legal way.
I'm not a leaker. I've never disclosed classified information.
I still maintain my top secret security clearance with SCI eligibility. I'm not going to jeopardize it.
I took an oath to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that's what I'm going to do. And I don't think I need to compromise national security to have this conversation.
We've come a long way in the last seven years, and I've said before to people, there's a difference between doing things right and doing things right now. I prefer to do things right.
We have one opportunity to do it right. And I think we are making significant headway.
If someone like me were to just come out full Monty and say everything I know, you'll know more information, but you'll never get any more because I'll go to jail and that's it. And so I think there's a balance.
I think we can continue to have this conversation, get the members of Congress engaged, support our new administration and their pursuit, dogged pursuit of the truth,

while increasing the aperture

of transparency and disclosure

in a manner that is constructive,

not destructive.

In a manner that gives the American people

what they deserve,

the information they deserve,

but without compromising

any type of national security,

equity, or capability.

We can do it.

Yeah, it's harder.

Yeah, it's a lot harder.

I know.

Ask me how I know.

But we're succeeding. We're doing it.
We're able to do it. We just got to have a little bit of patience and a little bit of courage.
And I think we're doing it. Look, the fact you and I are having this conversation, you are one of the biggest media personalities on the planet.
Now, think about that. You now have more people listening to you and your voice on a weekly basis than the major networks of our country for the last 70 years, like ABC, CBS, and NBC, right? So your voice matters, and we're having this conversation.
There was a time that people in the media would never talk about this because it was suicide, just like politicians. This topic would be considered political suicide because when you mention UFOs, people think tinfoil hats and Elvis on the mothership and nonsense like that.
No, what we're talking about is national security. And we're also talking about the human condition, the way we process information, the way we handle new paradigms.
I've used this before, and I think to its effect, my wife will kill me for saying this.

She hates this analogy. But I will submit to you that there are moments in our evolution as a species where these paradigm moments occur, where we change fundamentally our understanding of our reality.
And so one may argue that when we were first coming out of the cave for the very first time and gazing upon the heavens, we realized at that moment that our world just got a lot bigger. Another paradigm moment may be when two people were striking a rock together and all of a sudden a spark flew and they created fire.
And for the first time, mankind could illuminate the darkness. And now the monsters hiding behind the trees, well, they were just bushes, right? Another paradigm moment may have been when mankind was standing on a stony beach and one fisherman says to the other, you're not going to sail over the horizon.
And he says to him, you can't do that. You're going to fall off the edge.
And oh, by the way, there's sea monsters out there, giant kraken, and you're going to get ripped apart. And of course, people laugh about it now.
But you know what? It turns out they were right. There are sea monsters.
They're just called giant squid of the Pacific and great white sharks and blue whales. And they're really not monsters, really.
They're part of our nature. They're part of our understanding.
And so maybe this topic of UAP, this is just yet another stony beach we're about to sail over the horizon. Yeah.
But we already are with AI.

Oh, absolutely.

I could not agree more.

I think you're absolutely correct.

Well, Lou.

I don't know if we got to any of the questions you wanted to ask.

I'm sorry.

It's been a fascinating interview.

And I just, it was a real pleasure to have you here.

And I hope to see you again.

Sean, it's my honor and privilege.

You always have a home out in Wyoming. I mean it sincerely.
Listen, you're doing great work for our country. You don't need to hear that from me.
I know you hear it all the time. But truly, truly, from somebody who spent a little bit of time in the media, you are providing a great service to our nation.
And even if it has nothing to do with the UFO topic, the fact that you're willing to put yourself out there, have these meaningful conversations, and allow your audience to be part of that, history will remember you very kindly. You are setting a new tone for how America gets its information.
Without a filter, by the way, before with the networks, remember you had all sorts of people coming up and putting spins on things. What you are doing is a tremendous service for our nation and humanity.
So thank you sincerely. My wife is a big fan of yours.
Really appreciate what you're doing. And I appreciate all the guests you've had in the past and all the guests you're having in the future.
Even if of those guests in the past don't like me very much thank you for doing what you're doing thank you

for saying that you got it honor and privilege

NBA veteran Jim Jackson takes you on the court.

You get a chance to dig into my 14-year career in the NBA and also get the input from the people that will be joining. Charles Barkley.
I'm excited to be on your podcast, man. It's an honor.
Spike Lee, entrepreneur, filmmaker, Academy Award winner. Nixon! Now you see, I got you.
But also how sports brings life, passion, music,

all of this together.

The Jim Jackson Show,

part of the Rich Eisen Podcast Network.