Luis Elizondo confirms the existence of alien language and non-human intelligence, detailing classified psionic teams and a 1990s Caribbean incident where a disc-shaped craft intercepted a cruise missile underwater. He describes engraved script on UAPs as evidence of planned public disclosure currently withheld by the government, while addressing fears that revealing this technology could destabilize civil society or erode faith in institutions. Ultimately, the discussion suggests humanity faces profound life-and-death questions regarding our purpose and the potential for future NHI to exploit advanced brain-computer interfaces against us. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Interrogation in the Skiff00:04:52
When you calculate the speed that this thing goes by, by the way, it was bigger than the offshore oil derrick it was passing by, assessed to be moving between 450 and 550 knots underwater.
He reported that they have specific psionic teams taking these things, at least bringing them into range to where they can take them down.
Is that something that you've been read into in the past?
What would be another reason other than national security for it to be classified?
Wow.
We were going to set a trap for these things.
We knew that having a huge nuclear footprint.
Print in the middle of the ocean would be irresistible.
Have you seen, heard, or know of any other egg type crafts at ATIP?
Yes.
More than one?
Ah, boy.
Have you ever noticed, seen, heard of, or heard whispers of any type of language or symbols apparent on these craft?
Yes.
If I show you a picture, can you confirm or deny?
This is an image.
This is zoomed in.
This is really interesting.
When I was at the Pentagon, I spent considerable time researching ancient script.
You were aware of craft that had script on it at ATM.
Yeah, it's pretty undeniable at this point.
Was it written or engraved in these crafts?
No, it was engraved.
It wasn't written.
If you're holding on to that type of clear imagery, it really cements the idea that it's a planned dissemination to the public.
You got to peek behind the curtain.
We did not.
It involves our own potential religion, it involves life and death, it involves why we're here.
It involves the questions of the universe.
Here.
It involves the most important things that humanity has ever asked for.
And you potentially had one of the closest encounters with the answer.
This is important.
That's what I try to tell people.
Don't put that responsibility on my shoulder.
I'm just like you.
I'm not a messiah, man.
That's not my job, is simply as a purveyor of the information.
How you interpret that and what you think about that, brother, that's on you, not me.
Some people's frustration, my guess.
Is that you have that luxury of formulating some type of answer that they would love to formulate themselves?
Makes sense?
Yeah, good point.
And there's also a lot of, trust me, bro.
You're going to get hate, by the way, as I promise you.
Yeah.
Just for having me in your space and having this conversation.
For me, this is not only a pursuit for them, this is a pursuit for myself as well.
I want to know.
There have been some people who have made suggestions to conduct illegal activities to cover this topic up, and it's going to come out.
It's going to come out in a few months.
I do a lot of work behind the shadows, behind the scenes, whether it's It's a new whistleblower that maybe I've been aware of for the last few years, or a secret project that will hopefully blow the lid on a lot of this, you know, whether it's through a documentary, getting the right people to have the conversation.
Can you shed any light on what's to be expected in this documentary?
There's people that are being interviewed that have never come out publicly on this topic that we've not seen on the trailer.
We've not seen on the trailer.
Jay Stratton does say, I have seen with my own eyes non human craft and non human beings.
Do you know what he's referring to?
Have you yourself?
Seen NHI.
Why doesn't the government talk about Balbazar?
2027's been thrown around.
Can you shed a little bit of light on this just so we can stop being paranoid or we can start, you know, being paranoid?
Let me see if I can thread the needle on this.
Sure.
How can I phrase this in a way that you can answer this?
Are you aware of more than one type of NHI?
Let me see how I can answer this.
Accuracy is very important.
What I'm gathering from this is there a potential that some of these NHI might look a lot like us.
What else do you want to know?
You know what this reminds me of?
It reminds me of like an interrogation.
That's kind of what I wanted it to be.
I call it The SCIF.
I love it.
Obviously, not a Skiff.
Too many recording devices here for it to be a Skiff.
We know that.
But it wouldn't be the first time you, sir, have ventured a Skiff, would it?
No, unfortunately.
This is a lot nicer than a Skiff.
Is it?
People are like, oh, you've been in Skiffs and SAPF facilities.
Illegal Classification of Truth00:11:17
I'm like, look, actually, they're really boring.
Most of them don't have windows, they don't have any electronics.
You can't bring anything in there.
Yeah, I mean, you can't even play like solitaire on your computer, right?
Because a lot of stuff has been removed out of it.
So I was like, oh, shit.
How's the coffee compared to The SCIFs?
So I think you probably already know this.
Being Latino, genetically, there's three things we do very well coming out of the womb.
One is drinking strong coffee.
The other one is being able to dance salsa and merengue.
It's genetic for us.
You dance salsa and merengue?
And then the third thing, I look more like a Weeble Wobble out there on the dance floor.
Uh, and then, um, the third thing I probably can't talk about because it's not appropriate, but those are the three things that Latinos can do very well.
Usually, I'll take your word for the last two.
Yeah, you know, my days of dancing, uh, unfortunately, are over.
Once you get older and your knees start to fail, you gain a little bit of weight in the places that really aren't, you know, very conducive for dancing.
Yeah, no, I hear it.
I hear it.
I'm definitely, uh, I'm definitely also absent on the dance floor.
Um, all right.
Let's get this started.
I'm here with Lou Elizondo.
Louis Elizondo.
Is it Luis?
Luis Elizondo?
You know, Chris, you can call me Bob, Bill, Joe.
I don't care.
My real name is Luis.
I hear that usually when I'm in trouble with my wife.
Okay, gotcha.
Most people call me Lou because I look like I'm from Iowa.
All right.
People realize I'm, you know, my family's Cuban.
They're like, what?
So you don't look like a Luis.
Like, I know, I know.
But Lou's got a nice ring to it.
Yeah.
I'll call you Lou so that people who are listening know who I'm talking to.
Thank you so much for being here, first of all.
For those of you who aren't aware of Lou and what he's done, I highly recommend you check out his book, which we got here.
We'll be signing a few copies as well, and I'll let you know later in the episode how you guys can grab them.
But if you want to pick one up, there's a link below.
Lou, best selling author, Imminent was amazing.
I read through it and I also listened to the audio version.
Oh, I'm sorry.
You had to deal with that.
I tell people I have the silky smooth voice of a cement truck hurtling down a country road with no brakes.
I think you did a great job.
I think it also helps sort of personify your story and humanize it in a certain way that we get to hear it authentically.
I always prefer that.
I remember listening to Communion by Whitley Strieber, and it was him saying it, reading his book too.
And it just conveys, I think, a little bit more of the gravitas of the story when it's the person themselves narrating.
Well, I appreciate that.
But I also want to say thank you for taking the opportunity to speak with me.
And I also want to thank.
Even more importantly than you and me is your audience.
I think these types of interviews are very important because it allows all of us to connect.
I mean, obviously, not everybody listening is right here with us, but I hope they get this sensation that they really are part of this conversation.
We're only having this conversation really because of them.
And I think it's really important that we recognize the value of, we live in amazing times right now.
You have the ability now, whereas even just 10 years ago, mainstream media, major, major networks like where I live down ABC and CBS and NBC, You have more people tuning into you than most of these mainstream outlets.
So you, you have a very important voice and, and the audience is arguably the most important aspect of this, right?
These are people that want to hear what you have to say week after week and whatnot.
And really that's, that is why we are where we are today in the conversation, because this has been a, whatever this conversation is, it's really been a, it's been a grassroots movement.
And ultimately it is because of your audience and people like that.
We are where we are today in the conversation about UAPs.
Yeah, well said.
And thank you.
Thank you for saying that.
And I think, you know, part of the reason people are listening, you know, if not to tune into me, is definitely to hear from you.
And I think right now, especially, you know, we've been faced with a lot of news recently in the UAP space specifically.
And, you know, it's been snowballing.
Ever since the latest congressional hearing, which obviously you were a big part of.
And you attended, if I'm not mistaken.
I did attend, yeah.
It was kind of surreal for myself.
I did have an immense amount of imposter syndrome being a Canadian magician content creator sitting in the front row, course side seats to something so monumental was, I mean, humbling.
Of the 366 sightings included in the report, 171 remain uncharacterized.
And many high ranking individuals in the military and intelligence communities believe UAP's demand.
Greater attention.
Are contractors pulling technology from this?
Are they reverse engineering this?
But more importantly, after that, you know, it's these congressional hearings are very important, but arguably what's more important is what they do with that information and where that sort of, you know, and I'm sure you're sick of hearing this, but where that moves the needle.
And I think recently, you know, we've had a lot of people come forward, numerous people have come forward to share their stories as well in hopes to move the needle.
And so today, I've got a lot of questions that I'm hoping that we can get through.
Sure.
And you've been, and I got to say for the audience listening, and by the way, if I'm ever looking over here, it's just to make sure everything's recording because I'm a one man team here.
If you ever see me looking like this, it's because I'm looking over my shoulder and I'm looking over my back.
It's paranoia.
Yeah, sounds good.
We're safe here.
But one thing I did want to mention was that Lou, prior to the interview, said something very important.
I think a lot of people should know.
And this is not something that's usually recorded, but Lou said, I don't want to read your questions.
Uh, before I, um, you don't have to cut anything out.
Ask me anything you want.
And if I don't answer something, I'll tell you why it is I can't answer it.
And I think that's just so important that you respect the journalistic integrity to that extent, especially after being put through ringer after ringer, podcast after podcast, and being grilled on things that you legally can't talk about.
I think it just goes to show some level of character there.
And I think a lot of people would omit that.
In an interview, they wouldn't allow that.
They would want to have final say.
They would want certain boundaries to be put on, especially in the position that you're in.
Well, that's because they're trying to protect themselves.
And in reality, this conversation is much bigger than any one person.
And this is what I've said over and over again to people I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, and disclosure, this transparency effort that we're all a part of, must go on.
The show must go on.
And so my part of this is very simple.
Speak the truth.
Whatever that truth is, speak the truth, uh, and let the chips fall where they, they fall.
Um, and I think it's important from a journalistic integrity perspective that that be maintained and preserved at all costs.
Um, and this is why I've always made it a rule.
Say, look, you're not going to pay me to, to do anything like this.
You know, great if you pay my, my, my hotel.
That's great.
You know, but other than that, I don't get payment for this.
People are like, oh, you're making all these monies doing this.
No, I'm not.
I'm actually doing it for free.
I'm actually leaving work aside to come out and have these types of conversations where I don't get paid.
And then also having questions that are a lot of people want to know ahead of time.
What are you going to ask me?
You're going to ask me any trick questions.
You know what?
To hell with that.
I don't care.
Ask me whatever you want.
And if I don't know, I don't know.
And I'll tell you that honestly.
Or if I can't tell you, I'll tell you that too.
And I think that this topic demands that type of thing.
I cannot, in good faith, demand transparency from the United States government if I myself am not willing to be transparent, right?
It's hypocritical.
It doesn't work that way.
So fair point.
I appreciate that.
And I'm sure my audience is going to appreciate that as well.
So, for the next few hours, folks, strap yourselves in.
We're going to try to get through these questions and hopefully get some answers for those of you seeking some answers.
Let me start off.
Let me just start off by asking a question a little bit off target here.
But are you familiar or have you been familiar in the past with any 4chan or Reddit leaks, quote unquote?
I am familiar tangentially with the forums of 4chan and also Reddit.
I am not a subscriber.
And that's not a good or bad thing.
I'm not necessarily, you know, poo pooing it or promoting it.
Yeah.
Because my bandwidth is very limited.
Also, I'm an older guy.
This is gray, not blonde.
Yeah, sure.
So I'm a little dude.
I'm not overly technically proficient, as most people will tell you, especially my wife.
You know, when people are using scientific calculators, I'm still using an abacus, right?
Sure.
I'm an older generation.
So more than the typical social media engagement now, If it involves Reddit or 4chan, it's beyond me.
But I am aware that sometimes information comes out that can be very interesting.
And you say that can be very interesting.
Has there been a time where you're like, oh, damn, that guy slipped up?
He shouldn't have said that.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
But you know what?
At the end of the day, look, I think sunlight is the best antiseptic sometimes.
I think it's the best way to get rid of an infection.
Sure.
And so.
I've never proposed or never supported the idea of leaking anything, anything classified.
Okay.
I am a patriot.
I still have my security clearance and I will never support the leaking of classified information.
But there's a difference between information that is classified for righteous and legal purposes, right?
To protect sources and methods and whatnot.
And then there is the abuse of that system where people will classify things simply because they're trying to hide or cover malfeasance or embarrassment, right?
And that's a problem because that information shouldn't be classified.
Classified, and it's being classified in an illegal manner.
There are very specific prohibitions because in the past, my country has abused the classification system to hide the truth from the American people, whether it's Iran Contra and Oliver North, or even recently, some of my work in Guantanamo Bay and maybe some of the methods used to get information from individuals.
There was no reason that should have been classified.
The only reason why they classified some of that was because we were embarrassed.
We didn't want to admit what we were doing and how we were doing it.
In those cases, when that information comes to the public's attention, I'm okay with that, provided they're not violating any laws of real classification, right?
If information is being classified illegally, then that really isn't classified.
Suppressing the American Conundrum00:14:52
So, when it comes to the UAP subject, what would be another reason other than national security for it to be classified?
Wow.
So, okay, great question.
But it's not a simple question.
It's not a simple answer either.
It's multifaceted, a bit like a diamond, really.
And so, you have to, in order to understand this topic, you need to understand a little bit about the history and where.
Our country was in the state of the world at the time, right?
So, really, the UAP topic for the United States government really started to kick into high gear right around the end of World War II and the development of the atomic bomb for our country.
That's when we really started noticing an increased frequency of UAP interest in our capabilities.
Now, where were we at the end of World War II?
Well, the U.S. had just become really a global superpower and had the opportunity to dominate a lot of the world politics for about 10 years.
That was until the Russians very quickly afterwards.
Developed the atomic bomb too, right?
So now, now it's no longer U.S. preeminence.
Now there's this competition and, and what begins the Cold War, which by the way, most people don't realize wasn't really a Cold War at all.
It's pretty hot.
We had proxy wars going all over the place, whether it's Korean War and Vietnam and things like that.
And it was kind of this winner takes all chess game.
Now you have a beautiful chess set here.
Your audience can't see it, but, um, you can imagine this, this Cold War as being an invisible chess match with the Russians and you had the United States on one side and NATO and you had the Warsaw Pact and, and, and, and then Soviet Union on the other side.
And it was kind of this winner takes all mentality.
And so what we didn't want to do was broadcast to our enemies, our, our adversaries at the time, that we were dealing with this UAP topic.
We didn't want to let them know what we knew about it.
And more importantly, what we didn't know, where those intelligence gaps lay.
Sure.
And furthermore, the Soviet Union felt the same way, but we both understood each other enough to realize that in the sixties, when we started to develop really the, the northern tier radar systems, early warning systems for nuclear attack, Both the Soviet Union and the United States realize that, hey, we better come to the table at least a little bit on this because what we don't want to do is set up these radar systems, very sophisticated radar systems.
And then all of a sudden a UAP is, is, is picked up by one of these radar systems, either ours or the Russians.
And all of a sudden to be could get confused for some sort of nuclear strike or nuclear attack, right?
So, so there was enough, I think, wisdom there where the United States and Russia in a, in a secret memo, uh, in one of the paragraphs, they actually say, look, if you happen to see something, Before you press that nuke button, do us a favor.
Give us a call because it might be a UFO and we don't want to start World War III because either one of us confuses as some sort of provocation.
Then you have the other issue during the 50s and the 60s and the nuclear age, the nuclear family in the United States, our government was dealing with a lot of things.
We were dealing with civil rights, we were dealing with equity issues between genders, we were dealing with anti war movements, with Vietnam and even before that.
And you had the, um, you had also had the hippie movement, which was really, you know, kind of this, this anti establishment effort, um, just kind of can't we all love each other, anti war.
And so the government was dealing with a lot of stuff.
And they were concerned that this topic, the UAP topic, was a destabilizing conversation, meaning all it's going to do is add fuel to the fire and add mistrust to the American public, especially once you start, you know, lying for decades.
You have to double down on that.
Because if you don't, what happens is you tell the American people, ah, we're just fooling you guys.
Yeah, we've been actually monitoring these things.
We just didn't want to tell you.
That doesn't hold very much water, especially if you're a government bureaucrat or a leader.
So, what do you do?
You say, Well, shelve this.
We'll have this conversation later.
Meanwhile, let's see if we can deal with this topic in a secret manner.
Okay.
So, sorry to interrupt.
Are you saying that the subject is being classified under the disguise of national security?
Well, it was.
That's part of the problem.
And we had backed ourselves in a corner for decades.
Now came a point where, okay, these things, everybody's beginning to see them.
How do we deal with this?
Do we come out and let the cat out of the bag, or do we simply try to suppress this information and maybe deal with it down the road?
And so you had the US government involved in the collection of UAP data, but lying to the American people.
And for, you know, look.
There's maybe some valid reasons there.
I don't agree with them, but I can understand them.
Some of them is like, look, we need more time to understand and figure this out.
Also, there were some studies done commissioned by the U.S. government that the results were very simple.
Look, this is a destabilizing conversation.
If you tell the truth to the American people, you risk literally potentially the collapse of, of civil society.
People are going to do runs on banks are going to panic.
They're going to lose their faith in their religions or, you know, why, why do the normal stuff that normally do and pay your mortgages and whatnot when there's this other topic out here that is, is Potentially existential.
That's really the only word I know how to use, really, because it's something beyond.
And when people put their faith and confidence in a government, the biggest vulnerability to any government, institution, organization is when the people, the masses, lose faith and confidence.
So this is true with any government, not just the United States, any government.
This is how they survive and religions as well.
So you can't afford to lose that.
If people turn around and they realize you've been lying to me for all these years, well, you know.
We already don't trust the government.
Now we're really not going to trust the government.
Oh, by the way, you want us to fight these wars and you want us to do this and do that and this and pay taxes and whatnot.
So I think the mindset at the time was much different.
We had this, this cold war with then Soviet Union.
Um, and we weren't prepared as a nation to have the conversation at the time.
Do you think that then that's part of the problem is them, you know, admitting that this is real is also them admitting to the cover up?
Yeah.
Well, you have to, right?
You have to say, well, yeah, actually we admit that this is real and it's been going on for decades.
Yeah.
And then what happens?
People say, well, why did you lie about it?
What about those people who told the truth and now all of a sudden they lost their jobs, they lost their security clearances, maybe they got a divorce, maybe now they're homeless living on the street because of all that?
But isn't the worse outcome of the two that we discover it's real and call them liars than to them fess up?
I think the time has come we have to have this conversation.
I've always said that secrets, a lot of people think secrets are like fine wine, where the longer you keep a cork on it, the better it gets.
I disagree with that.
I've always said that secrets are perishable.
They have a shelf life.
They're like vegetables in your refrigerator.
They'll stay good for a while, but if they stay, if they outlive their shelf life, they begin to rot and they begin to stink.
And now you've got a bigger problem on your hand because now you got to clean up the mess.
And so I think that therein lies part of the conundrum that we've been keeping this information suppressed for way too long.
My government at least now realizes that it's, it's probably time to have the conversation because it's only going to get worse the longer we can look at the JFK files, right?
The, the, right now, In the United States, the amount of faith and confidence we have in our government is at an all time low.
That's a fact.
Yeah.
They don't trust their government.
And that's a problem.
And the longer you hold on to the ghost, the worse it's going to be.
You're going to have to pay that piper, that interest, right?
That compounding interest will eventually be more than the loan itself.
Right.
And so I think the time has come.
And I think some people now, there's a critical mass within my government that recognizes that we now really, really, really have to be open and honest with the American people.
Very interesting.
I mean, there's okay.
I mean, I'm going to jump all over the place a little bit here with these questions.
So be prepared from hitting different angles.
Got it.
Going back to the 4chan stuff, I myself had a deep dive into a lot of this stuff because I thought it was really interesting.
And I read through a lot of those back and forth AMAs or QAs they had on those different platforms with my audience.
And there was one that stood out to me in particular because it related to something that you had touched on previously.
Previously, in a podcast in the past.
And we're talking about a giant submerged UFO.
Okay.
This particular 4chan leaker said that he worked on a team that was looking into what he called an MCU, a mobile construction unit that was in the ocean, in the Atlantic Ocean, that builds these UAPs and sends them out.
And that they come in and out of this mobile construction unit that's massive, that's in the ocean, and that moves very rapidly.
He said, he goes on to say the downed crafts were recovered and that these crafts were built to spec.
In his opinion, they were built exactly for the things that they had to do, the jobs that they had to do.
And it would seem so to the beings inhabiting or maneuvering these crafts.
My question is, you've Talked about this giant, this video that exists of this giant craft moving very rapidly underwater.
Is there a possible connection to this 4chan leak?
I mean, we can't say there's not.
You know, all I can tell you is what we know.
I can't tell you what we don't know.
You know, that old saying, we don't know what we don't know.
What I can say is that without getting in trouble myself, that it wasn't just me.
There's a lot of people in the US government that have seen this video.
So it is real.
Let me set the stage for you if I can.
So, in the late 1990s, there was this effort by the US government.
We would test our cruise missiles technology, and particularly in the Caribbean when I was there at Puerto Rico.
We would, every so often, launch these cruise missiles over the ocean in an area that was predetermined, you know, no boats or air traffic.
And then when they would run out of fuel, they'd hit the water, splash down, and then they would sink.
And then at a predetermined time, they would blow their ballast, they would rise to the top of the surface, and then helicopter crew would be dispatched to go recover them, bring them back.
Uh, to the Navy base and they would be cracked open and exploited, meaning they would test for the telemetry and the fuel consumption.
And did the, did the missile operate the way it was supposed to operate?
Right.
Now, most people know that Tomahawk cruise missiles, some can be modified to carry a nuclear payload.
That's, that's, you know, one of the advantages of these cruise missiles.
Um, and so there's a helicopter crew.
Um, I won't say the person's name because they haven't given me permission to say their name, but they're legit.
They're real helicopter pilot.
And you had, so imagine a helicopter crew, you've got the pilot, the co pilot, a crew chief in the back, and you got a Navy frogman.
Dangling from a line.
And they're going to, you know, as he's going down the line, he's going to put a hook on the missile because it's blown its ballast and fly back.
And as this frogman is dangling down the line, the Hilo crew notices and the frogman something black.
The water begins to churn and something black and round.
As described to me, something black as a devil and the size of a small island.
So submarines are linear, right?
They look like your pen there.
They're kind of long and skinny and like a tube, almost like a toilet paper tube.
This was.
Cylinder round, um, disc shape begins to come to the surface.
Now you understand that the trench of Puerto Rico is the second deepest part of our ocean.
It's only second to Challenger deep, right?
Um, which is part of the Marianas trench.
Um, I think it's like 22,000 feet deep, right?
So the height that some commercial aircraft fly, this is how deep that water is.
So there's nothing really out there.
This thing begins to rise to the surface of the water.
The water's churning.
Um, the helo crew goes into a panic.
The frogman is literally trying to climb the line back up because he's scared like hell.
And I get it.
And right as this thing is about to break the surface, the missile gets sucked underwater and then the whole thing disappears.
And the HELO crew goes back, and that missile to this day remains unaccounted for, this cruise missile.
Very shocking to the air crew.
Try explaining that to your leadership of what happened.
Is it some sort of Soviet technology?
Is it something else?
Is it our technology?
What the hell took our missile?
Where did it go?
How did it get there?
How did it come up and steal our cruise missile?
And several years ago, I have to be careful of the capacity I say this in, but there was a very, very, very classified video.
Now, the fact that the video exists isn't classified.
Where it was taken, how it was taken, the methods, very sensitive.
So I won't go into that.
But it's very clear we had a capability where we're looking down into the water.
And there were these offshore oil wells, well, rigs, right?
So these are huge platforms.
Like think of British Petroleum and some of these other folks that have these huge, massive structures out in the middle of the water or the ocean, right?
They're just like the size of a small city.
If you've ever seen one of these, they have helicopter pads and buildings and hospitals, and they're on the middle of the ocean.
They're huge.
And in this video, very, very clear, there's a still of the water churning.
And then there is the video of this perfectly round disc shaped object, black, whizzing past one of these things underwater.
Now, there's no waves, there's no disturbance on the top of the water, other than the still of this water kind of looks kind of roiling, if you will, in the very beginning.
But When you calculate the speed that this thing goes by, by the way, it was bigger than the offshore oil derrick it was passing by.
It was bigger than that.
It's diameter, if you knew the diameter of a circle, was bigger.
And it was assessed to be moving between 450 and 550 knots underwater.
Now imagine that for a minute.
Um, do we, are there technologies out there that move very fast?
Yeah.
We know the Russians have the, the supercavitational torpedo and they have got capability, but, but to have an object that big, Where you're talking, you know, tremendous forces, no friction, no right, huge whizzing by one of these offshore oil derricks at phenomenal speed.
That's a technology that we don't have, and that is extremely, extremely compelling.
When you see it, you realize, Whoa, what the heck is that?
This first encounter, I think, was voiced by Graves in the past.
Was it Ryan Graves or Fravor?
One of the two had talked about this encounter where they went to go get Fravor.
Fravor.
Corroborating AI Encounters00:11:57
One of his buddies that we know.
Is there footage of that encounter?
I haven't seen it.
But there has to be because if it's a helicopter, it probably has some type of like weapons radar.
You know, back in the 90s, not necessarily.
You mean you would want to document your recovery missions, but if it's something really routine, you're not always going to have a camera on there simply because it's routine, right?
You've done this 100 times.
It's just the 100 first time you're doing it.
But it's possible.
Oh, it's possible.
Sure.
Absolutely.
But I can certainly ask the pilot.
I mean, I know the pilot.
I can certainly ask him.
Secondly, the other object.
Have you seen this video?
Which one?
The one whizzing past.
Yeah, I saw myself.
And by the way, my colleagues did too, was when I was working.
What was your reaction in the room?
What was the reaction like watching that video for the first time?
Not what you might think, because we have seen so many videos of UAP that at this point is just added to.
Yeah, but this one's in the water.
That is what made it, for me, that is what probably put this up a little bit in the wow, what the heck is that?
We had heard about USOs before.
We never really had any direct evidence other than sonar pings from submarines and, and Navy captains and, you know, anecdotal information like that.
This is the first time that we saw one on camera.
Yeah.
Um, so it was kind of like, wow.
But also keep in mind, we've been so saturated for so long on the, on this topic when I was working it in the Pentagon and my colleagues that it's, you almost kind of become desensitized.
I know it sounds weird.
I, I, I understand that as someone who, you know, knows how magic tricks work.
Yeah.
Get to see methods all the time.
I've seen things that other.
Which, by the way, you are one hell of a magician.
I never really appreciated the trade until I saw you do some of the stuff you do.
That's pretty incredible.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
I'll show you some more stuff a little later.
Secondly, you said this object was round.
How did you have that perspective?
Was this a satellite footage?
I can't say the source.
Remember, sources and methods are very sensitive, but let's just say we had the fidelity enough where it was very, very clear what was going on.
But I mean, if it's round.
Yeah, it's round.
Okay.
So you had a top down view of it.
It was a top down view.
Okay.
Well, anything more than that, I probably can't talk about.
Sure.
Now, my hope is at some point it might become public.
Yeah.
They'll have to strip out metadata and maybe some other things there because people on the internet get very clever and they figure things out.
Absolutely.
Leave it to them to figure it out.
It's crazy.
Absolutely.
And you know what?
I think that's great.
It is.
There are several times that I've actually been corrected for the record by a bunch of internet sleuths.
So I think it's fantastic.
I actually welcome that.
We need more of that.
Oh, that's the whole point of the internet.
Last thing I want to touch on this particular thing is.
Is footage the only intel you have here, or do you have corroborating data with this specific sighting?
You have sonar, you have radar, you have.
Do you have other corroborating intel, or is it simply just this footage?
Unfortunately, I can't go into detail because, and that shows the type of capability we have in certain areas.
Can you say yes, we have other intel?
We have other intel.
I can't say the type of intel.
Sure, but you could say there is other corroborating information.
Yeah.
No, we had teams of very, very specialized analysts with TS clearances.
This is not private.
This is, by the way, government.
This is still in the possession of government with government people analyzing.
More than two points of data?
I probably can't talk about that right now.
Okay.
I know it's frustrating.
Believe me, I know your audience is like, what the hell?
Why can't you just say that?
No, but I mean, just saying that, you know, gives us some type of idea.
Because you might, people can extrapolate, you know, the more sensor data you have in a place, the more of an interest it is for us.
Chances are it's more of a hostile environment.
Human intel?
Again, I really can't go down that path.
I had to ask.
Yep.
Okay.
So we're talking about this underwater stuff.
First of all, to me, This is really interesting because if we're talking about the type of propulsion or the type of capability that these crafts are using, technically, from what we're seeing in the skies, it wouldn't matter whether they're in the water or not.
Right.
That's what some of the scientists have speculated.
Look, the medium in which it's traveling is irrelevant.
If you understand physics, you understand technology, then you understand that sometimes the medium you're maneuvering in is rather irrelevant, including physical.
Potentially.
Potentially.
Yeah.
Potentially these crafts can go through mountains.
Potentially.
Uh, you know, again, I'm, I'm not a, I'm not a trained physicist.
I took physics in college.
Um, you'd have to ask some of the, the, the smart folks, uh, in, in the intelligence community who've kind of come up with some of these, these scientific models.
What I will say though is that for, for the purposes of this discussion, we can't forget the, the simple fact that something less than 15% of the ocean floor has been mapped.
Yeah.
Meaning we know more about the surface of the moon than we do what's in our own oceans.
And let's not forget, I, look, my generation, I, I remember this.
I remember, uh, the notion of, uh, giant kraken in the ocean and, and sea monsters as being silly.
And, oh, you know, this is, this is all just wives' tales.
And it wasn't until we actually had proof positive of the giant squid of the Pacific that there are giant kraken, right?
It just turns out that these aren't sea monsters are part of nature and are, are, are normal paradigm, our normal reality in which we live in.
So, um, you know, it, we're always learning something new about what could be and what is in our natural environment.
And the ocean is certainly no exception.
Is it possible that there's something down there?
That's been speculated, sure.
And is it possible?
Yeah, sure.
And you've seen it.
Yeah.
I mean, we've seen things in the water, and, you know, we know that we're.
So the Navy had a program for a long time.
So the Air Force had something called the Fast Walker Program.
Yeah.
And I can talk about that.
It's been declassified.
The DSO office had this effort to try to track things from space.
And one of the things was UFOs, believe it or not.
The Navy had something similar, and they called it the fast mover program.
And they would pick up information.
They would pick up data, in some cases, sonar returns of things that are moving at a very, very high velocity, almost seems to be stalking or trailing the submarine, only to pass by the submarine very, very fast and then disappear.
Tim Gallaudet mentions this.
Tim does.
And not only Tim, a lot of folks do.
In naval intelligence.
Absolutely.
Yes, sir.
Do you think naval intelligence has more intel on the UAP subject than?
Than a lot of these other intelligence groups?
I think they've been more forthcoming.
I'm not sure they're being, they said, I've been more informed.
I think they've been more forthcoming.
I'll tell you, I talked to a Navy captain of a boomer sub, and he was telling me the story how they were picking up on sonar an object moving 450 knots underwater, which is really fast, right?
Faster than us.
It's insanely fast.
And he said it was bigger than us, it was bigger than a boomer class submarine that they're on, right?
And so I asked him, and I feel kind of silly, but I'll share this with you because it's true.
I said, Kind of an amazing, what'd you do?
And he looked at me with a straight face.
He said, We went around it.
Okay, I can see that.
Yeah, you know, okay, yeah, makes sense.
Dumb question, I guess.
Yeah, yeah, you avoid it.
Is there current discussions about the possibility of at least some of the NHI slash UAP phenomenon being artificial intelligence?
Well, I don't think we can rule it out.
Have you seen any evidence that might suspect that that is the case?
Like there is some type of AI controlling these things?
No, my background, but let me caveat here.
My focus was more on nuts and bolts of craft.
It wasn't really with the occupants or other folks that were looking at that.
But let me also give you a very real example of why it's not far fetched.
Right now, we have the capability, you can put a helmet on and we can fly drones remotely using a helmet, using our thought patterns.
There was a gentleman probably earlier this year who gained some significant notoriety.
He was a quadriplegic and they decided to give him an implant that allows him to play a video game.
In this particular case, I think it was Call of Duty and just using his brain and his thought patterns.
And it turned out that he wound up being almost better than just about any gamer out there because that interface was instant.
Between his brain.
No bandwidth.
Right.
So we are already using technical means to manipulate matter.
Now, you know, taking away the spookiness of it and telekinesis.
No, it's technology.
Not telekinesis, it's technology.
It's simply the ability to interpret brain waves in a certain way and electrical signals, neuro electrical signals, and bioelectric signals, and translate that into an action using technology.
So we, as a simple species, are already doing that.
So does it make sense that in the future, Not only our own species, but anybody else who's technologically proficient would do the same.
I mean, it's clearly a more efficient way of doing things.
By the time the signal goes from the brain down through the muscles and then causes a response and a reaction, there's a delay there.
That's not really efficient, is it?
And also the signals can be misinterpreted, right?
Um, so it makes sense to have that type of technical interface.
And we are already doing it as a species.
Now you get into the artificial intelligence aspect of it.
Can NHI somehow, could it be some sort of form of artificial intelligence?
Because it could potentially predict what you're doing if it already has information on what you've done.
Right, absolutely.
And so, you know, if you look in Commander Fravor's case where this tic tac object sort of got anticipated almost to his waypoint, you know, part of that could be, oh, it can read the future.
But part of that is it's just really good at mapping out the past or exploiting the data systems on board the aircraft as well.
Right.
So there's options.
I think artificial intelligence is a brave new world for us.
Because for the first time, we may be on the verge of creating true sentience, but not biological, based upon silicon and not carbon, right?
Based upon electricity and not the bioelectric processes in the human brain.
Um, so artificial intelligence is, is anything's almost possible because we, we're just now beginning to scratch the surface on what it can do.
And we've already seen some of its capabilities, which are very compelling, which could be disturbing for some people because then that brings in other questions of like really free will and, and, and fate, right?
Which is really uncomfortable as a species for us to, to, to, to consider because most of us look at life and say, well, I've got a series of choices.
You don't know what I'm going to, what choice I'm going to make ahead of time unless you're like you who's a magician, right?
You kind of already know that to some degree.
Because you set the stage, you set the environment where only one choice is possible, right?
But they think it's free will.
That's very concerning for a lot of people because we don't like that idea that we're not in control of ourselves and our environment.
And so when you talk about artificial intelligence and the capabilities of it, that's something we're going to have to deal with in the very near future because maybe we're not as free will as we need.
It's also something as an intelligence you'll have to exploit, right?
Right.
Because we have to.
Yeah, you have to.
Because the enemy's doing it.
That's right.
So we have to, the adversary is doing it and they're doing it quite well.
So we need to, as we need to do that.
We also need to figure out a way to defend ourselves also from artificial intelligence and how to, which is very fascinating to me.
If, if artificial intelligence has a 99% certainty of something happening because it's done all the, the calculations and algorithms and looking at our previous behavior patterns or whatnot, then is there a way to spoof?
Is there a way to, to circumvent that?
Is there a way to do something that artificial intelligence hasn't predicted yet?
That's how you're going to survive.
Because if an adversary knows your next move on a chessboard and knows how to win the game and put you in checkmate, then you got to figure out a way where they don't know what your next move is.
Right.
And so that's kind of the situation we're in now.
Yeah.
I think the best way would be to make them think you're playing chess.
That's right.
Tracking Underwater Horizons00:03:18
So, well, this is really interesting.
And it leads me to also understand because, you know, you said you're tracking nuts and bolts.
This is.
Part of what you were doing.
Before I ask this next question, I also just want to ask Are there more videos of submerged vehicles out there that you guys have access to?
Well, is there more evidence information?
Yes.
So video is something very difficult when you talk about underwater.
Sure, but you have more data.
A lot more data.
A lot more.
Yes, there's some video evidence, but underwater is much more difficult than in the atmosphere because water will affect the electromagnetic spectrum a little bit differently, and especially the electro optical.
So we don't see it.
That's why we use sonar.
We use sound waves instead of radar under the ocean because sound waves travel very well, whereas electromagnetic signals.
Much, much more difficult.
And so it's not, you're not using the same tools to quote unquote see something underwater.
You're using technical equipment to give you a sight picture of what's there, but you're not actually physically seeing it.
You don't have a photon of light bouncing off something coming back into your eye and then your, or a camera lens and interpreting that data because light doesn't travel.
Look, if you've ever been any of your folks out there, your audience are scuba divers know this.
Once you get past 300 feet underwater, it's virtually dark.
You can't see anything.
Light stops.
Now there's some, Animals and fish have very sensitive eyes and they can see much, much deeper.
But for the most part, the human eye is restricted because light waves and photons of light eventually get absorbed by the water.
So it doesn't travel as far as it would.
Like when you look at the horizon, it's maybe 11 miles away.
Underwater, your horizon is maybe a couple hundred feet.
But that sonar information can be just as valuable as fish.
Oh, yes.
That sonar data can be high fidelity, like incredible fidelity.
Are there reports of these giant craft down there that you've sort of speculated that the information is pointed to that these things might be massive down there?
Well, we've heard already from Tim Gallaudet, Admiral Gallaudet, right?
Yep.
These things have been a mystery for the Navy for some time.
And you don't have to even look at the United States Navy.
You can go back.
There's anecdotal information, even by some of the great explorers hundreds of years ago.
Sure.
Nick Columbus.
That's right.
That experience strange things under the water.
I spoke to, I spoke to some civilian, um, fishermen in Mexico when I was down there off the coast of Ensenada, um, kind of between the little island there called Guadalupe Island, uh, Isla Guadalupe and, uh, Ensenada.
And they report these luminous objects, these, these balls of light all the time under the water and sometimes even pop out of the water and then fly away.
And so, um, this is not, and these are people who have no interest in being sensational.
In fact, they love their privacy.
They don't even want to be, they don't even want to be associated publicly with this, but, They've experienced this, and there's log books of other seafaring captains and peoples who've reported very similar experiences going back centuries.
Is that, does that make it a place of interest for the government.