Skip to content
The Diary of a CEOThe Diary of a CEO

Luis Elizondo: What AATIP saw on radar near nuclear weapons

Elizondo helped run the Pentagon AATIP program for nearly a decade. He details FLIR footage, nuclear-site incursions, and pilots told to stay silent.

Luis ElizondoguestSteven Bartletthost
Oct 31, 20241h 34mWatch on YouTube ↗

EVERY SPOKEN WORD

  1. 0:00 – 2:05

    Intro

    1. LE

      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.

    2. SB

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

    3. LE

      Oh, yeah. But they're classified because there are a lot of people that don't want us talking about this.

    4. SB

      Should we be worried about this?

    5. LE

      Right.

    6. NA

      Luis Elizondo is a respected intelligence officer and former head of the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

    7. LE

      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 their nuclear equities.

    8. SB

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

    9. LE

      Yeah. That's a big deal.

    10. SB

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

    11. LE

      Worse. My life has been threatened many times. I've taken huge risks, but I think we deserve the truth. So let's go.

    12. SB

      There's people who say that they were abducted by aliens. Do you believe any of those reports?

    13. LE

      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.

    14. SB

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

    15. LE

      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.

    16. SB

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

    17. LE

      Oh, gosh. Well, where do I start?

    18. SB

      You eventually resigned. Why?

    19. LE

      I resigned in protest because...

    20. SB

      This has always blown my mind a little bit. 53% of you that listen to this show regularly haven't yet subscribed to the show. So could I ask you for a favor before we start? If you like the show, and you like what we do here, and you want to support us, the free simple way that you can do just that is by hitting the subscribe button. And my commitment to you is, if you do that, then I'll do everything in my power, me and my team, to make sure that this show is better for you every single week. We'll listen to your feedback. We'll find the guests that you want me to speak to. And we'll continue to do what we do. Thank you so much. (instrumental music) Lou.

  2. 2:05 – 2:24

    Who Is Luis?

    1. SB

    2. LE

      Steve.

    3. SB

      Who are you?

    4. LE

      Wow. It depends who you ask. I think to some people, I'm probably a, a patriot. To other people, I'm a father and a husband. And to other people, I'm probably the devil. (mouse clicking)

  3. 2:24 – 4:38

    Luis's Professional Resume

    1. LE

    2. SB

      What's your professional CV? What does your professional resume say?

    3. LE

      Went to college, went to the University of Miami. I studied, uh, microbiology, immunology, and parasitology. I consider myself a disciple of, uh, the scientific method and scientific principles. I then joined the army, uh, United States Army. I went in as enlisted. I had an opportunity to go in as an officer because of my education. But, uh, the words of my father always rung in the back of my head. And he said, "In order to be a leader, you must first know what it means to follow." And so I joined the army as an enlisted soldier. Um, spent some time in deployments. Korea, spent, lived a year in Asia. Um, was in military intelligence. And then I was recruited very shortly thereafter into a special program where I became a civilian special agent in counterintelligence, running investigations. Um, supervised investigations throughout Latin America, South America, Central America. And then, um, spent the rest of my time after 9/11, uh, over in Afghanistan and the Middle East, primarily dealing with, uh, terrorism issues. Uh, running operations against, uh, Hezbollah (gun firing) and ISIS and other, other organizations. And then, um, after probably several years of that, my wife got very tired of it. Missed too many birthdays, missed too many, uh, holidays. And she said, "You really need to come back. And more importantly, I'm afraid the next time you leave, you may not come back." Uh, we- we were losing some people over there, quite a bit. And so I listened to my wife. I came back, took a supervisory job, ran, uh, investigations worldwide, um, terrorism investigations. And then from there, I went to several other three-letter agencies. I worked for the NCIX, National Counterintelligence Executive. I worked for the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence. And, uh, it was in 2000, uh, shortly thereafter, um, that I was asked to be part of a very interesting program in the Pentagon. Um, what my CV is, I'm probably, uh, a jack of all trades, but an expert in nothing. I've done a lot of things. Mostly national security crimes, terrorism, espionage, um, some counter-guerrilla operations, counter-narcotics, uh, counter-insurgency, uh, missions.

  4. 4:38 – 10:30

    What Pentagon's Project Did You Work On In 2008-2009?

    1. LE

    2. SB

      You said in 2000 and sort of 8, 2009, you were asked to come back to the Pentagon to work on a particular project. What project was that?

    3. LE

      So, well, it wasn't the one that wound up being the project e- everybody knows me for. So, uh, in 2008, they asked me to run a program to help integrate national-level intelligence to, with law enforcement, local and state law enforcement agencies. Now, why is that important? Because, and then it kind of leads to the next thing. After 9/11, people think here 9/11 was, was caused by, by, unfortunately, some terrorists doing some bad things. That was an effect. (music) That wasn't the cause. The actual cause was us here in the United States not being able to share information with ourselves very well. We had pockets of information at the CIA, pockets of information at the FBI, pockets of information at the Department of Defense, but we weren't sharing it with each other. And thereby, there was an information gap, an intelligence gap, and the folks in 9/11 were able to do what they did, unfortunately. (plane engines whirring) So we learned that lesson by trying to create, um, better integration. So how do you take super secret information and get it down to a level that can be consumed and usable without compromising sources and methods? So that was the problem I was asked to come back and fix.It was shortly thereafter is when I was visited by some individuals and had some conversations with some other individuals about a program that I had no idea was- that was- uh, 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.

    4. SB

      Who approached you?

    5. LE

      So there were two individuals. One of them I can talk about, the other one's identity is protected. It's a gentleman named Jay Stratton, uh, who at the time was another intelligence official like me, and another one of his colleagues, and they came to me and they started asking me questions. They had a blue badge, so I, I knew that they were cleared. They had the same security clearance I had. We all worked in SCIFs, and it's not uncommon when you need expertise in a particular portfolio or mission that you, you outsource. You find the right people to do this right job, and so I was told they were looking for somebody to run counterintelligence and security for this capability that they had. They didn't tell me what the capability was, um, and I was a counterintelligence and security guy. I was an expert in it. So after several conversations, um, a bit of a dance if you will, you know, kind of like trying to figure each other out, they arranged for me to have a meeting with a individual and I met, uh, the, what I would consider is the premier rocket scientist for the United States government. Now when I say rocket scientist, I mean literally a rocket scientist. This is a gentleman who can tell you the fuel consumption rate of a first stage solid rocket motor booster. He can tell you the, the orbital velocity of a MIRV vehicle, multiple 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, you know, we've been doing this. 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 Lacatski and the epitome of a rocket scientist. And at the end of the conversation, I remember him looking at me over his glasses and he said to me, "What do you think about UFOs?" And so I thought for a moment and I said to him, uh, I said, "I... Sorry, I don't." And he said, "Well, what do you mean? You, you don't believe in UFOs?" I said, "No, I, I didn't say that. You asked me what do I think of them and my response was I don't because I don't think about them." I- I'm too busy chasing bad guys and trying to fix problems for the government. I, I never really had the luxury to think about them. And he said to me, "Okay, that's fair, fair enough, but let me just warn you, um, don't let your analytic bias get the best of you because you may learn things here that will challenge any preconceived notion or narrative that you have about the topic." And so I left that meeting thinking to myself, is this some sort of psychological evaluation? Was it that a serious question? You know, or... And it was very soon thereafter that I learned the reality that the United States government was absolutely invested in a UFO investigative program, and more importantly, that it was legitimate. Like, it was real. There were real things that we were encountering over controlled US airspace, over sensitive military installations, um, by an unknown technology that frankly could outperform anything that we had in our inventory. So that was my, uh, that was my introduction to now what is known as AATIP. My focus was specifically more on the nuts and bolts investigations of these UAP incursions into controlled US airspace, encounters by military aircraft of these things. Um, we weren't really focused on civilian s- information, right? We... This wasn't like a grandma seeing some lights in the backyard. These were, these were, well, to lack of better term, close encounters by trained military pilots, trained observers, by the way, who could recognize a silhouette between an F- SU-22, a MiG-25 and an F-16 from 10 miles away and make a split s- second decision if it is a friend or foe. And what these pilots were encountering were also being backed up by, by gun camera footage and, and FLIR footage, forward-looking infrared footage, and oh, by the way, that was being further backed up by radar data, airborne data, airborne radar data and also ground-based radar data and sea-based radar data.

    6. SB

      How'd you go from the project you were working on into AATIP 'cause that was the first sort of meeting, right? That was, like, an introductory conversation.

  5. 10:30 – 12:12

    Joining AATIP (Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program)

    1. SB

    2. LE

      So there were several meetings before that-

    3. SB

      Right.

    4. LE

      ... where they were trying to vet me, see if I had, I guess, the, the right background of skillsets. It wasn't until that meeting with Jim Lacatski that the word "UFO" was used. Um, and how did I, how did I go about that? He's the one who made the decision. It was his program. I had nothing to do with it. 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.

    5. SB

      So did he say to you, "Okay, well, we'd like you to work on this program, this AATIP program"? Um, the acronym there stands for Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

    6. LE

      Correct.

    7. SB

      Um, and eventually you became the director of that program.

    8. LE

      Yeah. So it... There was a, there was a natural evolution of it. Um, initially I was just... They were brought in to provide counterintelligence and security, uh, expertise, uh, but as that program also ha- faded away, the, the necessity and urgency of some of these incursions were, were... It 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, that we were all recognizing, and there were some elements in the government that were trying to kill the effort, um, and not for reasons you might think, believe it or not. It was completely different. Um, and so the decision was made to bring it up to the Pentagon, up to where I was, take it out of DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and with the authorities I had, I was the director of National Program Special Management Staff, and so that was my job. Um, I ran special access programs for, for the White House and for the National Security Council and, uh, we, uh, we put the program under that, uh, keeping it out of the, the prying eyes of some of the folks that previously were trying to kill the program.

    9. SB

      So this program, Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, was really focused on, um, investigating

  6. 12:12 – 13:46

    AATIP's Mission

    1. SB

      reports and incidents of UAPs or UFOs, um, in military environments. So if there was a UFO/UAP in a, I don't know, in a military base, then this project would investigate what that was. Is that, is that correct?

    2. LE

      Correct. That's correct. So it was only military-focused. Um, 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, uh, there was a special operations unit on a particular patrol and if they happened to encounter a UAP, those type of reports. And I also wanna emphasize here, we weren't looking for UFOs, you know? We were, we were always coming into a situation with the understanding that there's some sort of prosaic un- there's a prosaic answer to what this is, right? It actually wasn't a UFO. It was a drone, a test fire of a missile, it was a drone, it was a balloon, it was whatever, whatever. Because there are certain signatures and profiles that you can look very quickly and determine, "Oh, that's just conventional technology." But there was a guideline that we used that al- helped us understand when something really was anomalous, when we really, we're talking about it's not our technology and whatever that is, it's probably not adversarial or foreign technology, so now we're getting into the real world of UAP. That- that's- that's anomalous.

    3. SB

      What's a UAP?

    4. LE

      Unidentified anomalous phenomena. So let me, if I can for... Let me backtrack a little bit.

  7. 13:46 – 14:21

    What's A UAP?

    1. LE

      For years and years and years, the term UFO, unidentified flying object, was used. Um, there were several reasons, but later on the term was changed to UAP and it stood for unidentified aerial phenomenon and it's probably in the last year, year and a half you're starting to see yet another definition of UAP, unidentified anomalous phenomenon. And there's a reason for that, I'm happy to explain if you want, but, um, the decision was made to change from UFO to UAP.

    2. SB

      Uh, I read that it was because a lot of the sort of military personnel stopped reporting their sightings because there was a stigma associated with the

  8. 14:21 – 15:45

    Stigma Associated With The Term 'UFO'

    1. SB

      term UFO.

    2. LE

      Correct. So it's two- two reasons. Uh, there is stigma and taboo associated with the term because the moment you say UFO, people think tinfoil hats and, and-

    3. SB

      They think you're crazy.

    4. LE

      Yeah, Elvis on the mothership and, you know, nonsense like that. Um, but the reality is that this- this was a real issue, a national security issue for our nation and other nations, too, by the way. But also the term UFO isn't really accurate anymore. So what do I mean by that? Well, unidentified flying object. What is flying? Well, flying means you have four fundamental forces. You have thrust, lift, drag, and weight. And when you understand that, you can create wings and create lift and that is the definition of flying, right? These things didn't have wings. They didn't have rudders, elevators, control surfaces, ailerons, cockpits, um, and yet somehow they were able to remain aloft in our atmosphere. So they weren't flying technically, so the name was changed to anomalous, uh, air... I'm sorry, unidentified aerial phenomena 'cause 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 a high altitude and possibly low Earth orbit. So to say that they're aerial isn't even accurate either. So then they said, "Okay, it's unidentified anomalous phenomenon" to cover all the separate domains or environments that these things are being encountered in.

    5. SB

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

  9. 15:45 – 20:21

    Luis's Beliefs On UFO/UAP

    1. SB

    2. LE

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

    3. SB

      Did you believe they were... If I had asked you, though, if I'd come up to you and said, "Are UFOs real?" And I say UFOs because that's the sort of-

    4. LE

      Sure.

    5. SB

      ... social term, but what would you have said?

    6. LE

      Probably not. Uh, I mean, I would have said literally, "Probably not." I wouldn't say for sure not because I didn't know, but-

    7. SB

      What about now?

    8. LE

      Oh. (sighs) Are you kidding me? I mean... (laughs) Yeah, it's, these are real. I mean, don't take my word for it. Our government's already said it. I mean, we, you have a former director of national intelligence telling the world, "Yeah, these- these things are real," whatever they are. You have a former director of CIA, you have a former president of the United States. Um, 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. Um, there's countries in South America that have been dealing with this for a long time. Japan just entered into a, uh, bilateral information sharing agreement with our country for the express purposes of sharing UAP information and data. China's interested, Russia's interested in this. Um, several European countries have a fairly robust capability and had- have a lot of information on this.

    9. SB

      Was there a moment when your belief changed? Was there a moment that you can remember where you thought, "Do you know what? What I thought about UAPs was wrong"?

    10. LE

      Sure. Um, and what I often tell people, there's- there's- there's two types of individuals the way that we process this information. In one category, you have people that will sit there and say, "I had this epiphany, this revelatory moment where all of a sudden it's like, oh my God, they're real?" Right? "Are you kidding me?" And then there's another group of people, which I probably fall into that second category, the latter category, which is more of a slow progression and realization of what we're dealing with is not a conventional technology. It's not our technology. It's- it's something else. Um... At some point, the preponderance of evidence is so overwhelming. Let me give you an example. I am... I spent my life in- in investigations. Terrorists, spies, whatever. And, um, I've always been, uh, 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, right? What does the... what does the data suggest? And in this case, this particular case-You have eyewitness testimony, you have it backed up by gun camera footage, you have it backed up by FLIR footage, you have it 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 as 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 information, the same, same systems we're using to collect the data on the anomalous vehicles we're seeing. Um, and so, you know, I know it's a very uncomfortable conversation to have. I'm not saying it's not. What I'm saying is that we have to deal with this. And it's not me just telling you that, this is our government. We know, we've already, we have laws now on the books because this topic is now so serious. We have whistleblowers ready to come out and testify before the American people because this is so serious. We have set up an organization specifically its sole purpose is to investigate UAP because this topic is so serious. So, this is not a, you know, flight of fancy here. We're, we're investing millions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, to try to figure this out and interestingly enough, I think when the investigative body first came, was, was realized, was, was created, there was this hope that in the first report they said, "Oh, there's 143 incidents that remain, uh, unidentified, but we're gonna whittle them away." What happened the next time they had a report? There was now 300. And what happened after that? Now 800. The number's going up, not down, that remain unresolved. And so, um, you know, we've, we've, we've gotta have this uncomfortable conversation with ourselves.

    11. SB

      You eventually left.

    12. LE

      I did.

    13. SB

      Um, your, that project, but also more broadly, you, you resigned, uh, from working

  10. 20:21 – 23:28

    Leaving The Program And The Role At Pentagon

    1. SB

      with the Pentagon in the role that you were working with them. Why did you resign?

    2. LE

      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, um, the details about what was going on. And there's reasons for that and we can certainly get into that if you want. I understand them. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I understand them. But at least here in, in, 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, um, it's not that uncommon, is it? Because if you look just a year later after I left, the Secretary of Defense himself resigned, right? So, I resigned in protest, but not out of disloyalty. I resigned because of my loyalty to this country and to this government. And...

    3. SB

      What is that protest? Sorry. Just to be clear.

    4. LE

      The protest is that we weren't able to get the information and the help we needed with, with this issue up to the right level of people. They were happy with us doing it, but they said, "Don't tell the boss." Well, wait a minute, the boss needs to know we're, we're having almost a mid-air collision with our fighter pilots. We have captains and admirals of Navy ships asking us, "What do we do about these things?" Like, I, there's an email that said, "Hey, uh, Lou, we can't keep these guys below deck forever. What do you want me to do? They're all over the ship." You know? So, a decision has to be made. What are we 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 want to tell the boss. And, and, and we weren't getting any guidance what to do about it. Now, keep in mind, these things are coming over our centered military installations as well and there's potential for these things to be interfering with their nuclear equities. That's a big deal and nobody wants to have the conversation? Now wait a minute, let, let, let's, let's put this on the backdrop of, of other national security issues, right? Like terrorism. If you go to any airport in the United States today or any train station, you always hear over the announcements, "If, if you see something suspicious, say something, report it." Well, that wasn't the case with these things. In fact, people were told not to report. Yes, if you saw a UFO and you saw it over a sensitive military installation, don't report it 'cause 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 crickets. People would know about it, it was the worst kept secret. People were 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 'cause 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."

    5. SB

      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?

    6. LE

      Well,

  11. 23:28 – 29:23

    Why Don’t They Want The Public To Know?

    1. LE

      I think there'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, I get it, you know, especially if you're a pilot 'cause historically you'd be taken off flight status. You'd, you know, put behind a, a desk and you'd fly a desk the rest of your career because people think you're mentally unstable. Could affect your security clearance. I mean, there's all sorts of things that can happen. Um, and so people were being, being reinforced not to report this information. Even civilian pilots today, if you talk to them, they'll tell you quietly, "Yeah, you know, we see things in the sky, but we're not gonna report or anything 'cause I need a job," you know?

    2. SB

      What did you see?

    3. LE

      Oh my, what, they... I mean, I... Videos, reports, photographs. I mean, we have, there's videos that are so compelling in high definition that there's no question what you're seeing. It's not our technology.It's not our technology and the capabilities are beyond anything we can do. I mean, I can ... I'm happy to explain some of those capabilities if you like, but, but, you know, when you, when you look at this from a rational perspective, you only come to one outcome. There's only one it 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- it- it's absurd. And so, um, let's go into a little bit what make these things unique, okay? Because planes fly in UAP in the air, so that doesn't make them unique and, you know, things go fast and whatnot. So you have to, in intelligence, if you want to filter out data and, and, and only focus on certain data, you have to create parameters. So we realized early on in the government that these things had five parameters, five observables that made them stand out away from everything else. And so the first one was instantaneous acceleration. So what is acceleration? It is the change of velocity, right? It is the ability to change your velocity very quickly and, as a result, as a consequence, there are inertial forces that are experienced. So for us human beings, we express those inertial forces as G-forces. So the force of gravity is pulling on us equally at 9.8 meters per second per second and that's, that's, that's experienced as 1G. A human being can withstand up to 9Gs for a very short period of time before you start having medical consequences, right? You have things like blackouts and red-outs and ultimately death. To compare that to, let's say, standard technology, um, one of our most highly maneuverable aircraft, manned maneuverable aircraft, let me emphasize manned, is an older aircraft, it's called the General Dynamics F-16, built by General Dynamics, it's the F-16. Um, and that, at an unclassified level, can pull about 17Gs before you start having structural failure, meaning wings snap off, right? The plane begins to disintegrate while you're flying it. What we are seeing are objects that are performing in excesses of 2,000 and 3,000 G-forces, okay? Well beyond the healthy limitations of anything biological to withstand and certainly from a material science perspective, more than, more than we have. It- it- there's an advanced technology here. The second observable is hypersonic velocity. So what is hypersonic? Hypersonics are those speeds in 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 hyperson- ... Sure we do, absolutely. We have a b- ... Uh, one of the best examples is a Lockheed YF-12A SR-71, otherwise known as the Blackbird. It can get to about Mach 5, which is really fast, but at that speed if the SR-71 wants to take a right-hand turn, takes roughly half the state of Ohio to execute that maneuver. We are seeing things not doing Mach 5, we are seeing things doing in excess of 10,000, 13,000 miles an hour and executing immediate right-hand turns and even 180s, right? So that is another observable that is significantly above and beyond anything we have. Another observable, it's a bit of an oxymoron, but it's called low observability, meaning you'll hear from the pilots, "Lue, I- I was there, I saw it, but I can't describe it." It didn't have wings, didn't have rudder, a tail, anything, no rivets, nothing. Uh, and then also on the radar you will get these nonsensical returns, these returns like, uh, it's there's some sort of active jamming or spoofing going on, uh, with- within the radar system. So low observability. Now, do we have low observable vehicles? Sure. Th- for example, the B-2 bomber and the Valkyrie, these are stealth vehicles. Well, this is 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- ... 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- a seaplane is a perfect example of a multi-medium vehicle. It can fly and it can float. But let's face it, a seaplane is neither a really good airplane or a good boat. And why? Because there are design compromises that have to be made in performance and design in order for it to operate in multiple domains, and that's true with just about every technology we have. The more domains we want something to operate in, the more sacrifices we have to make. That's why a submarine looks like a submarine, because it's designed to be underwater, and a plane looks like a plane, and a rocket looks like a rocket. Um, these things can operate in multiple different domains. They can operate in air or underwater and possibly even space, but they don't have that performance and design sacrifice that we have to do with our technology.

    4. SB

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

  12. 29:23 – 30:08

    What Type Of Information Do You Have Access To In This Role?

    1. SB

      Right, like I'm trying to understand what access you- you- you're given-

    2. LE

      Everything.

    3. SB

      ... to these things.

    4. LE

      I mean, you- you are-

    5. SB

      What does that practically look like?

    6. LE

      You're seeing the investigations that were done, uh, previously by other members of UAP. You're seeing video, you're seeing photographs, you're seeing the historical reports. Uh-

    7. SB

      And are these classified?

    8. LE

      Oh, absolutely, very.

    9. SB

      Okay. So the- so the general public can't see these kinds of things?

    10. LE

      No.

    11. SB

      And they haven't been published?

    12. LE

      Correct. They have not been public- made publicly available. They are highly classified.

    13. SB

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

    14. LE

      Correct.

    15. SB

      You know, a lot of people talk about Area 51 when they talk about UFOs and, and such.

    16. LE

      Mm-hmm.

    17. SB

      I think one of the sort of rumors is that at Area 51 they've found and, um, retained

  13. 30:08 – 31:00

    The Area 51 Conspiracy Theories

    1. SB

      UFO material, spacecraft, et cetera, that they've studied to understand the technology so that they can i- introduce it to the US military. Is there any truth in that?

    2. LE

      You know, the US government invests a lot of money in research.We have a lot of test facilities where we wanna be able to test things outside the prying eyes of, um, of our enemies and so we- we- we create these test ranges for that purpose. We do all sorts of things at those test ranges. Um, you know, I- I cannot comment on- on what Area 51 might or might not have. Um, I would not be authorized to- to talk about that. Um, all I can say is what is in the public domain, which people already know that it is a, it's a sensitive test facility where- where we- we experiment with- with things.

    3. SB

      Because there was a ch- a gentleman, I think from, that worked near Area 51 that's talked a little bit about this publicly. Bob Lazar?

    4. LE

      Mm-hmm.

  14. 31:00 – 31:45

    Bob Lazar's Claims

    1. LE

    2. SB

      I- I actually didn't know anything about Bob Lazar until about two hours ago. So, what is g- exactly is it that Bob Lazar is claiming?

    3. LE

      Well, I, to be fair, you'd probably have to ask Bob. I- I don't know Mr. Lazar. I've never met him.

    4. SB

      Mm-hmm.

    5. LE

      I've never spoken to him. Um, his claims were that he worked at a particular facility and he had access to, uh, and privy to one of the recovered vehicles. Um, crash retrievals, uh, that was, uh, allegedly performed by the United States, a- and acquired and- and brought there. Um, that is what is in the public domain. Um, I- I- I cannot and will not comment on- on Bob La- Lazar 'cause I don't know him.

    6. SB

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

  15. 31:45 – 33:42

    The Process Of Clearing Highly Classified Information To Share With The Public

    1. SB

      You've g- 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 t- when you're writing books like this to get information cleared so that you can share it?

    2. LE

      It's like birthing an elephant.

    3. SB

      Right.

    4. LE

      (laughs) I can only imagine. Uh, if I was ever, uh, a woman and had to- had to give birth. Um...

    5. SB

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

    6. LE

      They, there's a lot of people that don't w- want us talking about this. Um, but there's also a lot that do. Um, so you go through a process. It's called DOPSR. In the U.S. government, we love our acronyms. It stand 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. Um, and it is, it is a very exhaustive process, but it's important because that's what keeps us legal. That's what keeps people like me not going to jail because you, I- I go through the proper procedures. I'm, I'm not a leaker. I have never leaked classified information. I will never discuss classified information. An unauthorized disclosure's something that- that should be avoided at all times. Um, I'm, like I said, I'm a patriot. I'm loyal to my country. I'm not disloyal. So, there's a right way and a wrong way to do things. So if you wanna write a book, uh, and you wanna talk about things you're not sure you can talk about, you go through this DOPSR process. And that's exactly what I did. And that's how that book was able to be published. Otherwise, right now, I'd probably be in jail.

    7. SB

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

  16. 33:42 – 34:09

    Evidence On UFO/UAP

    1. SB

    2. LE

      They were, they were all significant. There wasn't one that said, "Oh, that's it!" Because they were all compelling in their own way, whether you can go back to the USS Nimitz incident in 2004 or the Roosevelt incidents in 2014 and 2015. Th- th- there was so much data. Every time you think you had one that was great, another would come in that was even better. Um, so...

    3. SB

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

    4. LE

      Yeah.

    5. SB

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

    6. LE

      That is known as the Gimbal incident.

  17. 34:09 – 35:24

    The 'Gimbal' Incident

    1. LE

      That is a, uh, video that was taken by, uh, an F-18, and, uh, you can hear the exasperation. If you listen to the actual video, you can hear the pilots, um, trying to discuss what it is. And then you also hear on it the discussion of there's a whole fleet of 'em. 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- this- this vehicle orientate itself in a 90-degree angle. Now, if this was a plane, l- like this here wings, if you go at a 90-degree angle, you lose altitude, right? 'Cause that's how the principles of lift work. That's not the case there.

    2. SB

      I think this is the video, actually.

    3. LE

      Yep.

    4. NA

      It is a fucking drone, bro. There's a whole fleet of 'em. Look on the ASA. My gosh. They're all going against the wind. The wind's 120 knots from the west. Look at that thing, dude! That's not an LNS though, is it? It's not. That is an LNS, dude. Well, if there's a... Look at that thing! It's rotating.

    5. SB

      And that was shot by two US sort of fighter pilots.

    6. LE

      Yep.

    7. SB

      And w-

    8. LE

      There's a lot more of those out

  18. 35:24 – 36:36

    The Reason Why There's No More Declassified UFO Videos

    1. LE

      there and a lot clearer too, but they're classified.

    2. SB

      I- th- so there's more videos like this that you've been exposed to?

    3. LE

      Oh, yeah. (laughs)

    4. SB

      But- but they won't r-

    5. LE

      A lot!

    6. SB

      But they won't release them.

    7. LE

      They will not release them.

    8. SB

      Why?

    9. LE

      Because of- of sources and methods. Because they remain classified because how they were taken, where they were taken, under what circumstances, what technological capabilities were used to collect the information. The U.S. government wants to keep out of its, out of the hands of its adversaries what our true capabilities are. So let's say you're flying a mission over a denied area and you don't want the enemy to know that you're over it, right? The last thing you wanna do is release a video where you can look and say, "Oh, we're in this location and now the enemy knows." Or, "We have this capability," or, "We can see this- this good. These are the technologies we have." These videos here, ironically, are probably some of the least compelling videos. Now people say, "Oh, these are incredible." But these are the ones that were unclassified that could be released. The other ones, some of these are so clear. The problem is, is how they were taken, the collection capabilities that were used to take them, where they were taken, under what circumstances, the metadata in the video. All that is a consideration.

    10. SB

      Okay. And d- d- do the US government and the Pentagon generally want people to believe that UFOs,

  19. 36:36 – 41:52

    Why US Government Doesn't Tell People About UFO's

    1. SB

      U- UAPs exist or not?

    2. LE

      I think it's both. I think th- up until recently, nobody wanted to have this conversation. The problem is, the government backed itself up after 70 years of denial into a corner, and it, it, it has to figure a way out. (inhales deeply) There are some elements now that want the conversation to occur, and so that's why you see Congress getting engaged, why the creation of AARO. Um, but there are still elements, unfortunately, in the, in the Pentagon that don't want this conversation to occur and they will continue doing what they can to discredit individuals and, and launch this campaign against them. Uh, one of my colleagues, David Grusch, who was a decorated, uh, Air Force officer and a senior intelligence official, the moment he broke rank and went public about this topic, within 24 hours, um, they released his medical records trying to discredit him, and they did it illegally. Um, so there are people there that definitely don't want this conversation to occur.

    3. SB

      Why?

    4. LE

      Well, there's a lotta reasons why. Um, you know, back historically... Great question. Let's, um... Can I unpack that a little bit?

    5. SB

      Yeah.

    6. LE

      Do you mind that?

    7. SB

      Yeah.

    8. LE

      Okay. So let's start really at the heels of World War II. You have these foo fighters that are being observed by Allied pilots, um, these, these, these luminous balls that would follow them in- into combat areas. And then after, um, particularly as we started developing the atomic weapons, we started really seeing a lot of UFOs over our, our controlled military airspace and over our sensitive military installations, our research facilities. And so at the time you have this mindset, you have height of the Cold War, United States versus Soviet Union. And by the way, they had nukes and so did we, right? So you've got a real potential threat over there, and then you've got these other things over here. So as, as a general in the Pentagon saying, "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 w- we'll worry about this other stuff later." The other part of that is the, the mindset of, look, um, it's really uncomfortable as a government to have a conversation with its people about a problem that there's no solution for, right? We can see what they do, but there's not a damn thing we can do about it. We, we c- 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 don't have a solution for it? That... Governments are solution-focused, and that is not a great spot to be in, right? And it's, by the way, not the first time this has happened. Let's look at the U2, 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 rec- 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 in the Pentagon. And then you had several studies done that were commissioned by the US government in the past that asked the question, if we were to be honest and truthful about disclosure, about we're not alone in the universe, these things are real, what would the consequences be? And the studies came back, unanimously said, "You can't do it. The American people are not ready to have this conversation. It'll cause civil discord and it'll cause, it'll upset the population and people will lose faith in their religions and the economy may crash. You can't do it." And so the decision was made, okay, we're not 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 wanna even mention the word UFO, and it was very successful. That, that, that campaign to stigmatize this topic was so successful, in fact, that even now it's hard to unwind the tape and have the conversation. And so therein lies part of the problem. Why doesn't the government, parts of the government wanna have this conversation? Then you've got a legal issue, which is probably one of the biggest issue now. You have elements in the government that were making unilateral decisions not to inform Congress and not to inform the president of the United States, right? That's illegal. There are oversight committees that have a designated need-to-know on all intelligence matters, especially when it comes to funding, right? We're spending billions of dollars on these projects. You've got to inform Congress. Certain elements of, 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, you know, I, we've been lying to Congress?" And so it, it's a little more complicated than, than necessarily just saying, "Oh, well, we want the truth. Be honest." I- i- it's not that easy.

    9. SB

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

    10. LE

      What I can say is what I've been allowed to

  20. 41:52 – 42:28

    Have There Ever Been Recovered UFO/UAP Materials?

    1. LE

      say, which is yes. Up until recently, I wasn't even allowed to say that.

    2. SB

      When did that change?

    3. LE

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

    4. SB

      What happens if you did?

    5. LE

      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.

    6. SB

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

    7. LE

      Worse. Worse.

  21. 42:28 – 43:40

    People Going To Jail Or Even Harder Punishment For Speaking Out

    1. LE

      And that, that story has yet to be told. Yes, there are people who have had faced, uh, extreme disciplinary actions and, and-... and potentially worse.

    2. SB

      The death penalty?

    3. LE

      I'm not gonna elaborate right now, um, because there's some things happening to try to pr- This is why Congress is working hard for whistleblower protections, because, um, we want people to feel safe to come out and have a conversation. And right now, they don't feel overly safe. Um, they've seen some of the tactics and techniques that were applied to try to keep people quiet in the past. Um, let me say this in general terms. People say, "Oh, well, the government would never kill anybody to protect a secret." Try going to Area 51 and look at the signs on that chain link fence where it says, "Lethal force authorized." You cross that fence, and they can kill you dead. Okay? So the government can, under certain extreme cases, under certain extreme si- situations and conditions, they can do whatever they need to do to protect national security, and they will.

    4. SB

      Which department is that? 'Cause-

    5. LE

      I, I cannot go into that conversation, unfortunately.

    6. SB

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

  22. 43:40 – 43:57

    Who's In Charge Of Preventing Information Leakage?

    1. SB

      but-

    2. LE

      I, I can't, I can't elaborate, unfortunately.

    3. SB

      You know, I, I, 'cause I, I know very little about American, uh, governmental departments and such. But obviously, most of the world knows about the, like, presidential assassinations and things like that, so... And I've spoken to a few CIA agents and stuff like that on my podcast before, but,

  23. 43:57 – 46:09

    US Killed US Citizens With Drones

    1. SB

      um, I've never really understood, frankly, who would, who would be making such an order and how those things don't leak, you know?

    2. LE

      Well, you know, good question. Um, look, we- we've, we've done it in the past in other situ- some pretty recently. Um, and I'll even give you a case in point, and this is not, you know, attacking anybody. Um, we have, uh, droned, used drones to lethally kill people, Americans, an American citizen specifically and, and, and a person's child without due process.

    3. SB

      In the US?

    4. LE

      Not in the US. He was a US citizen.

    5. SB

      Oh.

    6. LE

      Uh, he was suspected of being a terrorist, and there's some other things there. I'm not gonna go in there. But, um, we, as American citizens are, are... As American citizens, we are afforded something called due process under the Law of Peace, um, and meaning you get your day in court no matter what. And there have been Americans where that hasn't been the case. Um, they didn't get a day in court. Um, someone made the decision to, uh, liquidate them. Um, you know, there are examples of that happening. You know, there's another one with, with, uh, Rosenbergs, the, uh, those who were accused of selling, uh, the atomic secrets to the Russians, actually giving it to them. And, uh, if you know a little bit about what happened with his wife, um, turns out that s- she was innocent.

    7. SB

      What happened to his wife?

    8. LE

      They hung her. Hung her and him for, for, for espionage. Uh, but because of the information that we had at the time, we- was so sensitive, we'd have to reveal a capability. So unfortunately, uh, it looks like maybe we may have, we have done something that we maybe shouldn't have done. Um, I wasn't around for that, so I can't tell you definitively what happened. Um, I can only tell you what, what, what my understanding of it is. I could absolutely be wrong, and I really hope I am. But it turns out that, you know, there are extreme examples where we will take drastic measures to protect national security.

    9. SB

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

    10. LE

      Oh, yeah.

  24. 46:09 – 47:51

    Danger Of Publishing "Imminent"

    1. LE

      Oh, yeah.

    2. SB

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

    3. LE

      Yup.

    4. SB

      So are you not scared?

    5. LE

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

    6. SB

      Mm-hmm.

    7. LE

      I mean, I'm taking huge risks. I, I, I, I have been... My life has been threatened many times. And it's very concerning for me. It's the reason why I, I live in Wyoming, and I'm heavily armed and have now six German Shepherds. Yeah, I'm very cautious and careful, but I'm also understanding. I also know the left and right limits of the law, and I'm not gonna break the law under any circumstances. I didn't... This book isn't a leak. I'm authorized to talk about that book because I went through the proper processes of getting it reviewed whether they like it or not. But yes, I am absolutely worried. You know, this is why I'm very careful when I say things, 'cause I don't wanna st-... I walk up to the line. I will not step over the line. I will not violate my security oath and compromise national security for disclosure, and I don't think I have to. I think the proof is in the pudding. The fact that it's been 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 the conversation, I think is 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.

    8. SB

      You mentioned presidents earlier on. Do presidents of the United States know about UFOs?

  25. 47:51 – 48:17

    Do American Presidents Know About UFO/UAP?

    1. LE

      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 'em.

    2. SB

      Which presidents d- do you think were aware of UFOs and these sort of, these kinds of programs?

    3. LE

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

  26. 48:17 – 50:53

    Which Presidents Were Aware Of UFO/UAP?

    1. LE

      you know. For sure, for example, Carter was. But then-

    2. SB

      How do you know?

    3. LE

      ... Clinton, well, well, because Carter was briefed.

    4. SB

      (laughs)

    5. LE

      I, I know somebody who actually worked with Carter to get information on this topic. I, 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, right? And so, um... And again, this, this, this is the crux of the problem. Who's making the decision on what president gets briefed and what doesn't?... that's, that's nonsense. President George Bush Sr. was briefed when he- he was also the director of the CIA, so he was very well-aware of this topic. But then there's other presidents that weren't. And so this is, again, this is- that's- is highlighting the very problem that I have. Who's making the decision to choose who gets briefed and who doesn't?

    6. SB

      What about Obama and Trump?

    7. LE

      I'm- I can't answer for them. Um, Obama has, uh, recently stated for the record that these UAP are a national security issue, not a threat, but an issue, that there's something there, that these are real, whatever they are, whatever it is. President Trump recently, uh, former President Trump said, uh, week and a half ago for the record when 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? Right? That is- that is a very significant statement. That is what needs to be fixed. If the president himself can't get, or herself, can't get a briefing, who in the hell has the authority to make that decision? Nobody.

    8. SB

      What is that fierce resistance that Trump's talking about?

    9. LE

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

    10. SB

      What do you think it is?

    11. LE

      Uh, I think there is a huge amount of influence by the military industrial complex and they, they- it- it is a enormous business, always has been. Um, it's- it's- it's- it's huge. It is probably the world's largest business, uh, globally.

    12. SB

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

    13. LE

      Well, because then they'd have to admit that they part of the- part of the programs. Some of these folks, you know, have had- been- a lot of their successes is being able to work super secret programs for the U.S. government and maybe there's technology that they don't want released. Maybe there's capabilities that we had that we don't wanna tell our adversaries and there's a lot of reasons for it which are understand- some of them are actually legitimate, I can understand. I don't agree with, but I can understand.

    14. SB

      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

  27. 50:53 – 52:04

    How Much Does An Average Citizen Know About What's Going On In The Government?

    1. SB

      government?

    2. LE

      Brother, (sighs) it's w- forget the government and Pentagon, how many parents, they can tell you who's the quarterback of their favorite football team and they can tell you their stats, but how many parents know who their kid sits- sits ni- next to during lunch or in second period math class? It- government is r- I mean, that's basic facts, man. W- we- as humans, w- 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- I'll go- I'll go straight to my echo chamber and, you know, just hear what I wanna hear and have people tell me not only information that I- that they think I need to know but even my opinion of what it should- what it should be about. Th- this is a much, much bigger issue than just UFOs and UAP. We as- as- as people have become extremely lazy and we- we no longer are willing to ask the hard questions. We're not.

    3. SB

      You were part of one program but you also referenced a second program called l- The Legacy Program?

    4. LE

      Mm-hmm.

    5. SB

      What is The Legacy Program?

    6. LE

      It is

  28. 52:04 – 53:17

    What Is The Legacy Program & Why Is It Not Well Funded?

    1. LE

      the traditional long-held effort by the U.S. government to study UAP. People think AATIP was the only program, and AAOSAP. Before that there was- there was Blue Book and before that were others. 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.

    2. SB

      And, okay, so it's doing similar things to what A- AATIP did?

    3. LE

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

    4. SB

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

    5. LE

      Uh, there's a reason for that too that I- I- I- I- I would need permission to talk about. Um, there were some distractions in the early 2000s that lifted and shifted resources away from- from efforts to something else. Um, you know, you probably can figure out what those- what that was. But, um, there was an enormous resource drain and refocusing, um, in the early 2000s to focus on something else. And so...

    6. SB

      I- I heard you talk as well about this sort of different types of aliens, per se, 'cause when we think of aliens we think- we reflect

  29. 53:17 – 1:01:18

    How Do People In Pentagon Perceive Aliens?

    1. SB

      on movies that we've seen and they have like the big heads and things like that and maybe they're like- like white, tall, skinny with like the big arms and the big leg- legs and stuff like that. Is that what people at- in the Pentagon consider aliens to be, what we see in movies?

    2. LE

      Uh, uh, I- I can't speak on behalf of other people, I can only speak on behalf of me. Um, I've been very, very careful not to (sighs) to stereotype anybody or anything. I think it's important we have to keep an open mind because when you say the word aliens you are automatically presuming that the things are from outer space.

    3. SB

      Mm-hmm.

    4. LE

      They might not be. There's lots of different options. It doesn't have to be from outer space.

    5. SB

      What do you believe? Do you believe they're amongst us?

    6. LE

      Well, uh, sh- let's (sighs) ... Can I- can I explore this with you?

    7. SB

      Mm-hmm.

    8. LE

      This question? Okay. So it's- it's not a either/or. So in the beginning of our conversation I told you I went to the University of Miami and I studied microbiology, immunology and the study of parasites. Now if you go to some anthropologists they will suggest to you that modern human beings, homo sapien sapien has been around roughly between 100 to possibly 200,000 years. So on a 24-hour clock, right, it- it's only the last 2,000 years, and it was the Greeks that proposed there were two fundamental life forms on this planet in you are either a plant or you are an animal, and human beings were an animal. And so the 24-hour clock you're probably talking about maybe, I don't know, 10 minutes ago, before midnight? Well, it was 300 years ago during the Renaissance or the Days of Enlightenment, uh, that-... we discovered an entire new life form on this planet that's been here all along. And that- and that was- that was neither plant nor animal, it was the world of fungus. And we pat ourselves on the shoulder 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, they'll be like, "Oh, these things from outer space?" They can be from outer space, inner space or frankly, the space in between. These things could be just as natural to our environment as we are. Maybe we're at the point now where technologically we can start interacting. Maybe they're from under the ocean. Look, less than 10% of the ocean floor has been mapped. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do of our own oceans. Is it possible these things are just as natural to this planet as we are? Possibly. Or is it possible these things are from somewhere else? Yes, that's possible too. So we have to keep all options on the table until they're no longer on the table. We live in an infinitely, infinitely complex universe. Let's see if I can... Uh, and I've- and I've often used this before to try to help people wrap their heads around- around this. We perceive life through five fundamental- five fundamental senses. And if we can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, et cetera, we can't interact with it, we'd 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 through that- at that same night sky through a radio telescope, you would see something different. You would see nebulae, you would see things that you can't normally perceive in the ultraviolet and infrared spectrums and X-ray, right? It's there, you just can't perceive it. It's just like if you had cellphone 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 light, we perceive life through a very narrow spectrum of visible light, the visible light spectrum. When in reality is most everything else kind of lies beyond that. And then you have a scale issue, you have a scalability issue. What do I mean by scalability? We are a human being. You and I are having a lovely conversation here somewhere in some- some place, uh, on this planet, uh, revolving around an obscure s- star in 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, right? Really fast. Imagine how far that goes in a year, and now imagine how far that goes 13.9 billion years, right? So we're in the middle of the universe here. Our universal horizon in any direction is 13.9 billion light years, and in that direction, another 13.9, so roughly 27 billion light years across and we're in the middle. Now scientists are estimating that's- that's less than 10% of the actual size of the universe. The universe is actually much, much bigger than that. This is just the univer- uh, universal horizon because the expansion of the universe, light this far will never reach Earth. So now you're talking about a size 100 billion light years and as small as we are right in the middle, this infinitesimally small speck, keep in mind, in our visible universe alone, visible, there are more stars than there are grains of sand in all the beaches in all the world. Think about that incomprehensible number, and as small as we are. Now humor me with this. Take one atom, one hydrogen atom, Avogadro's number 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 little universe inside every single human being, and we as a human beings can only interact with one or two orders of magnitude up or down. Otherwise, the universe is simply too big or too small. We just will never be able to know. And that is reality. That's where most of everything lies. That's where most of reality is. It's either way up there or inside or everything in between. So I guess my point is every time when people say, "Well, you know, uh, 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. It doesn't... Uh, uh, this is- this is us imposing a Hollywood idea of what an alien should look like. And by the way, let's not forget their anthropomorph- morphic values, right? They- they- they look like us, they have arms like us and heads like us and eyes like us, um, because we view everything through anthropomorphic eyes. It's the reason why we- we call our dogs human names and we treat them like humans, because we treat everything as if they have human values, human motivation, human intent, when we may be dealing with something completely different. This could be like artificial intelligence, it's just binary, input in, input out. We don't know. And so-... these are some of the questions we have to, you know, really as we were p- moving down this, this pathway. This is why I always tell people, "Look, all options have to be on the table until they're no longer on the table," 'cause we simply don't know.

    9. SB

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

    10. LE

      That's right.

    11. SB

      Why they might be visiting here.

    12. LE

      That's right.

    13. SB

      Do you have a, any

  30. 1:01:18 – 1:03:30

    UFO's Motives To Visit Earth

    1. SB

      theories as to what their intentions might be?

    2. LE

      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 wildebeest and we're in a helicopter and, you know, not to make fun of it, but you sit there and 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 wanna see its diet and its migratory patterns, its health. And then what happens? The wildebeest wakes up, kinda groggy, disoriented, stumbles over to the water and ... holding and he's like, "Hey, Bill, you're not gonna believe this, man. This thing came out of the sky. All of a sudden weird stuff happened, I was being touched. I woke up and now my butt hurts." Right? It could be something as simple as that. Or-

    3. SB

      Do you believe any of those reports? 'Cause people do say that they were abducted by aliens.

    4. LE

      Well, this is my point, right? So, so that's, that's one option. The other option could be simply to monitor us. Um, it could be that we are getting very close to being able to replicate what they can do. Um, and if that's the case, you know, 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, 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 we were, I knew we were getting close, I would probably be pretty interested in what we're doing too. Um, as far as the abductions, you know, I, I don't know what to tell you because I've never been abducted. Um, I've had some, some people that swear by it, but, you know, you can't have a conversation about abduction and then say, "Oh, they're here for peaceful reasons." It doesn't work that way.

    5. SB

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

    6. LE

      I believe th- I believe that they are being truthful, that they, that experience they feel is real. I don't think they're lying. Um, but the question is, you know-

    7. SB

      Did it happen is the question.

    8. LE

      Yeah. And I, I, and I, I can't say 'cause 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, a byproduct of the technology, they got too close to it?

    9. SB

      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

  31. 1:03:30 – 1:06:11

    What Is A UAP Encounter?

    1. SB

      government.

    2. LE

      Mm-hmm. In writing because of they, they had a UAP encou- they were, they were involved in a UAP encounter.

    3. SB

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

    4. LE

      Well, so let's look at it this way. Um, nah, here's a better one. You go to the airport, right? And I'm gonna 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, you know, watch a movie, read a magazine. Now if I were to walk out onto the tarmac, onto the runway that same, where that same airplane is, and that airplane decides to spool up its jet engine, chances are I'm gonna be injured. I'm gonna get burned, I'm gonna 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, 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 m- putting your head near a microwave oven when it's on. It's probably not very good for you, right?

    5. SB

      And have those people spoken out?

    6. LE

      Absolutely. (laughs)

    7. SB

      What's like a good example?

    8. LE

      Um, there's an individual right now named John Burroughs who, uh, who had his medical files, um, classified and the US government thankfully because of senator, late senator, uh, 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, uh, him and another individual in the UK, uh, known as the Rendlesham Forest incident or Bentwaters incident where there was a US joint, US, uh, and UK base, and there was a UFO incident where this thing had landed in the f- in the forest. And they went out to go see this thing and they were injured.

    9. SB

      And they were in the military at the time?

    10. LE

      Mm-hmm. Yeah. Air Force special police or police officers.

    11. SB

      They were injured.

    12. LE

      They were injured. And that's not all. There's a lotta people that have been injured right now that are under medical care by government doctors. That is a fact.

    13. SB

      When they give their account of what happened, what do they say?

    14. LE

      It depends who you ask. I mean, there's some consistency without, within some of the stories, and then there's some divergence. You know, it's like, uh, somebody who says they've been in a car accident, depending what kinda car you were in and was it a multiple car pileup and where were you sitting in the car, you're gonna have a slightly different experience. So it's not one shoe fits all.

    15. SB

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

    16. LE

      Yes.

  32. 1:06:11 – 1:06:49

    UAP Sightings At Nuclear Technology Facilities

    1. LE

      That i- 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, well, 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 to suggest they actually turned them on. So, you know, we have to be really careful with that. Ner- 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.

    2. SB

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

    3. LE

      Yes.

    4. SB

      What is that evidence?

    5. LE

      Well, there's-

    6. SB

      And when was that?

  33. 1:06:49 – 1:07:33

    Interference With A Nuclear Facility In Russia

    1. SB

    2. LE

      There's, there's evidence that there's actually a KGB report, um, that suggested that the, uh, one of their, their places was actually turned on. In fact, there's a lot, uh, let me be careful what I say here 'cause, um...So after the Berlin Wall fell, there was this brief honeymoon period between the Soviet Union and the U.S. where ex-KGB officers were sharing information with us and our government. Um, I think that's about all I could probably say about that. But there was some very interesting, um, information that we were able to, to see.

    3. SB

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

    4. LE

      Colares in Brazil.

    5. SB

      I can no- I can't pronounce that. So-

    6. LE

      No, you're doing great. Colares.

  34. 1:07:33 – 1:10:27

    The Colares Incident

    1. LE

    2. SB

      Colares, which was in 1977 to 1978, um, and it sounded like a UAP incident that was witnessed by hundreds, thousands of people.

    3. LE

      It was investigated officially by the Brazilian military under the command and control of a four-star general named General Uchota. Uh, and, um, he has explained before he passed away that even his own military personnel had been, been attacked.

    4. SB

      By?

    5. LE

      By UAP.

    6. SB

      And what did they see? What was the, what did they document seeing?

    7. LE

      Oh my goodness. Uh, a whole litany of things. A lot of the locals, uh, recall being terrified by these things, being pursued by them, almost being, like, like a laser blast, if you can imagine that, or directed energy type injury. Um, very provocative. Um, some of the military personnel were injured as well, um, a lot of medical doctors came in afterwards to look at the locals and the military personnel, va- validating the presumption that there was some sort of directed energy type damage, tissue damage, um, to some of these people. Um, and of course then the fear kind of escalated into some of the other, you know, local lore of some other things, um, 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, um, these were Brazilian military officers who also vouched for it. And I've- I've spoken to dozens and dozens of military officers all throughout Latin America and Chile and Peru and Uruguay, and, you know, they're all reporting, in some cases, some very, very similar encounters, not necessarily with Colares, but incidents amongst themselves, people who don't even know each other, separated by different countries, are telling me their same encounter, uh, 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, um, to no avail, of course. Um, and there's reports of that in Tehran incident, I believe it was 1978, the Tehran incident with an F-14 Tomcat, uh, where the pilot, um, his aircraft was disabled every time he tried to engage a target, and then, you know, I superimpose that with... Here in Huntsville, Alabama, we have some helicopters, uh, that we were testing and, uh, something like eight out of the eight test pilots all reported UAP, uh, coming around their, their, their helicopters while they were testing them, and one even reported that, uh, he believed his, his, um, his helicopter was disabled and he went into, uh, an emergency, uh, situation, I think it was an emergency auto-rotation situation, and as soon as the UAP left, uh, he was able to regain control of his helicopter.

    8. SB

      Should we be worried about this?

    9. LE

      No. I don't think worried. I think we should be concerned because look, from a,

  35. 1:10:27 – 1:12:15

    Should We Be Worried?

    1. LE

      from a governmental perspective, to determine if... And this is why I always say this is a national security issue but not a nashus- national security threat, and, 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 have seen some of the capabilities, we have no idea the intent. No clue. So we don't know if it's, if it's a threat. And let me give you a little analogy here that might help kind of put this... I, I, I use this analogy a lot to help illustrate what do I mean. Um, 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?

    2. SB

      Yes.

    3. LE

      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." 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, are these things that can come in unimpeded, unchallenged into controlled U.S. airspace, over sensitive military installations, potentially interfere with our nuclear equities and capabilities, we should probably figure out what these things are.

    4. SB

      With everything that you know in mind and everything you've witnessed and seen, if you had to argue against

  36. 1:12:15 – 1:15:43

    Case Against UFO

    1. SB

      yourself, if you had to argue the case against everything that you believe-

    2. LE

      Yeah.

    3. SB

      ... to make the case that UAPs don't exist, what exactly would you say?

    4. LE

      Well, you can't say they don't exist. We've already... We're beyond that. They, 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? Uh, they have leapfrogged us technologically and have been able to execute this, this plan wonderfully. Uh, 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 R- 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. Um, that means that for the last 70 years, some country has been able to create a technology in secret...... that's so far advanced 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, 'cause we have 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 and the 17 intelligence organizations over 70 years, there's not a trace that these countries were able to develop this and- and- and fly over our country and do what- 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- 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's- that's- that would be the huge, biggest intelligence failure that this country has ever experienced and that's not a good option, and very, very unlikely. So, the other option is this is, you know what? 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 TOPGUN-trained pilots who are- 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.

    5. SB

      What percentage of them have made reports of UAP?

    6. LE

      Um, you know, 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 peop- more and more are reporting 'cause they feel that it's safe that they can report.

    7. SB

      Mm-hmm.

    8. LE

      But we don't have any metric right now that tells us who's not reporting 'cause they're not reporting.

    9. SB

      When you- when we think about this h- hallucination rationale-

    10. LE

      Mm-hmm.

    11. SB

      ... um, I remember many years ago, you know, and I think it was in relation

  37. 1:15:43 – 1:18:11

    Is Witness Testimony Enough To Prove UFO's Existence? Probability And Statistics

    1. SB

      to, uh, physical hallucinations or, um, ghosts and things like that. Yeah, it was in 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 o- one side of it which is-

    2. LE

      Yeah, it's a curve.

    3. SB

      ... highly improbable.

    4. LE

      Bell-shaped curve.

    5. SB

      Yeah, exactly. So, like on the- the bell-shaped curve, this side of it is extremely improbable things. You know, I, uh, what's an extremely improbable example? W- 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 is, this is- these are just the um- the unexplainable, highly improbable thousand incidents of, you know, maybe there was something on the camera.

    6. LE

      Yeah.

    7. SB

      Maybe there was some-

    8. LE

      Ball of lightning, uh, atmospheric anomaly. But the problem is you- we're going back to the- to the- 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 the 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's 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, uh, use up all its hydrazine and now the booster rocket's 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 out right above the surface of the water hovering 50 feet and then popping right back up again that you can measure. Quantifiable and qualifiable data.

    9. SB

      Is- is that you referring to the, what they call the Tic Tac incident?

    10. LE

      That-

    11. SB

      Is that- is that what that is as well?

    12. LE

      That- so, the Tic Tac incident is, that's not the video from the Tic

  38. 1:18:11 – 1:22:46

    The 'Tic Tac' Incident

    1. LE

      Tac, but yeah. The Tic Tac incident are these objects that were detected. At- at one point, one of the oth- the operator said it was raining UFOs. So, the SPY-1 radar can- can detect a- a baseball-sized object at 80,000 feet. Okay? So, very, very capable. You had E-2 Hawkeye.

    2. SB

      What's that?

    3. LE

      Uh, it's a air platform. It's an aircraft. It's a flying radar system, uh, that we use to provide combat support, air support and- and combat control for aircraft. So, you have the, uh, Aegis class, uh, destroyer. It's basically like a, um, a sh- Ticon- Ticonderoga class, I think. Uh, you have the- the USS Princeton with the SPY-1 radar, one of the world's most prefr- premier at the time satel- uh, radar systems on the planet. You have the E-2 Hawkeye also picking it up on radar. Then you have the aircraft that can pick it up on radar. Then you have the eyewitnesses picking it up on radar. Then you have the, also the footage, the FLIR footage picking these things up as well, electro-optically. So-... you're talking about something that is at 80,000 feet, then within a blink of an eye has the ability to drop down to 50 feet and then go right back up again instantly, um, 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. I'm, so I'm kind of putting it all together to make it a little easier for people to consume. But the, the Tic Tac incident wasn't really an incident. It was incidents over, over a projec- protracted period of time in, 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 pilots 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.

Episode duration: 1:34:32

Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript

Transcript of episode ZkNVSju99HY

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

Add to Chrome