Best of the Program | Guest: Luis Elizondo | 9/23/19

Hello, podcasters.

It's Glenn Beck and Pat Gray filling in for Stu.

He'll be back from vacation later this week.

Pat, we had a great, great show today.

We did.

Great show.

Some global warming talk.

Oh, there was some talk about algorithms replacing the United States Constitution.

What a great idea.

Isn't that a great idea?

Yeah, Joe Biden.

Joe Biden, boy, man, it's a good thing he's exposing that whistleblower who, according to CNN, was just a gossip monger.

A guy or a gal who was either heard it from somebody in the bedroom or heard it at a bar, but not at business.

It was a rumor that was going around.

Yeah, they said it happened away from work.

It's unbelievable.

Also, quantum technology.

Scary.

Really, really some amazing things to pay attention to today, all on today's podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Glenbeck program.

All right, I want to talk to you a little bit about Joe Biden.

And last week,

there was a whistleblower.

Now, that's an important word.

What is a whistleblower, Pat?

That's somebody who blows the whistle on something they just found out, some secret that this, in this case, the Trump administration had.

Right.

And a whistleblower is on the inside and has special information.

Right.

Right?

They have access.

A whistleblower is someone who has access to information that nobody else has.

And because they have the access, they bring it out and say, look, here's the documents the tobacco companies knew the whole time.

That's a whistleblower.

What the press has been reporting on is

not a whistleblower.

It's like a little old church lady that is involved in gossip.

That's what they had.

The whistleblower came out and said, do you know that the president spoke to the Ukrainian foreign minister and threatened him, said

he would retaliate if they didn't go and investigate Joe Biden?

Well, that's pretty amazing.

And the whistleblower would would would be somebody then that had inside information, was standing in the room, saw the transcript, somehow or another, had special information that no one else had.

And he went right from the Oval Office, right to the press, and said, you have to understand.

I have this information.

I've got to blow the whistle.

But that, again, is not what happened.

What did happen, Pat?

Well, instead,

somebody was apparently having a beer with someone else at the office,

somebody else who works with them in the office, and they were at the bar,

or maybe they were in bed, and there was a little pillow talk.

And the person

who gave the whistleblower the information said, hey, you know what?

I guess Trump just called the Ukrainians and threatened them over the Biden thing.

Wow.

I'm going to go straight to Congress with that.

So this is secondhand information that this whistleblower has, and he took it to Congress.

And it was a rumor.

It was a rumor.

And it wasn't even done at work.

So, it's not like one colleague said to another, we don't even know if they're colleagues at all.

It might have been some lover, it might have been just a friend at a bar, and it's something that was gossiped about somewhere outside of work.

So,

we have now completed the circle of

social justice.

You don't need any facts.

You don't need anything but a rumor.

Now,

whose fault is this?

Well, this is the fault of really the media, because you know what a political party is going to do.

If they can shop a rumor, they'll shop a rumor.

They're just trying to win and win at all costs.

They don't care.

So is it the Democratic Party's fault?

Well, kind of.

I mean, but that would be expecting them to actually care about the truth.

And I don't think either party, when it comes to the party, I don't think they care about the truth.

They just want to win.

And so that's where a press needs to come in.

And the press comes in and they say, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.

You have a whistleblower that says this.

Yeah.

What's the name?

Can't give you that.

Where do they work?

Can't give you that.

Well, how did it come about?

Can't tell you.

Well, did they, do they have evidence?

Can't tell you that.

Do they do that?

Did they hear it?

Can't tell you that.

That's pretty solid.

Let's run with it.

I mean, that doesn't make any sense at all.

That's not the way you run a business.

That's not the way you run the press.

No one,

Pat, out of all of the things that we have exposed from Tides Foundation, Acorn, Van Jones, Planned Parenthood, Google, anything that we have run,

have we even been close to that low standard?

Oh, no.

Never.

Because we can't.

We can't.

We can't.

We would be

just delegitimized or taken off the air completely.

Yeah.

One of the two.

I mean, that's Alex Jones too.

We don't have any credibility.

That is is truly the way Alex Jones runs his place.

Yeah.

Wow.

I mean, we've heard that there's a pizza thing and they've got children trapped in the basement.

That is the same thing.

And instead of people coming in with guns, instead your politicians go in with impeachment papers.

Now, this is so, this is so good for Donald Trump that it is almost as if the pillow talk was happening between him and Melania.

You know, if you just went to the press, Melania, and told them that you

didn't even hear it.

You just heard that there's a possibility that I was talking to the foreign minister of Ukraine and I threatened him.

Darling, that's brilliant.

So she goes and does.

You could...

You could make the case that this was a setup

by Donald Trump and the White House.

It's that good for him.

Now, you can only make the case if you do exactly what CNN and CBS and ABC and NBC did, and that is just run with no facts.

I could make the case to them.

Would they print it?

I have.

What do you have on that, Glenn?

Oh, no, no sources.

But I'm a whistleblower.

Oh, you're a whistleblower.

Yeah, I think.

I mean, Pat and I were having breakfast the other day, and we were talking about it, and we had heard that Donald Trump actually told Melania in bed to act like a whistleblower.

Why won't you run with it, press?

They probably would.

Yeah, they probably would at this point.

This is crazy.

If it was anti-Trump, I think they would run with it.

They don't care.

They don't care.

They don't care.

Remember that Brian Stelter story where he had the guy on and they speculated for about 10 minutes that

Donald Trump wasn't just colluding with, that he was an actual Russian agent.

Yeah, spy.

Remember that?

Yeah.

He was

a lifelong spy for the Soviet Union and Russia.

Yeah.

Because, you know, he was very close with Russia in his younger years.

Unbelievable.

What?

What?

They don't care.

The Oms Budsman for

CNN, Brian Stelter,

is speculating that the president is an actual Russian agent?

Wow.

So why did this happen?

Well, why it happened

is even more fun.

Why it happened is even better.

So

why is this happening?

Why is this happening?

Well, let me just give you, let me see if I can find it here.

Let me just give you a quote from

Joe Biden

about Iowa.

Mr.

Biden, do you have to win Iowa?

Do we think we have to win Iowa?

No.

Do we want to win Iowa?

Yes.

Yes, we do.

We think we're going to win.

We know it's going to be a dogfight.

And the same thing is true in New Hampshire.

We don't have to win New Hampshire, but we'd like to.

Well, at some point, the frontrunner has got to actually be out front.

And the first two races, he's not out front.

The Biden campaign is starting to fall apart.

And I can't believe I'm saying this, but Elizabeth Warren looks like she may be the presidential nominee for the Democrats.

I can't believe, can you believe that?

No.

I thought she was done with the Pocahontas.

I thought so, too.

I thought, you know, a little pow wow chow and she'd be done.

Apparently not.

Apparently not.

So she is now leading the polls in Iowa.

He is in, I think, collapse.

He's at the very beginning of just full-fledged collapse.

And he's desperate.

Do you have the audio of him

yesterday turning on Fox?

We have that.

We have that in the studio.

Here it is.

Listen up.

Mr.

Vice President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?

I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.

And so,

let's talk, here's what I know: I know Trump deserves to be investigated.

He is violating every basic norm of a president.

You should be asking him the question: why is he on the phone with a foreign leader?

He's trying to intimidate a foreign leader.

He isn't.

He's not.

He's on the phone with

good point.

He's a friend.

They do.

They talk to other foreign leaders.

And intimidate.

He didn't.

No.

That was a rumor not coming from a whistleblower.

That was a rumor.

The foreign minister of

the Ukraine said, he never said that.

That didn't happen.

It didn't happen.

This is.

The birther story.

Yeah.

That's what this is.

They don't mind.

They don't care if they're lies.

They're outright lies and they just

the birther story started with Hillary Clinton.

It wasn't a Donald Trump thing.

I mean, he ran with it after, but it started with Hillary Clinton.

Now, so he says we need an investigation on Trump.

Well, you've already had one.

Now, here's Lindsey Graham saying, you know, an investigation would be good.

Listen.

Joe Biden said everybody's looked at this and found nothing.

Who is everybody?

Nobody's looked at the Ukraine and the Bidens.

Nobody's looked at the role the Ukraine played in the 2016 election.

Do you think the media in America would really look at it and report on it if there was something bad for the Bidens or they unduly interfered in the 2016 election?

So here's what I'm calling on.

Yeah.

Calling for.

I'm calling for somebody in the Justice Department to look at all things Ukraine.

We've looked at all things Russia and Trump, his family, everything about his family, every transaction between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Now it's time to see whether or not the Ukrainians released information regarding Manaport, who is Trump's campaign manager.

What relationships, if any, did the Biden world have to the Ukraine?

What role, if any, did the Ukraine play in the 2016 election?

So nobody's looked at this, but somebody should.

So I'm hoping the Department of Justice will look at the Biden-Ukraine connection like we looked at the Trump-Russia connection.

All right, here's Mike Pompeo on what Americans deserve to know.

If there was election interference that took place by the Vice President, I think the American people deserve to know.

We know there was interference in the 2016 election.

And if it's the case that there was something going on with the president or his family that caused a conflict of interest and Vice President Biden behaved in a way that was inconsistent with the way leaders ought to operate, I think the American people deserve to know that.

All right, now, last one.

Here's Representative Devin Nunes on Biden.

The left knows that Biden's son is a problem for him.

This is why when Hillary Clinton was running, these stories first originated, first originated back when Hillary Clinton was trying to make sure that Biden didn't get in the race.

So now that these have been resurrected, I don't know who came up with the scheme.

Maybe there really is this whistleblower is not a partisan.

I mean, we want to hear from that whistleblower, but it sure looks like the the scheme is backfired.

And this, like I said, I think this is probably the end of Biden's campaign.

End of his campaign.

I really do.

I don't think, I mean, not that he's still formidable.

He still has a block of support.

But if you look, his lead is basically down to zero.

So

let me start again, or let me finish again with where we started.

Listen to him on the campaign trail when Fox asks him the question, have you ever, how many times have you talked to your son about his business dealings?

Listen, Mr.

Vice President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?

I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.

Stop.

He's never because his son

says the exact opposite.

So now,

which one is it?

Now, if you don't know about his business dealings, we did,

I think we did two shows on his business dealing.

And the first business dealings revolve around

the Ukraine.

But the Ukraine is nothing compared to China.

But since we're talking about the Ukraine, we should probably...

We should probably go in and look at the Ukraine.

Joe Biden was best pal with John Kerry this is in 2009

and it happened just in time as Joe Biden was sworn in as vice president their sons decide to get together Joe Biden or Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden and John Kerry's stepson Christopher Hines

now here's a father and son team that decide that the fathers should pal around

and the sons should pal around.

So now John Kerry and Joe Biden are pals.

Now remember, this happened just as he's being sworn in as vice president.

John Kerry is going to be made Secretary of State.

And the two sons get together and they decide, we're going to go into business together.

They bring in a third partner, the roommate from Yale, Devin Archer.

Now, Devin is the guy who co-chaired John Kerry's campaign finance committee when he ran for president in 2004.

So the trio decide to do something none of them have any experience in whatsoever.

The three of them decide we're going to start an international private equity firm called Rosemont Capital.

And we're going to have several different branches, including one that's called Rosemont Seneca Partners with an office in Georgetown, which happens to be right down the street from John Kerry's mansion.

And then another one is right by Joe Biden's vice presidential home.

Now, it's important to know here that the U.S.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act does not prevent foreign companies from hiring or making special deals with children of U.S.

government officials.

That law should be changed.

All right.

However,

these business deals,

man, they seem awfully shady.

And they happen to

coincide with visits to the Ukraine from

Joe Biden and John Kerry.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Let me give you a couple of briefs on a couple of stories that I found very interesting that I think you should have.

One,

do you remember we started talking about deep fakes, I don't know how long ago, five, six years ago at least, and we

told you at the time,

there's going to come a day where where you're not going to be able to believe your eyes or your ears.

You will not know what's real and what's not.

2020 is that year.

I've been saying this for a while.

Now science is backing it up.

From CNBC, manipulated images and videos that appear perfectly real will be accessible to everyday people in a year and a half, sorry, to half a year to a year.

Now that's accessible to the average person.

It's still very easy today to you can tell with a naked eye most of the deep fakes, but in six months you will not be able to tell the difference.

This means that just in time for the campaign, China, Russia, anybody that wants to disrupt is going to be able to release a video of Donald Trump on the phone with

the Ukrainian foreign minister saying, I'm telling you right now, we're going to open up our siloed doors and we're going to bomb the snot out of Ukraine unless you help me forge

some documents about Joe Biden.

And it will look absolutely, completely real.

And somebody else will be able to to come up with the video of Joe Biden in a secret lair somewhere underground in Georgetown with John Kerry going, Yes.

And then what we do,

we get China to give us all of the money and then we take over the world.

And it will look absolutely real.

And we will not be able to tell the difference.

We will be able to see a video of the mullahs in Iran.

A smuggled video came out from a whistleblower.

And it will be the mullahs saying, yes, we target Saudi Arabia, we take down their oil industry, and then we move to Israel.

And you will not be able to tell the difference.

By the end of 2020.

By the time the next president is sworn in,

you will not know what's real and what is not.

There will be so much fake news, fake video, fake audio that you will not know who to trust.

I warn you of this because

you must take your own

life into your own hands.

You must

not discredit yourself in any way, shape, or form.

When I was at the bottom about 2005, I had been trying to

stay sober.

And I was sober, but I was, no, I was dry, but I was not sober.

And I could barely hold on to my sobriety.

And I had lost absolutely everything.

Even my best friend Pat abandoned me.

Not true at all.

I did move.

You did move.

I did move.

But you begged me.

Should have been 1995, though.

1995.

2005.

Oh, yeah, I meant 1995, yeah, 1995.

And

I remember being down on the ground, and I had lost everything.

And I remembered the only thing I wanted back was my credibility.

And

because nobody believed me, because I had done a good job of hiding who I was and my alcoholism and everything else.

And

I just wanted my credibility back.

And I remember saying, I will not,

I'll do anything.

Just please, Lord, help me.

Help me get get to a point to where I can look someone in the eye and say, this is truly what I believe.

And

then believe me.

Let me be true.

Please, I'll do anything.

And I've worked really hard on being that way.

And I,

with everybody who counts in my life, I have credibility.

I hope I have credibility with you, but there's so much stuff out there now.

Who knows?

Your credibility matters with the people in your circle of influence.

My circle of influ you're not going to believe me or anybody else.

Look at how much damage has been done to people of all walks of life, no matter who they are.

They either have credibility and they shouldn't,

or they don't have credibility, and perhaps they should.

You don't know who to trust.

Only worry about your circle of influence.

Don't do anything to discredit yourself because that is going to be the only gold standard, I believe, in a year from now, about a year and a half.

Now, story number two:

Google has claimed now quantum supremacy.

They have marked a major milestone in a paper that was posted to NASA.gov earlier last week, and then it was taken down.

The Financial Times was the first to report the news.

A claim made in the new scientific paper from NASA.gov, the most serious indication that the promise of quantum computers,

an emerging but unproven type of machine, is actually becoming a reality.

Again, we don't know this this paper was taken down and the word is is that

it was taken down because it was premature to publish

and hadn't gone through all of the vetting process so we don't know if this is true or not.

But the paper at NASA.gov claimed while our processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of the quantum circuit one million times, a a state-of-the-art supercomputer would require approximately 10,000 years to perform the equivalent task.

So, what it would take a supercomputer, today's best supercomputers, 10,000 years, it took the quantum computer from Google 200 seconds.

Researchers in the paper estimate that performing the same experiment on a Google Cloud server would take 50 trillion

too long to even be feasible.

But on the new quantum processor, it only took 30 seconds.

Again, 50 trillion hours to 30 seconds.

This is that singularity we've been talking about for many years.

Yes.

We're kind of there.

It's approach.

If this is real, we are, if this is real, the algorithms, everything will change.

Everything will change.

Blockchain is over uh because uh quantum computing will be able to block it will be able to uh hack that now please tie this with a couple of other things there is a new list out from comparatech it's a technology research firm

and um

it shows

which cities around the world are the most surveilled places in the world

number one

Chongqing, China.

Number two,

Shenzhen, China.

Number three, Shanghai, China.

Number four, Taijin, China.

Number five, Jinan, China.

Please excuse the pronunciation of all of these cities.

Number six,

London, England.

Number seven.

I think your pronunciation of that was way out of water.

I I know.

Wuhan, China.

Number eight,

Gangzhu, China.

Number nine, Beijing, China.

Number ten, Atlanta, Georgia.

That's the most surveilled city in America?

In America.

Atlanta, Georgia.

Wow.

They have 15 cameras per 1,000 people.

Number 13 is Chicago.

Number 28 is Washington.

Number 38 is San Francisco.

Number 42 is San Diego.

And number 46 is Boston, Mass.

New York's not even on that list.

New York's not on the list.

That is incredible.

Two more stories.

Two more stories, and you will see the complete picture.

All right.

One more story, and I'm going to tie it all together.

Brain-computer interfaces, BCI,

once used exclusively for clinical researcher, or research now under development at several startups and a major tech company, and rudimentary versions are already popping up in online stores.

Here's why this matters to you:

it unlocks the information inside of your head and could give companies and governments access

the privacy risks alone.

It is the absolute end of privacy.

Forget about any of the social media data.

This is actually from outside of your head, a machine that can read your mind.

In some cases, even the implants

that people like Elon Musk are working on, they are relatively limited in the data they can extract from your brain.

And we don't know how accurate they can interpret, but the tech is moving at light speed.

They can now recognize basic emotional states, unspoken words, and imagined movements.

They monitor your neural data.

Wow.

Researchers have found similarities in the way different people's brains process information.

They can make a rough guess today about what somebody is thinking or about to do

based on brain activity.

This could lead to future crime stopping.

That's exactly what it is.

Yeah, that'd be awesome.

If you could stop people from committing a crime they're about to commit, and that'd be great.

So they already have out on the market these basic headsets that are being sold as relaxation tools or entertainment gadgets.

Do not

buy one.

Do not put one on your head.

They're using the devices to fine-tune what is going on and they're fine-tuning it.

They're using you as a guinea pig.

They're using them currently to fine-tune advertising pitches.

Facebook is involved in this.

Elon Musk is involved with this.

And the neurotechnology,

they believe you'll be able to type out your thoughts you'll merge with ai

how exciting is that it's really exciting you'll merge with an ai machine people are not people

people think this is one of the most frustrating things and i just talked to uh robert epstein about this he's the researcher uh you know the harvard mit guy that's doing everything on google yeah and he said the biggest frustration is i can't get people to take this seriously.

No, they don't.

They don't.

I haven't talked to anybody who takes it seriously.

No.

You two?

Why do you?

What's the difference with you?

I have a brain.

I don't.

I don't know.

I think, you know,

we've been watching out for things like this for a long time.

If you haven't been watching out for things like this for a long time, you just think, ah, we've heard this all before and nothing's going to come of it.

And we've seen this.

I've been watching this since the early 1990s.

Yeah.

And been following this stuff and thought it was cool, but fiction.

Yeah.

Until really the last 15 years.

And in the last 15 years, it's been pretty dicey.

As Robert Epstein said to me,

Glenn, 2020 is going to be terrifying.

Terrifying.

Now,

I want to give you one more thing.

There is a new paper out, and what's really important about this is it's a white paper trying to get, to figure out a way

to get from the Constitution to a society of analytics and algorithms.

So this is post-constitutional.

Instead of a Constitution,

you have algorithms.

You have basically,

how do we get Americans to accept

this

social credit system

over the Constitution.

And don't, but it's already in play.

I will give you the white paper on it that

people that are really engaged in this are reading and taking to heart today.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Luis Elizondo, welcome to the program, Director of Global Security to the Stars Academy.

Thank you for having me, Mr.

Beck.

You bet.

You're one of the more fascinating guests that we've had on.

I think you were on about two years ago, and we were talking about the video that was verified last week.

First of all, your thoughts on that video,

and

what do you think that could be?

Is it most likely something we are doing, but

the Defense Department just doesn't talk to itself?

Mr.

Beck, that's a fantastic, fantastic question.

Since we spoke, actually, we decided to dedicate some of our time and attention to a docu-series that actually looks at some of those questions, whether or not this could be a super secret U.S.

technology or perhaps even some sort of foreign adversarial technology that has somehow managed to, if you will, leapfrog ahead of the U.S.

and

gain strategic surprise.

In reality, we really don't know what they are.

These things have been seen for quite some time.

What do I think about the first video you just asked me about?

I think if you look at the video and you know what you're looking at, you'll see some performance characteristics that are well beyond

our current understanding of aerodynamics.

For instance, we don't see any

propulsion unit in it.

If I'm not mistaken, it was a flat surface.

It can start and stop and go at speeds, and we can't tell how it's even propelling itself, right?

Right, right.

In essence, you have these five observables, so to speak, that anything that we have that flies in the sky, whether it's an aircraft aircraft or even like a balloon or something like that, they all have to abide by the same physics.

And when you see something that

can perform in ways,

high g-force acceleration, hypersonic velocity sustained and then stop on a diamond hover, things that have the ability to potentially travel in low Earth orbit and atmosphere and potentially even underwater.

Those are some of the things that you have to kind of scratch your head at that point and say, okay, is this some sort of new technology we're seeing or is this really a completely different paradigm?

So

was there a, can you even tell, is there a heat signature from it?

I mean, is it, do we have any

concept, as you've been looking into these things?

Well, we do.

We have some very bright physicists and scientists that have partnered with us over the years, and they have come up with some really startling

hypothesis.

And these are hypotheses,

when you look at them collectively, one of the things that until recently, probably the last three years only, this new latest development, we were looking at

these observables, if you will, under the lens of different types of exotic technologies that could explain each and every one.

And some of the physicists now have come to the conclusion that really what we're seeing, all these capabilities may, and I'll emphasize may, be a manifestation of a single type of technology.

What does that mean?

Well, that means that if you have a certain type of potentially propulsion drive or unit,

you will have the ability to do all these things that we're seeing these UAPs do in a way that you don't need five different type of technologies to explain the five different, if you will, the observables that these things are displaying.

It's all really one technology potentially.

And if you understand how to bend or even flex the fabric of space-time just a little bit, then all sorts of things that we would consider magic will become possible.

Does that include

this cigar-shaped UFO that people are seeing all over the world now?

It's been spotted in the United States.

It's been spotted in Europe and Asia.

Have you seen these?

Obviously, you've seen these things, these cigar-shaped

UFOs?

Yeah,

of course, we prefer in the government to refer to them as UAP.

I mean, they're really rather interchangeable,

I guess, those that terminology.

But yeah, I mean, there's commonalities that are seen around the world, whether they are disc-shaped vehicles or they are larger cigar or tic-tac-shaped vehicles, or in some cases, the very, very large triangular-shaped vehicles.

We simply don't know.

And from a national security perspective, if these things really are potentially an adversarial technology, then A, they've been around for a long time.

B, they've managed to hoodwink us on our ability to collect signature data.

And C, this is something that we need to get on top of.

The only country that really would have the ability to do something like this would be us, wouldn't it?

I mean, China and Russia are not

up to speed where even we are.

Well, you know,

I wouldn't underestimate the Chinese or the or the Russians.

I think they are very, very capable.

They've been able to, in occasion in the past, in some cases, surprise us.

But yeah, one would say, well, if this is some sort of super secret secret technology, then more than likely it's the U.S.

But let's break down that argument for just a brief moment.

We do not test super secret aircraft in and around large carrier battle groups that are underway, whether it's in a combat theater, even back here at home.

We just don't do that without proper coordination.

Because obviously,

you have issues of air safety, you have issues of a technology potentially being leaked.

And there's all sorts of organizations in the Department of Defense, particularly the Joint Staff.

Their whole job is to deconflict those type of efforts and activities.

That's why you have areas like Area 51 where you can fly these things in secret, and you're not going to get a whole lot of people looking at it.

Likewise,

you would assume they wouldn't be tested over large population areas like Phoenix.

That is certainly not the way we do business.

That is not the way.

Our national security apparatus tests super secret stealthy technology.

Now, that Phoenix situation where thousands and thousands, if not tens of thousands of people saw all those lights in the sky back in 98 or whenever that was with a triangle shape and some said it was miles across.

What have you found out about that?

Has there been any new information over the last 20 years that's come out about that situation?

Yes, no.

Not that has necessarily come out, but that has been studied and researched.

Yes, and this kind of goes back to

the more recent theories that what we're looking at here may potentially be a culmination of really one type of exotic technology being used.

Again, unfortunately, I really can't go into a whole lot of detail with that.

First of all, I'm not qualified.

I'm not a physicist or a scientist.

But two, I think it's still a little premature right now to come out with any type of real theory on it yet.

We're hoping to, in the next maybe eight months, maybe have that.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that it is homegrown technology?

Earthbound technology?

Mr.

Beck, with all due respect, I usually don't like to give my opinion on things like this.

One thing I've learned as an Intel officer, you can be absolutely sure of something and still be absolutely wrong.

I mean, collecting the data, let the facts speak for themselves, and let the American people make up their own mind what this might be.

Totally, totally reasonable and much more wise.

Not great radio, but

very wise.

Let me ask you this way.

If these were

from

another

planet or species or whatever it is,

if it's otherworldly,

doesn't that say something really

calming about

being watched?

They have been around for a long time and they haven't really...

It's not like they're coming here here to you know terraform us they've been here for a while well that that's a great great point too i mean i think depending how you look at this philosophically and even sociologically uh as a society some people will look at this and say oh this is this is comforting to know that we're not alone and others may look at this and actually it could be a little bit disturbing and a hard pill to swallow for some uh it really depends i think on on on your personal views of the world you know from a national security perspective the one question they always ask me is why why does do consider this a threat Well, our job in DOD is to consider everything as a threat potentially until we're sure it's not a threat.

So, you know, the one, if you will, the one allegory I've told people, say, imagine at night you go to lock your doors at your front door, you lock your windows and you turn on your alarm system.

And one morning you wake up to get a nice hot cup of coffee in the morning and downstairs in the living room, there's muddy boot prints.

Now, the doors are still locked, the windows are locked, and the alarm is on, but somehow you have these muddy boot prints in your living room.

No one's been hurt, nothing's been taken, nothing's out of place, but you have these prints that that weren't there the night before.

So, the question is: is that a threat?

Well, I don't know if it's a threat, but it has a potential to be a threat if it wanted to be.

So, that's why I think from a national security perspective, we do look at it from that optic.

Does it necessarily mean it is a threat?

No, absolutely not.

But we need more data, we need more information before we can make any type of assessment whether or not these things are a threat or not.

You said to me two years ago that the

evidence with the DOD of UFOs is overwhelming.

What does that mean?

What does that mean to you?

It means during my time with the ATIP program that there was enough data there that

not only we were able to collect, but other organizations and agencies were able to collect that allowed us to recognize the reality that these things are real.

Now, what they are and where they're from, you know, I certainly don't want to speculate, but are they real physical objects?

Yes, they are.

They are there.

So why this sudden openness with the DOD?

Is it just because of the internet?

Why are we hearing something that has been denied forever?

And that's crazy talk.

And you're crazy if you even think you saw one.

Why is it now coming out that, yeah, why is the DOD take two years and then finally come out and say, yeah, that really did happen?

They've never done that in the past.

Well, in all fairness, in defense of the department, you know, DOD is a large bureaucracy, and DOD is fantastic once it has a defined threat in addressing those threats.

But here is something that we have no idea how it works,

what it is, where it's from, or anything else like that.

None of the interrogatives.

And

that's hard for an organization like DOD to come out and say, yeah, these things are real or they're not real if we don't even have enough data

and information is not getting to the right people and senior DOD leadership.

But I will also say that I think it's a tremendous testament to the courage of the Navy to come out with this statement finally and say, yeah, these things are real.

One of the reasons why I think maybe they're changing their tune a little bit, and again, I don't like to speculate too much, but it may very well be the fact that so many pilots now are coming into contact with these things.

And by the way, Let's not forget, every single person out there has some sort of smartphone with very, very capable digital collection capabilities, capabilities, such as digital cameras and even IR.

So

we may be reaching a critical mass where there's enough individuals out there that it's going to be really, really hard

to deny that information.

Luis, just because of your, you know, you ran a clandestine source operations in the Middle East, a special agent in charge for national intelligence,

you know,

the national counterintelligence executive, blah, blah, blah.

You have the expertise, and if you have something that you can say, I'd like to hold you over.

Can you comment on what you think is happening or should be happening with Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Wow.

You know, I probably no longer qualified to

answer a question like that, but I do have friends that are engaged.

And there's one thing I'll offer to the American people that right now, the intelligence

community and the Department of Defense have some of the very brightest minds, the greatest talent looking at this issue and others too, by the way.

The DOD never sleeps.

It has a global 24-7 mission,

365 days a year.

And the incredible men and women that are part of that effort, you know, it's amazing.

Half the time they don't, I think they don't even sleep.

And they are managing these issues for us so our leaders can make well-informed decisions.

I think Saudi Arabia and Iran is a very

perplexing and challenging issue, but it's not new.

It's been around for a while, and it's also an evolving issue.

It's something that every day goes by.

There's a new piece to the equation that has to be figured out.

It's kind of like a math problem that continues to compound upon itself and get more and more, increasingly more difficult to solve.

Thankfully, we have very smart people in our intelligence community and our Department of Defense that are looking at these problems.

are strategizing and they're trying to anticipate what tomorrow may bring.

All right, I appreciate your frankness on that.

Luis, thank you so much.

Luis Elizondo to the starsacademy.com,

the national security director there.

Thank you so much.

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.