Ex-Pentagon Official: The U.S Isn't Telling The Truth! Top-Secret UFO Encounters Finally Uncovered! They're Trying To Silence Us!｜The Diary Of A CEO with Steven Bartlett

We are absolutely not alone in the universe.

And I know these things are real, because I was asked to investigate UFO incursions into controlled US Airspace by the Pentagon.

These videos here, there's no question what you're seeing.

And there's more videos like this that you've been exposed to?

Oh yeah, but they're classified.

Because there's a lot of people that don't want us talking about this.

Should we be worried about this?

Luis Elizondo is a respected intelligence officer and former head of the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, where he led efforts to investigate UFO sightings and unidentified aerial phenomena.

There were real things that we were encountering over controlled US airspace by an unknown technology that frankly could outperform anything that we had in our inventory.

And there was a big national security issue because there's potential for these things to be interfering with our nuclear equities.

There's evidence to suggest that they turned on the nuclear facilities in Russia, right?

Yeah, that's a big deal.

But has there ever been anyone sent to jail because they've spoken about this subject matter?

Worse, my life has been threatened many times, taking huge risks, but I think we deserve the truth.

So let's go. People say that they were abducted by aliens.

Do you believe any of those reports?

I can tell you that we definitely have people that are now on US government medical disability because they were involved in a UFO encounter.

And then one of the rumors is that at Area 51 they found UFO materials.

I cannot comment what Area 51 might or might not have.

All I can say is that the government is in possession of material.

That doesn't look like it's made by us.

Do you have any theories as to why they might be visiting here?

Oh gosh, well, where do I start?

You eventually resigned.

Why? I resigned in protest because...

Lou, Steve, who are you?

Wow, it depends who you ask.

I think to some people I'm probably a patriot, to other people I'm a father, and a husband, and to other people I'm probably the devil.

What's your professional CV?

What does your professional resume say?

Went to college, went to the University of Miami.

I studied microbiology, immunology, and parasitology.

I consider myself a disciple of the scientific method and scientific principles.

I then joined the Army, the United States Army.

I went in as enlisted.

I had an opportunity to go in as an officer because of my education.

But the words of my father always rung in the back of my head, and he said, in order to be a leader, you must first know what it means to follow.

And so I joined the Army as an enlisted soldier, spent some time on deployments in Korea, lived a year in Asia, was in military intelligence, and then I was recruited very shortly thereafter into a special program where I became a civilian special agent in counterintelligence running investigations,

supervised investigations throughout Latin America, South America, Central America, and then spent the rest of my time after 9 -11 over in Afghanistan and the Middle East, primarily dealing with terrorism issues, running operations against Hezbollah and ISIS and other organizations.

And then after probably several years of that, my wife got very tired of it.

Missed too many birthdays, missed too many holidays, and she said you really need to come back.

And more importantly, I'm afraid the next time you leave, you may not come back.

We're losing some people over there quite a bit.

And so I listened to my wife.

I came back, took a supervisory job, ran investigations worldwide, terrorism investigations.

And then from there I went to several other three -letter agencies.

I worked for the NCIX, National Counterintelligence Executive.

I worked for the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence.

And it was in 2000, shortly thereafter, that I was asked to be part of a very interesting program in the Pentagon.

What my CV is, I'm probably a jack of all trades, but an expert in nothing.

I've done a lot of things.

Mostly national security crimes, terrorism, espionage, some counter guerilla operations, counter narcotics, counter insurgency missions.

You said in 2008 -2009, you were asked to come back to the Pentagon to work on a particular project.

What project was that?

So, well, it wasn't the one that wound up being the project that everybody knows me for.

So in 2008, they asked me to run a program to help integrate national level intelligence with law enforcement, local and state law enforcement agencies.

Now, why is that important?

Because, and then it kinda leads to the next thing.

After 9 -11, people think here 9 -11 was caused by, unfortunately, some terrorists doing some bad things.

That was an effect that wasn't the cause.

The actual cause was us here in the United States not being able to share information with ourselves very well.

We had pockets of information at the CIA, pockets of information at the FBI, pockets of information at the Department of Defense, but we weren't sharing it with each other.

And thereby, there was an information gap, an intelligence gap, and the folks at 9 -11 were able to do what they did, unfortunately.

So we learned that lesson by trying to create better integration.

So how do you take super secret information and get it down to a level that can be consumed and usable without compromising sources of methods?

So that was the problem I was asked to come back and fix.

It was shortly thereafter is when I was visited by some individuals and had some conversations with some other individuals about a program that I had no idea was, that was ongoing, but it was.

And it was a program involving the investigation, the government's investigation into UAP or in the vernacular, you might call them UFOs.

Who approached you?

So there were two individuals.

One of them I can talk about.

The other one is Identities Protected.

It's a gentleman named Jay Stratton, who at the time was another intelligence official like me, and another one of his colleagues.

And they came to me and they started asking me questions.

They had a blue badge, so I knew that they were cleared.

They had the same security clearance I had.

We all worked in skips.

And it's not uncommon when you need expertise in a particular portfolio or mission that you outsource, you find the right people to do this right job.

And so I was told they were looking for somebody to run counterintelligence and security for this capability that they had.

They didn't tell me what the capability was.

And I was a counterintelligence and security guy and I was an expert in it.

So after several conversations, a bit of a dance, if you will, kind of like trying to figure each other out.

They arranged for me to have a meeting with a individual.

And I met what I would consider is the premier rocket scientist for the United States government.

Now, when I say rocket scientist, I mean literally a rocket scientist.

This is a gentleman who can tell you the fuel consumption rate of a first stage solid rocket motor booster.

He can tell you the orbital velocity of a MIRV vehicle, multiple reentry vehicle coming in from low earth orbit.

I mean, the best of the best of the best.

He was running a program and I still didn't know what the program was, but he said, look, we've been doing it.

We've been given a lot of money to do it right and we're looking for somebody with me with your skillsets.

And his name was Dr.

James Lakatsky and the epitome of a rocket scientist.

And at the end of the conversation, I remember him looking at me over his glasses and he said to me, what do you think about UFOs?

And so I thought for a moment and I said to him, I said, I'm sorry, I don't.

He said, well, what do you mean?

You don't believe in UFOs?

I said, no, I didn't say that.

You asked me, what do I think of them?

And my response was, I don't because I don't think about them.

I'm too busy chasing bad guys and trying to fix problems for the government.

I never really had the luxury to think about them.

And he said to me, okay, that's fair, fair enough.

But let me just warn you, don't let your analytic bias get to best of you because you may learn things here that will challenge any preconceived notion or narrative that you have about the topic.

And so I left that meeting thinking to myself, is this some sort of psychological evaluation?

Was that a serious question?

And it was very soon thereafter that I learned the reality that the United States government was absolutely invested in a UFO investigative program.

And more importantly, that it was legitimate.

It was real. There were real things that we were encountering over controlled US airspace, over sensitive military installations by an unknown technology that frankly could outperform anything that we had in our inventory.

So that was my introduction to now what is known as ATIP.

The program had several iterations before, under the contract vehicle was called OSHAP.

My focus was specifically more on the nuts and bolts investigations of these UAP incursions into controlled US airspace, encounters by military aircraft of these things.

We weren't really focused on civilians information, right?

It wasn't like a grandma seeing some lights in the backyard.

These were, well, to lack a better term, close encounters by trained military pilots, trained observers.

By the way, who could recognize a silhouette between an SU -22, a MiG -25 and an F -16 from 10 miles away and make a split second decision as a friend or foe.

And what these pilots were encountering were also being backed up by gun camera footage and FLIR footage, forward looking infrared footage.

And oh, by the way, that was being further backed up by radar data, airborne data, airborne radar data and also ground -based radar data and sea -based radar data.

How'd you go from the project you were working on into ATIP?

Because that was the first sort of meeting, right?

That was like an introductory conversation.

So there were several meetings before that where they were trying to vet me, see if I had I guess the right background of skill sets.

It wasn't until that meeting with Jim Lukatsky that the word UFO was used.

And how did I go about that?

He's the one who made the decision.

It was his program.

I had nothing to do with that.

I just, you know, said, yeah, I'll do it.

I didn't even know what I was signing up for until after my meeting with him.

So did he say to you, okay, well, we'd like you to work on this program, this ATIP program.

The acronym there stands for Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

And eventually you became the director of that program.

Yeah, so there was a natural evolution of it.

Initially, I was just, they were brought in to provide counter intelligence and security.

Expertise. But as that program all sat faded away, the necessity and urgency of some of these incursions was getting to a desperate crescendo.

It was getting really, there was a lot of these incursions happening.

There was a big national security issue that we were all recognizing.

And there were some elements in the government that were trying to kill the effort.

And not for reasons you might think, believe it or not, it was completely different.

And so the decision was made to bring it up to the Pentagon, up to where I was, take it out of DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency.

And with the authorities I had, I was the director of national programs, special management staff.

And so that was my job.

I ran special access programs for the White House and for the national security council.

And we put the program under that, keeping it out of the prying eyes of some of the folks that previously were trying to kill the program.

So this program, Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, was really focused on investigating reports and incidents of UAPs or UFOs in military environments.

So if there was a UFO slash UAP in a, I don't know, in a military base, then this project would investigate what that was.

Is that correct? Correct, that's correct.

So it was only military focused.

It wasn't interested in civilian data.

By the time we were running it at the Pentagon, it was really looking at, for example, nuclear carrier strike groups that were encountering these things all the time.

It would be, for example, an Air Force Base, or a Navy Base, or there was a special operations unit on a particular patrol.

And if they happen to encounter a UAP, those type of reports.

And I also wanna emphasize here, we weren't looking for UFOs.

We were always coming into a situation with the understanding that there's some sort of prosaic, there's a prosaic answer to what this is, right?

It actually wasn't a UFO.

It was a drone, a test fire of a missile.

It was a drone, it was a balloon, it was whatever, whatever, because there are certain signatures and profiles that you can look very quickly and determine, oh, that's just conventional technology.

But there was a guideline that we use that helped us understand when something really was anomalous, when we're really, we're talking about, it's not our technology and whatever that is, it's probably not adversarial or foreign technology.

So now we're getting into the real world of UAP.

That's anomalous. What's UAP?

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.

So let me backtrack a little bit.

For years and years and years, the term UFO, Unidentified Flying Object, was used.

There were several reasons, but later on, the term was changed to UAP.

And it stood for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

And that's probably in the last year, year and a half, you're starting to see yet another definition of UAP, Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.

And there's a reason for that.

I'm happy to explain if you want, but the decision was made to change from UFO to UAP.

I read that it was because a lot of the military personnel stopped reporting their sightings because there was a stigma associated with the term UFO.

Correct, so it's two reasons.

There was stigma and taboo associated with the term because the moment you say UFO, people think tinfoil hats and - They think you're crazy.

Yeah, Elvis on the mother ship, nonsense like that.

But the reality is that this was a real issue, a national security issue for our nation and other nations too by the way.

But also the term UFO isn't really accurate anymore.

So what do I mean by that?

Well, Unidentified Flying Object.

What is flying? Well, flying means you have four fundamental forces.

You have thrust, lift, drag, and weight.

And when you understand that, you can create wings and create lift.

And that is the definition of flying, right?

These things didn't have wings.

They didn't have rudders, elevators, control surfaces, ailerons, cockpits, and yet somehow they were able to remain aloft in our atmosphere.

So they weren't flying technically.

So the name was changed to anomalous, I'm sorry, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena because they were being seen in the air, but then they realized, you know what?

They're also being seen underwater.

They're also being seen in high altitude and possibly low Earth orbit.

So to say that they're aerial isn't even accurate either.

So then they said, okay, it's Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena to cover all the separate domains or environments that these things are being encountered in.

Before you had the meeting regarding this project at the Pentagon, what did you believe about UAP's and slash UFOs?

I didn't. I was never interested even in science fiction as a kid.

Did you believe they were, if I'd asked you there, if I'd come up to you and said, are UFOs real?

And I say UFOs because that's the sort of social term, but what would you have said?

Probably not. I mean, I would have said literally probably not.

I wouldn't say for sure not because I didn't know.

What about now? Yeah, kidding me.

I mean, yeah. These are all, I mean, don't take my word for it.

Our government's already said it.

I mean, you have a former director of national intelligence.

Tell me the world. Yeah, these things are real, whatever they are.

You have a former director of CIA.

You have a former president of the United States.

And we've known for a long time, they're real.

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

There's other countries that are very forthcoming.

There's countries in South America that have been dealing with this for a long time.

Japan just entered into a bilateral information sharing agreement with our country for the express purposes of sharing UAP information and data.

China's interested.

Russia's interested in this.

Several European countries have a fairly robust capability and have had a lot of information on this.

Was there a moment when your belief changed?

Was there a moment that you can remember what you thought, you know what?

What I thought about UAPs was wrong?

Sure. And what I often tell people, there's two types of individuals the way that we process this information.

In one category, you have people that will sit there and say, I had this epiphany, this revelatory moment where all of a sudden it's like, oh my God, they're real?

Right? Are you kidding me?

And then there's another group of people which I probably fall into that second category, the latter category, which is more of a slow progression and realization of what we're dealing with is not a conventional technology.

It's not our technology.

It's something else.

At some point, the preponderance of evidence is so overwhelming.

Let me give you an example.

I am... I spent my life in investigations, terrorists, spies, whatever.

And I've always been what I consider just the facts ma 'am kind of guy, very, very data -driven.

I don't really care about innuendos and suppositions and your opinion very much.

I care about what the data says.

What does the data suggest?

And in this case, this particular case, you have eyewitness testimony, you have it backed up by gun camera footage, you have a backed up by FLIR footage, you have a backed up by radar information.

You've got five, six, sometimes seven pieces of cooperating sensor data.

That's all reporting the same event at the same time, at the same place, under the same circumstances.

Now, if I was in a court of law and I was presenting this at its evidence, we are well beyond reasonable doubt.

The jury would have no choice but to convict because the evidence is so...

The same collection sensor suite that we use to prosecute and win a war, and forgive the vernacular, but literally drop warheads on foreheads, is the same systems we're using to collect the data on the anomalous vehicles we're seeing.

And so, I know it's a very uncomfortable conversation to have, I'm not saying it's not.

What I'm saying is that we have to deal with this, and it's not me just telling you that, this is our government.

We know, we have laws now on the books because this topic is now so serious.

We have whistleblowers ready to come out and testify before the American people because this is so serious.

We have set up an organization, specifically its sole purpose is to investigate UAP because this topic is so serious.

So, this is not a flight of fancy here.

We're investing millions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, to try to figure this out.

And interestingly enough, I think when the investigative body first came, was realized, was created, there was this hope that in the first report, they said, oh, there's 143 incidents that remain unidentified, but we're gonna whittle them away.

What happened the next time they had a report?

It was now 300. And what happened after that?

Now 800. The numbers going up, not down.

That remained unresolved.

And so, we've gotta have this uncomfortable conversation with ourselves.

You eventually left.

I did. You're that project, but also more broadly, you resigned from working with the Pentagon in the role that you were working with them.

Why did you resign?

I resigned because that's what you do when you can't fix a problem internally.

My concern was that we were spending time and money on an issue that leadership didn't wanna know about.

That leadership didn't want to inform the boss, the then Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis, the details about what was going on.

And there's reasons for that, and we can certainly get into that if you want.

I understand them. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I understand them.

But at least here in our country, when you can't fix a problem, you don't stay and make it worse.

You leave, you resign.

And then if you still wanna do something, you do it from outside, but you don't create problems inside.

And it's not that uncommon, is it?

Because if you look just a year later after I left, Secretary of Defense himself resigned, right?

So, I resigned in protest, but not out of disloyalty.

I resigned because of my loyalty to this country and to this government.

What is that protest, sorry, just to be clear?

The protest is that we weren't able to get the information and the help we needed with this issue up to the right level of people.

They were happy with us doing it, but they said, don't tell the boss.

But wait a minute, the boss needs to know.

We're having almost a mid -air collision with our fighter pilots.

We have captains and admirals of Navy ships asking us what do we do about these things?

Like, there's an email saying, Lou, we can't keep these guys below deck forever.

What do you want me to do?

They're all over the ship.

So a decision has to be made.

What are we gonna do about it?

And that decision has to be made by the top guy, the Secretary of Defense.

And for whatever reason, the upper echelons of leadership didn't wanna tell the boss.

And we weren't getting an unguided what to do about it.

Now, keep in mind, these things are coming over our sensitive military installations as well.

And there's potential for these things to be interfering with our nuclear equities.

That's a big deal. And nobody wants to have the conversation?

Now, wait a minute, let's put this on the backdrop of other national security issues, right?

Like terrorism. If you go to any airport in the United States today or any train station, you always hear over the announcements, if you see something suspicious, say something, report it.

Well, that wasn't the case with these things.

In fact, people were told not to report.

Yes, if you saw a UFO and you saw it over a sensitive military installation, don't report it because they'll think you're crazy.

And that is dangerous.

That is a dangerous mindset because if these things had a Russian star on the tail or a North Korean tail number, this would be huge.

But because these things didn't have a tail at all and didn't have any obvious signs of propulsion or whatnot, it was cricket.

People would know about it.

It was the worst kept secret.

People would be like, yeah, we see them all the time, but we don't wanna report it.

Well, you have to report it.

Well, there's no reporting mechanism.

Okay, well, let's create one.

Well, we can't create one because we need permission to do it.

And this person needs to be briefed up.

Meanwhile, you're being told, no, you can't, you can't, you can't, you can't.

Why wouldn't they wanna report this information?

Why wouldn't they want the public to know?

Why wouldn't they want the boss to know?

Well, I think it's a stigma and taboo.

Well, there's several reasons, but I think superficially, stigma and taboo.

No one wants to be known as that UFO guy or gal.

I get it, especially if you're a pilot because historically you'd be taken off flight status, put behind a desk and you'd fly a desk for the rest of your career because people think your mentally unstable could affect your security clearance.

I mean, there's all sorts of things that can happen.

And so people were being reinforced not to report this information.

Even civilian pilots today, if you talk to them, they'll tell you quietly, yeah, we see things in the sky, but we're not gonna report anything because I need a job.

What did you say? I'm like, what day?

I mean, videos, reports, photographs.

I mean, there's videos that are so compelling in high definition that there's no question what you're seeing, it's not our technology.

It's not our technology.

And the capabilities are beyond anything we can do.

I mean, I'm happy to explain some of those capabilities if you like, but when you look at this from a rational perspective, you only come to one outcome.

There's only one that can be.

The other one is so remotely possible that the mental gymnastics to get to that, and we can go into that in a minute, it's absurd.

And so let's go into a little bit about what makes these things unique.

Because planes fly and you appear in the air so that doesn't make them unique and things go fast and whatnot.

So you have to an intelligence, if you want to filter out data and only focus on certain data, you have to create parameters.

So we realized early on in the government that these things had five parameters, five observables that made them stand out away from everything else.

And so the first one was instantaneous acceleration.

So what is acceleration?

It is the change of velocity, right?

It is the ability to change your velocity very quickly.

And as a result, as a consequence, there are inertial forces that are experienced.

So for us human beings, we express those inertial forces as G -forces.

So the force of gravity is pulling on us equally at 9 .8 meters per second per second.

And that's experienced as one G.

A human being can withstand up to nine Gs for a very short period of time before you start having medical consequences, right?

You have things like blackouts and redouts and ultimately death.

To compare that to, let's say standard technology, one of our most highly maneuverable aircraft, manned maneuverable aircraft, let me emphasize manned, is an older aircraft.

It's called the General Dynamics F -16, built by General Dynamics, it's the F -16.

And that at an unclassified level can pull about 17 Gs before you start having structural failure, meaning wings snap off, right?

The plane begins to disintegrate while you're flying it.

What we are seeing are objects that are performing in excesses of 2 ,000 and 3 ,000 G -forces, okay?

Well beyond the healthy limitations of anything biological to withstand and certainly from a material science perspective, more than we have.

There's an advanced technology here.

The second observable is hypersonic velocity.

So what is hypersonic?

Hypersonics are those speeds in excess of Mach 5 or above.

What's a Mach? It's the speed of sound.

Roughly 760 some miles an hour at sea level.

So really fast. Now, do we have technology that can do hypersonic?

Sure we do. Absolutely.

One of the best examples is a Lockheed YF -12A SR -71, otherwise known as a Blackbird.

It can get to about Mach 5, which is really fast.

But at that speed if the SR -71 wants to take a right hand turn, it takes roughly half the state of Ohio to execute that maneuver.

We are seeing things, not doing Mach 5, we are seeing things doing in excess of 10 ,000, 13 ,000 miles an hour and executing immediate right hand turns in even 180s, right?

So that is another observable.

That is significantly above and beyond anything we have.

Another observable, it's a bit of an oxymoron but it's called low observability, meaning you'll hear from the pilots, Lou, I was there, I saw it but I can't describe it.

Didn't have wings, didn't have rudder, a tail, anything.

No rivets, nothing.

And then also on the radar, you will get these nonsensical returns.

These returns like there's some sort of active jamming or spoofing going on within the radar system.

So low observability.

Now, do we have low observable vehicles?

Sure, for example, the B -2 bomber and the Valkyrie, these are stealth vehicles.

Well, this is a little more than that because it's actually also with the human eye very hard to discern.

The fourth observable is something called trans -medium or multi -medium travel.

So that means the ability to operate in multiple domains or more specifically multiple environments.

Now, once again, do we have multi -domain vehicles?

Absolutely. A C -plane is a perfect example of a multi -medium vehicle.

It can fly and it can float.

But let's face it, a C -plane is neither a really good airplane or a good boat.

And why? Because there are design compromises that have to be made in performance and design in order for it to operate in multiple domains.

And that's true with just about every technology we have.

The more domains we want something to operate in, the more sacrifices we have to make.

That's why a submarine looks like a submarine because it's designed to be underwater and a plane looks like a plane and a rocket looks like a rocket.

These things can operate in multiple different domains.

They can operate in air, underwater and possibly even space but they don't have that performance and design sacrifice that we have to do with our technology.

So is it like when you get this job, do you get to see like a folder on a computer?

I'm trying to understand what access you're given to these things.

What does that practically look like?

You're seeing the investigations that were done previously by other members of UAP.

You're seeing video, you're seeing photographs, you're seeing the historical reports.

And are these classified?

Oh, absolutely, very.

Okay, so the general public can't see these kinds of things.

No. And they haven't been published.

Correct. They have not been made publicly available.

They are highly classified.

Okay, so it's videos, it's photos, it's various accounts.

Correct. A lot of people talk about area 51 when they talk about UFOs and such.

I think one of the sort of rumors is that at area 51, they've found and retained UFO materials, spacecraft, et cetera, that they've studied to understand the technology so that they can introduce it to the US military.

Is there any truth in that?

You know, the US government invests a lot of money in research.

You have a lot of test facilities where we wanna be able to test things outside the prying eyes of our enemies.

And so we create these test ranges for that purpose.

We do all sorts of things at those test ranges.

I cannot comment on what area 51 might or might not have.

I would not be authorized to talk about that.

All I can say is what is in the public domain, which people already know that it's a sensitive test facility where we experiment with things.

Because I was a gentleman, I think from that worked near area 51, that's talked a little bit about this publicly, Bob Lazar.

I actually didn't know anything about Bob Lazar until about two hours ago.

So what exactly is it that Bob Lazar is claiming?

Well, to be fair, you'd probably have to ask Bob.

I don't know Mr. Lazar.

I've never met him.

I've never spoken to him.

His claims were that he worked at a particular facility and he had access to and privy to one of the recovered vehicles.

Crash Retrievals that was allegedly performed by the United States and acquired and brought there.

That is what is in the public domain.

I cannot and will not comment on Bob Lazar because I don't know him.

So when you say you can't comment on something and as it relates to something that's classified, is have you had to go through some process?

There's a book in front of me called Imminent, which is the book you've written.

It says inside the Pentagon's hunt for UFOs.

What is the process in when you're writing books like this to get information layered so that you can share it?

It's like birthing an elephant.

I can only imagine if I was ever a woman and had to give birth.

Because they probably don't want you talking about these things.

There's a lot of people that don't want us talking about this.

But there's also a lot that do.

So you go through a process it's called DOPSR.

In the US government, we love our acronyms.

It stands for Department of Defense, Office of Pre -Publication and Security Review.

As a former defense official, if I want to write anything, it has to go through a review process to make sure it's not classified and I can talk about it.

That book went through an exhaustive almost one year process through the government before they allowed me to publish it.

And even then they redacted portions of it.

If you look in there, you will see grayed out portions because I wanted Americans to see what some people don't need to see.

And so those redactions are there by the government.

And it is a very exhaustive process, but it's important because that's what keeps us legal.

That's what keeps people like me not going to jail because I go through the proper procedures.

I'm not a leaker. I have never leaked classified information.

I will never discuss classified information.

An unauthorized disclosure is something that should be avoided at all times.

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

I'm loyal to my country.

I'm not disloyal. So there's a right way and a wrong way to do things.

So if you want to write a book and you want to talk about things you're not sure you can talk about, you go through this doppster process.

And that's exactly what I did.

And that's how that book was able to be published.

Otherwise right now it'd probably be in jail.

Is there a single most compelling piece of evidence that you will witness to as it relates to your belief in UFOs and UAPs?

They were all significant.

There wasn't one that said, oh, that's it, because they were all compelling in their own way, whether you can go back to the USS Nimitz incident in 2004 or the Roosevelt incidents in 2014 and 2015.

There was so much data.

Every time you think you had one that was great, another would come and it was even better.

So - I mean, you've put one on the front cover of this book there, right?

Yeah. What is this incident on the front cover of your book?

That is known as the gimbal incident.

That is a video that was taken by an F -18 and you can hear the exacerbation.

If you listen to the actual video, you can hear the pilots trying to discuss what it is.

And then you also hear on it, the discussion of there's a whole fleet of them look at the ASA and oh, by the way, it's going 120 knots against the wind at roughly 20 ,000 feet.

So it's not a balloon.

And you begin to see this vehicle orientate itself in a 90 degree angle.

Now, if this was a plane, like your wings, if you go in a 90 degree angle, you'll lose altitude, right?

Because that's how the principles of lift work.

That's not the case there.

I think this is the video.

Yep. You're not fucking drawn on, bro.

There's a whole fleet of them look on the ASA.

My God. They're all going against the wind.

The wind's 120 knots to the west.

Oh, I think, dude. That's not how that's done, is it?

It's not. It's not, dude, but on a stand.

But if there's a thing, it's rotating.

And that was shot by two US fighter pilots.

There's a lot more of those out there and a lot clearer too, but they're classified.

So there's more videos like this that you've been exposed to.

Oh, yeah. But they won't release them.

They will not release them.

Why? Because of sources of methods, because they remain classified, because how they were taken, where they were taken, under what circumstances, what technological capabilities were used to collect information.

The US government wants to keep out of the hands of its adversaries what our true capabilities are.

So let's say you're flying a mission over a denied area and you don't want the enemy to know that you're over it.

The last thing you want to do is release a video where you can look and say, oh, we're in this location and now the enemy knows.

Or we have this capability or we can see this good.

These are the technologies we have.

These videos here, ironically, are probably some of the least compelling videos.

Now people say, oh, these are incredible, but these are the ones that were unclassified that could be released.

The other ones, some of these are so clear.

The problem is how they were taken, the collection capabilities that were used to take them, where they were taken, under what circumstances, the metadata in the video, all that is a consideration.

And do the US government and the Pentagon generally want people to believe that UFOs, UAPs exist or not?

I think it's both. I think up until recently, nobody wanted to have this conversation.

The problem is the government backed itself up after 70 years of denial into a corner and it has to figure a way out.

There are some elements now that want the conversation to occur.

And so that's why you see Congress getting engaged, why the creation of Arrow, but there are still elements, unfortunately, in the Pentagon that don't want this conversation to occur.

And they will continue doing what they can to discredit individuals and launch this campaign against them.

One of my colleagues, David Grouche, who was a decorated Air Force officer and a senior intelligence official, the moment he broke rank and went public about this topic, within 24 hours, they released his medical records, trying to discredit him and they did it illegally.

So there are people there that definitely don't want this conversation to occur.

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

Back historically, great question.

Let's, can I unpack that a little bit?

Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so let's start really at the heels of World War II.

You have these Foo Fighters that are being observed by Allied pilots, these luminous balls that would follow them into combat areas.

And then after, particularly as we started developing in the atomic weapons, we started releasing a lot of UFOs over our controlled military airspace and over our center of military installations, our research facilities.

And so at the time you have this mindset, you have height of the Cold War, United States versus Soviet Union.

And by the way, they had nukes and so did we, right?

So you've got a real potential threat over there.

And then you've got these other things over here.

So as a general in the Pentagon, and say, look, I know these things are real, but they're not showing any overt hostilities.

Meanwhile, we've got this real issue over here, this real threat called Soviet Union.

Let's focus on this threat, and then we'll worry about this other stuff later.

The other part of that is the mindset of, look, it's really uncomfortable as a government to have a conversation with its people about a problem that there's no solution for, right?

We can see what they do, but there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

We can't stop what they're doing.

And so do you really wanna have a conversation with the American people and admit a problem for which we all have a solution for it?

Governments are solution focused, and that is not a great spot to be in, right?

And it's by the way, not the first time this has happened.

Let's look at the U -2, for example, spy plane.

When we first built that, the CIA commissioned it through Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, and we were flying that vehicle in contravention to a standing treaty we had with Russia that we would not fly manned reconnaissance missions over Russia, mainland Russia, we were.

But we built this plane to fly so fast and so high, we thought they couldn't detect us, right?

And for a while, we thought they couldn't because we went unchallenged until the Russians were able to develop the surface -to -air missile, SA -2 missile, and successfully shoot one down.

And then, and only then, did they admit to the world, we've been tracking these things since day one.

The reason why they didn't talk about it is because they didn't have a means to shoot it down.

So why admit a problem for which there's no solution until you have a solution?

So that's another mindset and a Pentagon, and then you had several studies done that were commissioned by the US government in the past that asked the question, if we were to be honest and truthful about disclosure, about we're not alone in the university, things are real, what would the consequences be?

And these studies came back, unanimously said, you can't do it.

The American people are not ready to have this conversation.

It'll cause civil discord, and it'll upset the population, and people will lose faith in their religions, and the economy may crash, you can't do it.

And so the decision was made, okay, we're not gonna do it.

In fact, we're gonna actively suppress this information, we're gonna stigmatize the heck out of it so bad that no one will ever want to even mention the word UFO.

And it was very successful.

That campaign to stigmatize this topic was so successful, in fact, that even now it's hard to unwind the tape and have the conversation.

And so therein lies part of the problem.

Why doesn't the government, parts of the government wanna have this conversation?

Then you've got a legal issue which is probably the biggest issue now.

You have elements in the government that were making unilateral decisions not to inform Congress and not to inform the President of the United States.

That's illegal. There are oversight committees that have a designated need to know on all intelligence matters, especially when it comes to funding, right?

We're spending billions of dollars on these projects.

You've got to inform Congress.

Certain elements of certain oversight committees like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, they weren't being briefed to this.

There's also this fear by some people on the inside of the government that, oh my gosh, I used to work on a secret UFO program.

Am I gonna be in trouble now because we've been lying to Congress.

And so it's a little more complicated than necessarily just saying, oh, well, we want the truth, be honest.

It's not that easy.

To your knowledge, has there ever been recovered UAP or UFO materials?

What I can say, what I've been allowed to say, which is yes, up until recently, I wasn't even allowed to say that.

When did that change?

When that book got reviewed.

Up until that point, I had signed documentation from the government saying, I will never discuss that, ever.

What happens if you did?

Oh, jail, oh yeah. That's why that book, I had to go through the process because what I wrote in that book, I am allowed to talk about.

I can't go beyond that, but at least I can talk about that.

And in the book, I talk about, yes, that the government is in possession of material, exotic material that doesn't look like it's made by us.

Has there ever been anyone sent to jail because they've spoken about this subject matter?

Worse, worse. And that story has yet to be told.

Yes, there are people who have had faced extreme disciplinary actions and potentially worse.

The death penalty? I'm not gonna elaborate right now because there's some things happening to try to, this is why Congress is working hard for whistleblower protections because we want people to feel safe to come out and have a conversation.

And right now, they don't feel overly safe.

They've seen some of the tactics and techniques that were applied to try to keep people quiet in the past.

Let me say this in general terms.

People say, oh, well, the government would never kill anybody to protect a secret.

Try going to Area 51 and look at the signs on that chain link fence where it says lethal force authorized.

You cross that fence and they can kill you dead.

So the government can, under certain extreme cases, under certain extreme situations and conditions, they can do whatever they need to do to protect national security and they will.

Which department is that?

I cannot go into that conversation, unfortunately.

Because people think of it as maybe the CIA or something.

I can't elaborate, unfortunately.

You know, because I know very little about American governmental departments and such, but obviously most of the world knows about the presidential assassinations and things like that, and I've spoken to a few CIA agents and stuff like that on my podcast before, but I've never really understood, frankly,

who would be making such an order and how those things don't leak.

Well, you know, good question.

Look, we've done it in the past in other situations, some pretty recently, and I'll give you a case in point, and this is not attacking anybody.

We have roamed, used drones to lethally kill people, Americans, an American citizen specifically, and a person's child without due process.

In the US? Not in the US, he was a US citizen.

He was suspected of being a terrorist, and there's some other things here, I'm not gonna go in there.

But we as American citizens, we are afforded something called due process under the law of peace, and meaning you get your day in court, no matter what.

And there have been Americans where that hasn't been the case.

They didn't get a day in court.

Someone made the decision to liquidate them.

You know, there are examples of that happening.

You know, there's another one with Rosenbergs, those who were accused of selling the atomic secrets to the Russians, actually giving it to them.

And if you know a little bit about what happened with his wife, turns out that she was innocent.

What happened to his wife?

They hung her, hung her and him for espionage.

But because of the information that we had at the time, we was so sensitive, we'd have to reveal a capability.

So unfortunately, it looks like maybe we have done something that we maybe shouldn't have done.

I wasn't around for that, so I can't tell you definitively what happened.

I can only tell you what my understanding of it is.

I could absolutely be wrong, and I really hope I am.

But it turns out that, you know, there are extreme examples where we will take drastic measures to protect national security.

So in writing this book and in talking about the subjects, you understand that there's some people that don't want you talking about these subjects.

Oh yeah, oh yeah. So, and you also understand that punishment for talking about these subjects can range from jail or worse.

So are you not scared?

I didn't say that, I didn't say I wasn't scared.

I mean, I'm taking huge risks.

My life has been threatened many times, and it's very concerning for me.

It's a reason why I live in Wyoming, and I'm heavily armed and have now six German Shepherds.

Yeah, I'm very cautious and careful, but I'm also understanding, I also know the left and right limits of the law, and I'm not gonna break the law under any circumstances.

This book is an elite, I am authorized to talk about that book because I went through the proper processes of getting it reviewed, whether they like it or not.

But yes, I am absolutely worried, you know, this is why I'm very careful when I say things, because I don't wanna, I'll walk up to the line, I will not step over the line.

I will not violate my security oath and compromise national security for disclosure, and I don't think I have to.

I think the proof isn't a pudding, the fact that it's been seven years and we've come this far in the conversation, and I haven't gone to jail, and I'm still here to have a conversation.

I think it's indicative of the fact that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

I understand people want disclosure and they want it now, but I've told people before, there's a difference between doing things right and doing things right now.

They're different, and we only get one chance to do this right, and so hopefully we can have this conversation, this collective conversation in a way where we don't have to be disruptive.

No one has to be threatened.

No one has to go to jail.

No one has to lose their jobs or anything like that.

You mentioned presidents early on.

Do presidents of the United States know about UFOs?

Some do, some do not.

Unfortunately, there's a mindset by some people that think that politicians and presidents are temporary hires.

They're here today, gone in four years, so why brief them up on something, especially if they have no military or intelligence background?

It's a risk, so you know what?

Don't brief them. Which presidents do you think were aware of UFOs and these kinds of programs?

Sure, well, we know for sure there were several.

For sure, for example, Carter was, but then - How would you know?

Well, because Carter was briefed.

I know somebody who actually worked with Carter to get information on this topic.

I won't say the person's name.

The person's still alive, so I don't have permission to talk about that, but we know that for a fact, and there's records of it.

But there's other presidents, like Bill Clinton, who wasn't briefed but wanted to be briefed.

And again, this is the crux of the problem.

Who's making the decision on what president gets briefed and what doesn't?

That's nonsense. President George Bush, Sr., was briefed, he was also the director of the CIA, so he was very well aware of this topic.

But then there's other presidents that weren't.

And so this is, again, this is highlighting the very problem that I have.

Who's making the decision to choose who gets briefed and who doesn't?

What about Obama and Trump?

I can't answer for them.

Obama has recently stated for the record that these UAP are a national security issue, not a threat, but an issue, that there's something there that these are real, whatever they are, whatever it is.

President Trump recently, former President Trump, said a week and a half ago, for the record, when asked, that he would be willing to release the UFO files and that he wanted to do it in the past, but he faced fierce resistance.

Now think about that statement for a minute.

Who the hell is giving him resistance to releasing UFO files when you're the president?

That is a very significant statement.

That is what needs to be fixed.

If the president himself can't get, or herself can't get a briefing, who in the hell has the authority to make that decision?

Nobody. What is that fierce resistance that Trump's talking about?

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

What do you think it is?

I think there is a huge amount of influence by the military industrial complex, and it is an enormous business.

Always has been. It's huge.

It is probably the world's largest business, globally.

And why wouldn't the military industrial complex want those files to be released?

Well, because then you have to admit that they're part of the programs.

Some of these folks, you know, have had been, a lot of their successes is being able to work super secret program for the US government, and maybe there's technology that they don't want released.

Maybe there's capabilities that we had that we don't want to tell our adversaries.

And there's a lot of reasons for it, which are understand, some of them are actually legitimate.

I don't agree with, but I can understand.

How much do you think the average person on the street knows about what goes on in the Pentagon and behind the scenes of the government?

Brother, forget the government Pentagon.

How many parents, they can tell you who's a quarterback of their favorite football team, and they can tell you their stats, but how many parents know who their kid sits next to during lunch or in second period math class?

Government is, I mean, that's basic facts, man.

As humans, most of us, we suck.

We don't know anything, and we're so used to being force -fed information by whatever outlet du jour we want to tune into, you know?

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

If I'm a conservative, I'll watch that.

I'll go straight to my echo chamber, and you know, just hear what I want to hear, and have people tell me not only information that they think I need to know, but even my opinion of what it should be about.

This is a much, much bigger issue than just UFOs and UAP.

We, as people, have become extremely lazy, and we no longer are willing to ask the hard questions.

We're not. You were part of one program, but you also referenced the second program called the Legacy Program.

What is the Legacy Program?

It is the traditional long -held effort by the U .S.

government to study UAP.

People think ATIP was the only program in OSAP.

Before that, there was Blue Book, and before that, the Legacy Program is the collaborative effort of individuals over the course of several decades that have been looking into this topic for the U .S.

government, and by the U .S.

government. And, okay, just doing similar things to what ATIP did.

Yes, and more robust and much more well -funded.

I wonder why they don't fund it as well these days.

There's a reason for that, too, that I would need permission to talk about.

There were some distractions in the early 2000s that lifted and shifted resources away from efforts to something else.

You know, you probably could figure out what that was, but there was an enormous resource drain in refocusing in the early 2000s to focus on something else.

I heard you talk as well about these different types of aliens, per se, because when we think of aliens, we reflect on movies that we've seen, and they have the big heads and things like that, and maybe they're white, tall, skinny, with the big arms and the big legs and stuff like that.

Is that what people in the Pentagon consider aliens to be, what we see in movies?

I can't speak on behalf of other people.

I can only speak on behalf of me.

I've been very, very careful not to stereotype.

Anybody or anything, I think, is important.

We have to keep an open mind, because when you say the word aliens, you're automatically presuming that these things are from outer space.

They might not be. There's lots of different options.

It doesn't have to be from outer space.

What do you believe?

Do you believe they're amongst us?

Well, can I explore this with you, this question?

Okay, so it's not an either or.

So in the beginning of our conversation, I told you I went to the University of Miami, and I studied microbiology, immunology, and the study of parasites.

Now if you go to some anthropologists, they will suggest to you that modern human beings, homo sapiens, sapiens, has been around roughly between 100 ,000 and possibly 200 ,000 years.

So on a 24 -hour clock, right, it's only the last 2 ,000 years, and it was the Greeks that proposed there were two fundamental life forms on this planet.

And you were either a plant, or you were an animal, and human beings were an animal.

And so the 24 -hour clock you're trying to be told maybe, I don't know, 10 minutes ago, before midnight?

Well, it was 300 years ago during the Renaissance or the days of enlightenment, that we discovered an entire new life form on this planet, that's been here all along.

And that was neither plant nor animal, it was the world of fungus.

And we pat ourselves on his shoulders, and say hey, we found a new life form.

In this 24 -hour clock, it's been probably the last maybe 10 seconds, last 120 years only, that we discovered for the first time the true dominant alpha life form on this planet.

And in fact, if you take all the biomass of every plant, and all the biomass of every animal, and all the biomass of every fungus, and added it all up together, it still will not equal the biomass of this hidden, yet dominant life form that's been on this planet all along.

And it wasn't until we could have the technology to curve glass, and look through a little tube, and famously shout the words, little beasties, little beasties, did we discover the world of microorganisms.

Okay? The true dominant life form on this planet that's been here all along.

In fact, it's inside of us, it makes us up, it's pervasive everywhere.

And we just discovered it.

So when I say to people, you know, my people, do you think from outer space?

They can be from outer space, inner space, or frankly the space in between, these things can be just as natural to our environment as we are.

Maybe we're at the point now where technologically we can start interacting.

Maybe they're from under the ocean.

Look, less than 10 % of the ocean floor has been mapped.

We know more about the surface of the moon than we do of our own oceans.

Is it possible these things are just as natural to this planet as we are?

Or is it possible these things are from somewhere else?

Yes, that's possible too.

So we have to keep all options on the table until they're no longer on the table.

We live in an infinitely, infinitely complex universe.

Let's see if I can, and I've often used this before to try to help people wrap their heads around this.

We perceive life through five fundamental senses.

And if we can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, et cetera, we can't interact with it.

We have no idea it's there.

Where I live out in Wyoming, we have these beautiful night skies, unoccluded night skies, and you can see all the heavens, beautiful milky way in front of you.

If you were to look at that same night sky through a radio telescope, you would see something different.

You would see nebula.

You would see things that you can't normally perceive, and the ultraviolet, and infrared spectrums, x -ray, right?

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

It's just like if you had cell phone vision.

All of a sudden, now you can see in wifi and 5G, you would see an entirely different reality around you.

So we perceive life through a very narrow spectrum of visible light, the visible light spectrum, and when reality is, most everything else kind of lies beyond that.

And then you have a scale issue.

You have a scalability issue.

What do I mean by scalability?

We are a human being.

You and I are having a lovely conversation here, somewhere in some place on this planet, revolving around an obscure star, and an obscure part of the milky way galaxy amongst a super cluster of other galaxies.

The visible horizon from any direction we look at of light, the size of the universe has been estimated to be between 13 .6 to 13 .9 billion light years, b billion.

What is a light year?

A light year is the distance that a photon of light can travel in the course of a year.

And how fast is that?

Well, light travels at roughly 186 ,000 miles per second, or seven and a half times around our planet in one second, really fast.

Imagine how far that goes in a year.

And now imagine how far that goes, 13 .9 billion years, right?

So we're in the middle of the universe here.

Our universal horizon in any direction is 13 .9 billion light years, and in that direction, another 13 .9, so roughly 27 billion light years across, and we're in the middle.

Now, scientists are estimating that's less than 10 % of the actual size of the universe.

The universe is actually much, much bigger than that.

This is just the universal horizon because the expansion of the universe, light this far will never reach Earth.

So now you're talking about a size 100 billion light years, and as small as we are right in the middle, this infinitesimally small spec, keep in mind in our visible universe alone, visible, there are more stars than there are grains of sand in all the beaches in all the world.

Think about that incomprehensible number.

And as small as we are.

Now, humor me with this.

Take one atom, one hydrogen atom, Avogadro's number one times 10 to the negative 23, okay?

That's roughly the same order of magnitude as we are to the universe.

So we have this entire huge universe outside and this entire universe inside every single human being, and we as human beings can only interact with one or two orders of magnitude up or down, otherwise the universe is simply too big or too small.

We just will never be able to know.

And that is reality.

That's where most of everything lies.

That's where most of reality is.

It's either way up there or inside or everything in between.

So I guess my point is every time when people say, well, aliens, what does that mean?

What does that mean?

Because most people say aliens and Hollywood and little eggheads running around.

There's so much more to it.

This is us imposing a Hollywood idea of what an alien should look like.

And by the way, let's not forget their anthropomorphic values, right?

They look like us, they have arms like us and heads like us and eyes like us because we view everything through anthropomorphic eyes.

It's the reason why we call our dogs human names and we treat them like humans because we treat everything as if they have human values, human motivation, human intent, where we may be dealing with something completely different.

This could be like artificial intelligence.

It's just binary input in, input out.

We don't know. And so these are some of the questions we have to, really, as we were moving down this pathway, this is why I always tell people, look, all options have to be on the table until they're no longer on the table because we simply don't know.

We also don't know what their intentions are and why they might be here.

That's right. Why they might be visiting here.

That's right. Do you have any theories as to what their intentions might be?

Brother, there's a whole range of theories.

I mean, it could be simply as like when we're on the African Serengeti and we see the wildebeests and we're in a helicopter and not to make fun of it, but you sit there and I say, oh, that one, we dart it, boom, what do we do?

We land the helicopter, we come out, we draw blood, we do tests, we want to see its diet and its migratory patterns, its health.

And then what happens?

A wildebeest wakes up, kind of groggy, disoriented, stumbles over to the water and the holdings like, hey, Bill, you're not gonna believe this man, this thing came out of the sky.

All some weird stuff happened.

I was being touched.

I woke up and now my butt hurts, right?

It could be something as simple as that.

Do you believe in those reports?

Because people do say that they were abducted by aliens.

Well, this is my point, right?

So that's one option.

The other option could be simply to monitor us.

It could be that we are getting very close to being able to replicate what they can do.

And if that's the case, maybe technologically, we're only 100, 200 years behind.

And if that's the case, now all of a sudden, we're gonna be new neighbors, right?

And that could be problematic because our species is very violent.

We do a lot of bad things to each other.

Are we really ready to go out and meet our potential friends from out of town?

I don't know. I mean, we're pretty horrible to each other.

So maybe not. Certainly, if I was them and I knew we were getting close, I would probably be pretty interested in what we're doing too.

As far as the abductions, I don't know what to tell you because I've never been abducted.

I've had some people that swear by it.

But you can't have a conversation about abduction and then say, oh, they're here for peaceful reasons.

It doesn't work that way.

Do you believe them, the people that swear by it?

I believe that they are being truthful, that experience they feel is real.

I don't think they're lying.

But the question is, you know.

Did it happen is the question.

Yeah, and I can't say, because I wasn't there.

But I can tell you that we definitely have people that have had experiences where they are now on US government full medical disability in writing because they got too close to a UAP.

Now, was it deliberate that they got injured or was it just a byproduct of the technology?

They got too close to it.

What does that mean they got too close to it?

And you mentioned that there's some people that are on US disability allowance.

So they're being paid by the US government.

In writing, because they had a UAP encounter.

They were involved in a UAP encounter.

And what does that mean, UAP encounter in that definition?

Well, so let's look at it this way.

Yeah, here's a better one.

You go to the airport, right?

And I'm going to hop on a 737 and go fly to Fort Lauderdale.

There's no real threat there.

I'm getting on a plane, it's safe.

Sit on the seat, have a cocktail, watch a movie, read a magazine.

Now, if I were to walk out onto the tarmac, onto the runway where that same airplane is, and that airplane decides to spool up its jet engine, chances are I'm going to be injured.

I'm going to get burned.

I'm going to lose my hearing and possibly a lot worse, right?

There are individuals, US government servicemen and women, and there's also intelligence officials who have been injured by getting too close to a UAP, whether incidentally or it was deliberate or not.

The question is, was that injury sustained because it was deliberate or was that injury sustained because it was just a matter of being too close to the technology.

For example, it's like putting your head near a microwave oven when it's on.

It's probably not very good for you, right?

And have those people spoken out?

Absolutely. What's a good example?

There's an individual right now named John Burroughs, who had his medical files classified and the US government, thankfully because of late Senator John McCain from Arizona, forced the Air Force to release his files.

And as a result, he was able to get full medical disability because of an incident that involved him and another individual in the UK, known as a Randall Shum Forest incident or Bentwaters incident, where there was a US, joint US, and UK base.

And there was a UFO incident where this thing had landed in the forest.

And they went out to go see this thing and they were injured.

And they were in the military at the time?

Yeah, Air Force Special Police or police officers.

They were injured. They were injured and that's not all.

There's a lot of people that have been injured right now that are under medical care by government doctors.

That is a fact. When they give their account of what happened, what do they say?

That depends who you ask.

I mean, there's some consistency within some of the stories and then there's some divergence.

It's like somebody who says they've been in a car accident, depending what kind of car you're in and was it a multiple car pile up and where were you sitting in the car?

You're gonna have a slightly different experience.

So it's not one shoe fits all.

You talk about how there's been a lot of UAP sightings at nuclear technology facilities.

Yes, and that is why this is a national security issue because they seem to be able to disable our nuclear capabilities.

Now people say, oh, that's like, you know, taking matches out of a kid's hands.

And it's, you know, well, maybe, but in Russia, there's information that suggests they actually turned them on.

So, you know, we have to be really careful with that.

Our nuclear triad capability is really the crown jewels of the US government.

And so if a country or an adversary has the ability to interfere with a nuclear response, that's significant.

Is evidence to suggest that they turned on the nuclear facilities in Russia?

Yes. What is that evidence?

When was that? There's evidence that there's actually a KGB report that suggested that one of their places was actually turned on.

In fact, there's a lot, let me be careful what I say here.

So after the Berlin Wall fell, there was this brief honeymoon period between the Soviet Union and the US, where ex -KGB officers were sharing information with us and our government.

I think that's about all I can probably say about that.

But there was some very interesting information that we were able to see.

I was reading about this really interesting incident called the Gloris Incident.

Golares in Brazil. I can't pronounce that.

Hey, you did a great one.

Golares. Golares, which was in 1977 to 1978.

And it sounded like a UAP incident that was witnessed by hundreds, thousands of people.

It was investigated officially by the Brazilian military under the command and control of a four -star general named General Uchoa.

And he has explained before he passed away that even his own military personnel had been attacked.

By? By UAP. And what did they see?

What was the, what did they document, see?

Oh my goodness, a whole litany of things.

A lot of the locals recall being terrified by these things being pursued by them, almost being like a laser blast, if you can imagine that, or directed energy -type injury.

Very provocative. Some of the military personnel were injured as well.

A lot of medical doctors came in afterwards to look at the locals and the military personnel, validating the presumption that there was some sort of directed energy -type damage, tissue damage, to some of these people.

And of course then the fear kind of escalated into some of the other local lore of some other things.

But it was very well established by the Brazilian military who also witnessed these encounters.

So it's not like just some people in a remote village.

These were Brazilian military officers who also vouched for.

And I've spoken to dozens and dozens of military officers all throughout Latin America, and Chile and Peru and Uruguay, and they are all reporting, in some cases, some very, very similar encounters.

Not necessarily with coladas, but innocent amongst themselves.

People who don't even know each other, separated by different countries, are telling me their same encounter and the same morphology of craft and how they would, in some cases, even try to engage in a dogfight and use cannons, conventional guns, to no avail, of course.

And there's reports of that in Tehran, incidentally it was 1978, the Tehran incident with an F -14 Tomcat, where the pilot, his aircraft was disabled every time he tried to engage the target.

And then, you know, I superimposed that with, here in Huntsville, Alabama, we had some helicopters that we were testing and something like eight out of the eight test pilots all reported UAP coming around their helicopters while they were testing them.

And one even reported that he believed his helicopter was disabled and he went into an emergency situation, I think it was an emergency auto rotation situation, and as soon as the UAP left, he was able to regain control of his helicopter.

Should we be worried about this?

No, I don't think we're, I think we should be concerned because, look, from a governmental perspective, to determine, and this is why I always say this is a national security issue, but not a national security threat.

And there's a reason why.

So there's a very simple calculus to determine if something is a threat.

It's capabilities versus intent.

We've seen some of the capabilities.

We have no idea the intent, no clue.

So we don't know if it's a threat.

And let me give you a little analogy here that might help kind of put this, I use this analogy a lot to help illustrate what do I mean?

I'm sure you live in a lovely home.

Let me ask you the question.

Do you lock your front door before you go to bed?

Yes. Okay, and you know what?

I do too. And I think most people, we don't expect anything bad to happen, but just out of precaution, right?

And some folks may go the extra mile and decide, you know, I'm gonna just make sure the windows are locked once in a while.

And you know what? I might even turn the alarm on at night because I can't.

Let's say you wake up one Sunday morning to have yourself a nice hot cup of tea or coffee, and you walk downstairs, and all of a sudden as you come downstairs one bright morning, you notice size 12 muddy boot prints on your living room carpet that were not there the night before.

Now, no one's been hurt, nothing's out of place, but despite you locking the front door and checking the windows and turning on the alarm, there are now boot prints in your living room floor that were not there the night before.

My question to you is, is that a threat?

My response is it could be if it wanted to be, so we should probably figure out how it's getting into the house.

This is kind of the same analogy of these things that can come in unimpeded, unchallenged, into controlled US airspace, over -scented military installations, potentially interfere with our nuclear equities and capabilities, we should probably figure out what these things are.

With everything that you know in mind and everything you've witnessed and seen, if you had to argue against yourself, if you had to argue the case against everything that you believe, so make the case that UAPs don't exist, what exactly would you say?

Well, you can't say they don't exist, we're beyond that, they're real, whatever they are, but I could make the argument that it's foreign adversarial technology, it's Russia, it's China, right?

They have leapfrogged us technologically and have been able to execute this plan wonderfully, and then the other option is that it's all a grand hallucination, so let's go down each argument.

Let's go down the fact that maybe this is, I don't know, Chinese technology, Russian technology, after all, the Chinese did send balloons over our northern continental United States, spy balloons and, you know, for who knows how long, and we never did anything about it and tracked it.

That means that for the last 70 years, some country has been able to create a technology in secret that's so far in advance of anything we have, and by the way, deploy it over the continental United States for 70 years, completely non -attributed.

Now, where were we 70 years ago?

Well, we're on the heels of World War II.

We had just broken the sound barrier, and we hadn't made it into space yet.

Where was China in the middle of a famine?

Where was Russia? No better than we were.

So if this was Chinese technology or Russian technology back then, because we had the data to show it goes all the way back, this would be the greatest intelligence failure this country has ever faced, eclipsing that of even 9 -11, because despite the billions of dollars in the 17 intelligence organizations,

over 70 years, there's not a trace that these countries were able to develop this and fly over our country and do what we're seeing.

So that's option one.

Also, temporally speaking, that type of technology didn't exist back in 1950, 1948.

We, not by us anyway.

So that would be like going into King Tut's tomb for the very first time in the 1920s and looking in there, and all of a sudden discovering a fully assembled and functioning 747.

Doesn't make sense.

Egyptians didn't have the technology back then, right?

So let's go to the other option.

So that would be the huge biggest intelligence failure that this country's ever experienced, and that's not a good option, and very, very unlikely.

So the other option is, this is not, it's a mass hallucination.

Everybody's crazy. So let's go down that rabbit hole for a second.

So some of the best and brightest in our intelligence community and our Department of Defense are top gun trained pilots who are trusted to fly live munitions over cities, populated cities, fight and win wars on our behalf.

Men and women who have their finger literally on the nuclear button.

They're all crazy. They're all absolutely certifiably insane.

We've got a bigger problem on our hands than UAP.

What percentage of them have made reports of UAP?

It's hard to say percentage because you don't know because the ones that don't report, there's no way to measure, right?

You only know the ones that do report.

So there's no way. Now we can tell you that people, more are reporting because they feel that it's safe that they can report, but we don't have any metric right now that tells us who's not reporting because they're not reporting.

When you, when we think about this hallucination rationale, I remember many years ago, you know, and I think it was in relation to physical hallucinations or ghosts and things like that.

Yeah, it was a relation to ghosts.

Someone said to me, they said, if really extremely improbable things never happened, then that would be a miracle.

Because just like the nature of probability means that most sort of predictable things happen most of the time.

And then as you get down probability, there's this one side of it, which is highly improbable.

Yeah, exactly. So like on the bell ship curve, this side of it is extremely improbable things.

You know, I, what's the extremely improbable example?

We start talking about Andrew Huberman, and then my phone rings and it's Andrew Huberman.

And we go, oh my God, what are the odds of that being Andrew Huberman?

We were just talking about him.

And the issue there is we've spoken about many people and the phone never rang.

But on the one time it does, we go, we connect the dots in hindsight and we go, that is a miracle.

And we attribute meaning to that.

Is it not possible that, you know, if there's thousands and thousands of these sightings, there's also billions of non sightings.

So on that bell curve of probability, there's these are just the unexplainable, highly improbable thousand incidents of, you know, maybe there was something on the camera, maybe there was some - I mean, it's so enlightening, atmospheric anomaly, but the problem is we're going back to the idea that there

are multiple sensor systems collecting the same information at the same time under the same circumstances, right?

This isn't just one person like your call.

Oh my gosh, out of blue, the guy calls.

You've got multiple platforms reporting the information at the same time simultaneously, right?

So it's not just, oh, well, I saw an atmospheric aberration.

The radar is picking it up.

The gun camera's picking it up.

The FLIR's picking it up.

And another radar system's picking it up.

And another radar, and by the way, other capabilities which I can't discuss here are also picking it up.

So it's a real thing.

Now, could it be a Russian rocket on re -entry that happened to use up all its hydrazine and now the booster rock is burning up?

Yeah, but then you don't have these 90 degree turns.

You don't have 180 degree turns.

You don't have something coming in, sitting at 80 ,000 feet, then dropping up right above the surface of the water, hovering 50 feet, and then popping right back up that you can measure.

It's quantifiable and qualifiable data.

Is that each referring to what they call the Tic -Tac incident?

Is that what that is as well?

So the Tic -Tac incident, that's not the video from the Tic -Tac, but yeah, the Tic -Tac incident are these objects that were detected.

At one point, one of the operators said it was raining UFOs.

So the Spy One radar can detect a baseball -sized object at 80 ,000 feet, okay?

So very, very capable.

You had E2 Hawkeye.

What's that? It's an air platform, it's an aircraft.

It's a flying radar system that we use to provide combat support, air support, and combat control for aircraft.

So you have the Aegis class destroyer.

It's basically like a Ticonderoga class, I think.

You have the USS Princeton with the Spy One radar, one of the world's most premier at the time radar systems on the planet.

You have the E2 Hawkeye also picking it up on radar.

Then you have the aircraft that could pick it up on radar.

Then you have the eyewitnesses picking up on radar.

Then you have also the footage, the FLIR footage picking these things up as well, electro -opically.

So you're talking about something that is at 80 ,000 feet.

Then within a blink of an eye, it has the ability to drop down to 50 feet and then go right back up again instantly.

And it's all being verified by various different sensor systems.

Now in this particular case, I'm convoluting a little bit because the pilot's incident confirmed the tic -tac, but they didn't see it dropping out of 80 ,000 feet.

So I'm kind of putting it all together to make it a little easier for people to consume.

But the tic -tac incident wasn't really an incident.

It was incidents over a protracted period of time in the early November timeframe.

So it wasn't just one incident.

There are multiple incidents, but it's referred to as the tic -tac incident because the pilot actually reported seeing this white flying, what's been described as a lozenge, what's been described historically as a white flying butane tank.

In this particular case, it was described as a white flying tic -tac, like the breath mint tic -tac.

And they saw it go up, down on radars and systems like that.

Oh, yeah. Yeah, they saw it up and down on radar systems.

And then the pilots actually saw it zip away and bang, disappear over the horizon, only later on within a few moments to be picked up on radar again, 60 miles away at their cap point, where they're supposed to rendezvous next.

So you're talking incredible speeds, incredible accelerate, hypersonic velocity, instantaneous acceleration, low observability, all the anti -gravity, all the observables.

And that's just one that's publicly known.

There's a lot more of these things that have been happening.

How long were you with this working on that project at the Pentagon, ATIP?

Eight years. Eight years?

I'm an old guy. This is gray in that blonde.

Let's talk about our sponsor, Woop quickly.

We're now on the home stretch of sober October, and this is where I would normally share my key takeaways.

But as I haven't been drinking for over a year now, I thought you might prefer to hear from a listener who's given up alcohol for the first time through this Woop sober October challenge.

Earlier this week, Charlie from Manchester sent me this message.

The last few weeks have been so transformative.

While I haven't given up drinking for good, Woop's sober October challenge has shown me just how much my body needs time away from drinking, especially during periods when I really need to perform.

I've slept better, and I've felt more mental clarity and control each day.

Sober October is almost over, but your chance to learn more about your body is not.

If you're not yet a Woop member, go to join .woop .com slash CEO to start your free trial today.

What's a day in the life of someone working in a project that deals with UFOs at the Pentagon?

You come in in the morning, you get your coffee.

I had the two worst portfolios anybody could ever ask for at the Pentagon.

I was like a pariah.

I had the two most unpopular portfolios.

I was, on one hand, I was working the UAP issue, UFO issue.

On the other hand, I was also working Guantanamo Bay issues.

Very politically charged, very untenable situation.

But that was my job, so I had both those portfolios.

And so every day was, it was like riding a tiger to work.

And every day that tiger just wanted to rip you off and shred you into pieces that you just had to hold on for dear life.

Yeah, it was stressful.

In 2014, I was informed that I was put on the ISIS al -Qaeda kill list for my work at involving Guantanamo Bay.

And of course we had the UAP issue, it was uncomfortable, it was uncomfortable times.

It was uncomfortable time for me professionally.

I wouldn't have wished it on anybody.

Did you enjoy? I enjoyed the people.

I enjoyed the mission and doing what I thought and what I think is right for our nation.

But no, I mean, if there was an easier job I could have had, I probably would have done it, but most of my jobs I tended to be handpicked to do the jobs I had done.

I guess someone somewhere thought I was doing a good job with other stuff and they kind of always would bump into new stuff.

How does your work with UFOs and your belief in these other, I was gonna say life forms, but just these other forms of, I don't know, activity that we can't explain?

Because I hesitate on the word life forms because again, yeah, and let me say it's not a belief in life, it's a belief in possibilities.

Okay, right. I don't know, I can't tell you definitively that oh, I believe in life and then looks like this in other parts of the galaxy.

I don't know, I don't know that.

I haven't been to space, I couldn't tell you, but we have to remain open to the possibilities and look at the data, a lot of the data speak for itself and then draw conclusions based upon the data.

Did this understanding make your life more fulfilling or feel more insignificant?

Because I sometimes think of when I spend time watching space movies and documentaries and I see them flying to Mars and then through these black holes and stuff, it reminds me how big and vast the universe really is.

And all of that then makes me feel a few things, two things at the same time.

One of them is like totally insignificant in the grand scheme of what's out there and the technologies you've described and the way you've described them in part makes me feel quite insignificant because I'm just this tiny little grain of sand in this never ending beach and I really don't matter in the grand scheme

of this. And then the second thing, which is a positive consequence of that feeling is it kind of alleviates your anxiety, I guess.

Nothing really matters, there's nothing to worry about.

That is very insightful.

Can I ask you a favor?

So you have a little iPad in front of you.

Type in the words pale blue dot under Google images and I want you to tell me what you see.

Okay, I'll type in pale blue dot.

Do you know what that is?

Take a look at that, blow it up.

Zoom in. What do you see?

It's a tiny little dot of light.

Tiny little, there's this massive, I mean, it looks like kind of like the night sky almost and there's this tiny little dot of light.

You know what that is?

What is that? That's the planet you live on.

That's Earth. Oh, that's Earth, okay.

Every memory, every piece of history occurred on that tiny little insignificant ball hurtling through the vastness and vacuum of space and that ray of light is actually from the sun.

And that was taken by one of our probes as it was heading out towards the solar system and it was told to turn back and take a picture.

That's our home. How does that picture make you feel?

Totally insignificant, irrelevant, like I just don't matter.

But how about this?

Yes, it'll make you feel insignificant, but no one else can do, make you realize just how special we really are.

That little blue dot, the little engine that could, that's where we live, that's our home.

And that is real and that is special.

So to answer your question, how does it make me feel, you can feel insignificant and still feel special at the same time.

And that's why I wanted you to see that picture because you're illustrating for me exactly the question you're asking me.

And so in order to rather than just give you an answer, I wanted you to experience my answer and that is my answer.

What do your kids think of what you do these days?

I don't know what I do.

My children are the greatest accomplishment in my life.

There'll be nothing in my life that will ever come close to the achievement of being a father, period, full stop.

So there's nothing I will ever do that will come close to that.

So it doesn't really matter what I do else in life because that's the most important.

Now, what do they think about what I do?

You probably have to ask them.

Do they believe in UAP?

It's not belief. They believe in data.

I never told them to believe in UAP.

But do they believe that we are alone in the universe?

Ah, that's a different question.

Well, you'd have to ask them for that, but let's break that down again because it's important.

We love going into these binary things either or.

Does life exist in the universe?

Yes, this is living proof, this planet.

In fact, life is abundant.

Life is everywhere on this planet.

Even the place that we think could never possibly exist.

It is there and it thrives.

My daughters are very open -minded, but they're also independent thinkers.

I taught them, don't be like mom and dad.

If you don't want to be like mom and dad, if we do something stupid, don't do it.

Learn a lesson. So we've never prescribed our children what to think or what to believe, ever.

It's been up to them.

They are incredibly intelligent.

They both have very successful careers and they think on their own.

And what they think is sacred and I don't ever want to interfere with that.

And I've always told them, you're not asking you to believe anything.

Do you believe we're alone in the universe?

We are absolutely not alone in the universe.

We just better hope the other life is kind, I guess.

Ah, see, but there we go again.

Me too, but what is kind?

Let's just hope they don't hurt us.

Ah, that's different.

You're right. Let's hope they don't eradicate us.

Right, let's hope they're not malevolent.

I would agree with that.

Let's hope they're not here for their own interests and not ours.

Why did you call the book imminent?

Open the first page.

There, when you get to the first written, actual words, it's before the forward.

It's what's it say.

So as you may be wondering why I titled this book imminent, the word itself sometimes is associated with another word, threat.

Although at first glance, it may appear that this book focuses on the potential threat of unidentified anomalous phenomena, UAP, or UFOs in the vernacular.

That is not my intent.

According to some of the common definitions of the word imminent, it usually means something is about to happen or impending or inevitable.

This is precisely why I chose this title.

The invasion isn't imminent though.

That's kind of what I'm trying to check.

I know, I know, but that's not my intent.

We have a closing tradition on this podcast where the last guest leaves a question for the next guest, not knowing who they're going to be leaving it for.

And the question that's been left for you is, what is something you were once deeply afraid of that now you are no longer afraid of?

Fear. Fear, I'm not afraid of it anymore.

I used to be afraid of everything, afraid of combat, afraid of death, afraid of war, afraid of healthcare issues, afraid of other people, not for me, but for other people.

It's a little bit liberating to not be afraid.

It's like the old saying, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, right?

I mean, clearly I'm still concerned, there's concern, but actual fear, man, I'm over 50 years old, brother.

There's nothing anybody can do to me that at this point I've lived a full life and I've had more than my fair share, whatever, dude.

If I spend the rest of my life, it doesn't matter because I've lived such an incredible life and I have an incredible family.

So it doesn't really matter.

Lou, thank you, thank you for your time and thank you for writing a book which gives us a very, very rare view into what happens inside the Pentagon as it relates to the subject of UAP slash UFOs.

It's called Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs, imminent.

And I highly recommend anybody that's interested in these subjects to read this book.

I'll link it in the description below because it's fascinating.

I'm certainly someone that believes we're not alone in the universe.

I have no idea what that means or what that looks like.

And I think to really have a strong view either way, to think that we're not alone or to think that you can perfectly articulate who is here with us is probably some form of naivety and ignorance and probably.

Well, they're one and the same, right?

The true believers and the true skeptics, they're just on opposite ends of the spectrum because no matter what information you give them, they're never gonna change their narrative.

So I think you're right.

And I think generally, I think a better position to take on all these subjects is to remain open -minded.

And that's why I was keen to have this conversation because I like to remain open -minded to information and there's so many times in history that we thought we had it figured out and we didn't.

So to think we have it figured out now is stupidity, frankly, so.

Exactly. Lou, thank you.

My honor, privilege.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thank you. Isn't this cool?

Every single conversation I have here on The Diary of a CEO, at the very end of it, you'll know, I asked the guest to leave a question in The Diary of a CEO.

And what we've done is we've turned every single question written in The Diary of a CEO into these conversation cards that you can play at home.

So you've got every guest we've ever had their question and on the back of it, if you scan that QR code, you get to watch the person who answered that question.

We're finally revealing all of the questions and the people that answered the question.

The brand new version two updated conversation cards are out right now at theconversationcards .com.

They've sold out twice instantaneously.

So if you are interested in getting hold of some limited edition conversation cards, I really, really recommend acting quickly.

So that's the end of the session.

I'll see you guys next week.

Bye.

[펜타곤의 UFO 추적: 루 엘리존도와의 인터뷰]-[Ex-Pentagon Official: The U.S Isn't Telling The Truth! Top-Secret UFO Encounters Finally Uncovered! They're Trying To Silence Us!]

📋 Summary

펜타곤의 UAP 조사: 루 엘리존도의 증언

1. UAP의 실체와 국가 안보

2. UAP의 5가지 관측 가능 특성 (Five Observables)

3. 왜 정부는 침묵했는가?

4. 외계 생명체에 대한 열린 자세

5. 결론: 진실을 향한 여정

🎯Key Sentences

📝Key Phrases

📖 Transcript