All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2021 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:01:24
Edition 549 - Luis Elizondo

This time a full one-hour conversation with the man who ran AATIP, Luis Elizondo... We talk about the forthcoming unclassified Report on what the US government knows about "UAPs" and MUCH more...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America, and around the world on the internet by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained.
Now unusually I'm not going to do shout outs or mention emails or anything very much at this stage, because we have one of the most important, if not the most important guests we have had on this show.
More about him in just a second, just to say thank you to Adam as ever for doing his work for all of these years on the website, and to you for being my rock and my support over all of these years, some of them difficult.
Thank you.
You've been asking, I've been asking for the last couple of years to see if we can get Luis Elizondo on this show.
Luis Elizondo has recently, of course, been appearing a lot on Fox News, CNN, and world television news outlets.
I'm very pleased to say, and thank you to the people who made this possible for me.
Luis Elizondo is here with us for the next hour, answering my questions and some of yours here on The Unexplained, my website, theunexplained.tv.
We're offering this first as a podcast for my loyal listeners who were with me from the very beginning of the podcast 15 years ago.
The show, of course, started 17 years ago.
It's been on the radio for five years.
This appears on the podcast for you first.
So thank you very much indeed.
Luis Elizondo, of course, the man who headed up ATIP and has had a pivotal role in getting towards what may be disclosure.
That is debated by a lot of people, but you can't debate the fact that there is a report going to be presented within a couple of weeks in Washington, maybe even sooner than that, depending on when you hear this.
It's going to be something big.
It may not be everything that the UFO community wants, but it may take us further along the road.
So, Luis Elizondo, the special guest on this edition of The Unexplained, I want to get straight to him now and say, Luis Elizondo, thank you very much for giving me your time.
I know that you are probably one of the planet's busiest men right now.
Yeah, let's say, you know, there's certainly no rest for the weary, and I'm pretty weary, so I guess I am pretty busy.
Are there ever times, look, I've followed your story, and I spoke with Leslie Kane when it all broke, and of course, it was internationally picked up immediately.
Have there ever been times in the last couple of years where you've regretted actually going public and doing all of this?
Yeah, every day.
I've regretted it, but I've also, you know, looked back and been very grateful as well.
I think for me, the greatest challenge has been those pockets within the Department of Defense who really were not happy with me choosing to what they consider break rank, coming out and having a conversation on this topic.
It was not easy.
Every day I had people attacking my credibility and my motivations.
But in the same respect, it's the same thing that keeps me going because for one, I've had this incredible outpouring of appreciation from people and both inside and outside of the Pentagon.
I've had people inside say, hey, Lou, you know, thanks for what you're doing.
It's making a big difference.
And two, I will tell you to some degree, there's probably a little bit of anger inside because there's individuals there who, in my opinion, are probably neglecting their duty and responsibility towards what they have sworn to uphold.
And that is their agreement with the American people to always do the right thing.
And when they start misleading the American people and start what I consider misusing and abusing their authority and their power, that really gets to me.
What I consider, I hate to call it tyranny, but it really is.
And whether it's on the battlefields of Afghanistan or in the halls of the Pentagon, I reject that.
I reject that behavior vehemently.
Are you saying that some of your former colleagues, Lou, are complicit in a cover-up?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Yeah, that's exactly what's happened.
There were some individuals there who, and I think you're going to see this with the IG investigation that's coming out and the evaluation, that there has been some mishandling of this topic.
And more importantly than just mishandling, I was, you know, initially I was kind of hoping it was just a matter of dysfunction, because dysfunction you can fix.
But there appears to be some willful attempt by some people to do the wrong thing.
And I, you know, my intent is to go toe-to-toe against those individuals and call them out for what they're doing, what I consider a dereliction of duty.
And if it means that I have to continue in this endeavor, then so be it.
Would I prefer to retire and just fade off into the sunset?
Absolutely, I would.
But I'm not sure that's an option for me right now, simply because there is still pockets of resistance in the Pentagon that is trying to muzzle, or if you will, stifle this conversation.
And let's not forget, this isn't a conversation that belongs under the providence of any particular government or organization or institution.
This is a topic that involves all of humanity.
And so why are there organizations thinking that they own the narrative?
I don't know, but I think it's wrong.
Luis, there must have been people, though, serving in the Pentagon and other places in the portals of American government who felt, as you have felt, as frustrated and patriotically driven as you've been.
And they haven't spoken out.
You were the one who came out and did this.
That kind of exposes you, doesn't it?
Well, it does, but you're right.
There's people still in the Pentagon.
And we're now seeing with some of the pilots that are deciding to come out, both men and women who are risking a lot to have this conversation in the open.
They're risking a lot too.
So fortunately, I'm not alone in that conversation.
My hope is that more and more people are inspired to have this conversation in the open.
And slowly as stigma and taboo begin to, if you will, minimize, maybe we can have an even greater comprehensive conversation about the meaning of this topic and what it means to all of us.
Yep, we need to have that conversation.
I think we all do.
I've had a number, just to deal with this, though, I've had a number of emails before we recorded this.
A lot of emails full of support for you, the overwhelming majority, and one or two who accuse you of being an agent of disinformation.
I am guessing that sort of thing goes with the territory, but you've heard this before.
When you get those allegations and claims, what do you say?
Well, you know, those allegations and claims didn't seem to bother anybody when I was on the battlefield using those skills against the enemy.
I don't understand why people think or some people think that for whatever reason I'm using those skills now against the American people.
I think it's baseless.
I think it's reckless.
And I think, you know, these are individuals who probably enjoy conspiracy theories.
You know, if you want to talk about the ultimate stereotype is, you know, whether it's race or religion or color of your skin or anything else, you know, you're holding against me the job that I had to do on behalf of the American people.
And people are saying, oh, you can't trust the guy because he was a spy.
Well, yeah, I was a spy for America.
I wasn't a spy against America.
And I think these people probably need to do a better job of checking themselves and figuring out exactly what it is they're trying to say and mean.
I don't think it's fair to say that everybody who's been in intelligence is now somehow a disinformation agent and working against the interest of citizens and the American people.
I reject that notion.
And I think it's, again, reckless to even presume that.
So the answer comprehensively to all of these things is the one word that answers it and covers it is patriotism.
You are a patriot.
Well, I certainly think so.
I mean, I've given up everything that I held dear from a professional perspective to include my job and my retirement, everything like that, to come out and have the conversation.
I did it out of a sense of commitment.
I'm not sure people realize I left the Department of Defense, not out of disloyalty, but out of loyalty.
I left the Department of Defense to finish the very job that they gave me in the first place.
I didn't ask for it.
They gave it to me.
And, you know, I took an oath a long time ago to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
And that's what I'm still trying to do to a large degree.
I'm really pleased to be speaking with you because I can ask you questions directly now.
I've got some questions from me and a bunch of questions that listeners have sent in.
They're still coming in at this moment, but we'll get to those.
Where we're at in this conversation now, then, I think, is a question that I've always wanted to ask Lue Elizondo.
How did you get the job of running ATIP, the Advanced Aerial Threat Intelligence Program?
I mean, did you apply for it?
Did somebody tap you on the shoulder in a bar in Puerto Rico and say you're the guy for the gig?
What happened?
Yeah, I like to tell people I was voluntold.
You know, in the government, when you're told to do something, you pretty much just do it.
I had some folks, I guess because of my background in counterintelligence and security and more specifically in some nuanced aerospace technologies, they thought I'd be the right guy to set up a counterintelligence and security program for ATIP.
Obviously, I was a little bit of a seasoned agent by then.
I had been the special agent in charge of several offices for a while, and I had some experience under my belt.
And so I suspect it was because of that.
I don't think it was because I was any better than anybody else.
I just think probably what it was is that I happened to have the specific skill sets at the time that they were looking for.
And so I was asked to be part of the effort and I accepted that.
You said that you've been working on nuanced aerospace projects.
I don't want to lose that point.
What does that mean?
Does that mean, you know, really exotic, you know, sorts of advanced aeroplanes and stuff like that?
You know, rather like the fighter that we knew nothing about until it appeared one day?
Correct.
So when I was younger in my career, I spent quite a bit of time in technology protection.
So I worked a lot of unmanned aerial vehicle systems, a lot of advanced avionics, including cruise missile technology, first stage solid rocket motor boosters.
I was supporting the treaty, the START II and the open skies treaty that we had with Russia at the time.
And so in order to support that mission, you go through specific training on, you know, what does a ballistic missile look like, right?
What can it do?
And how can you tell if it's operational or not?
All those type of things that I was taught.
And so I suspect that some of those same skill sets wound up being fairly lucrative for this new office that was stood up called ATIP.
But that skill set not only is vital for ATIP, but also for what you're doing now, because you must have got to the stage where you thought, well, my work with all of this aerospace material, all of this advanced stuff that the public doesn't know about, means that I'm uniquely placed to be able to tell what is something that may not come from this earth or may come from some other dimension or something else versus something that is just extreme advanced technology that maybe ourselves or another nation is developing.
You're the guy to know the difference.
Well, I mean, sure, but it's because I had a lot of very, very smart people teaching me that.
It's not that I was necessarily born with that, you know, knowledge.
And yes, you're right.
As an intelligence official, you're kind of trained to be an observer and scrutinize data and facts in a little bit different way, I guess, than most individuals.
And so I guess, from that perspective, I already had a baseline understanding of what was achievable, what was the baseline level of technology that we had already in our current inventory and those of our adversaries,
and apply That to what we were seeing in ATIP and then make a determination whether or not this is something that is just some sort of advanced, let's say, next generation technology from a foreign country, or are we really talking about something that is truly beyond next generation technology and simply extraordinary versus the, I guess, what we were facing on a more routine basis?
If ATIP hadn't been effectively, we're told, derailed, abandoned, and stopped, would you have come out and talked about all of this?
Would you have quit ATIP and done that knowing that it was, I mean, some people say it's still running anyway, but knowing that it was still running, would you have still done this?
Well, that's why I did come out because it was still running.
Obviously, if this program ended in 2012, I'm not going to sit on information for whatever five years and then decide to wake up one morning and say, I'm tired of this.
I'm sick and tired.
I'm going to go ahead and quit.
That's not at all how it happened.
Obviously, we were still engaged in this the very day that I left.
And that information is forthcoming.
That information is going to come out at some point.
And I think this is part of the reason why maybe the Pentagon is beginning to adjust course a little bit because they realize all this information will come out eventually and they're not going to be able to obfuscate any longer.
And yet there are those who will ask why this, why now?
You know, they managed to keep the lid on a lot of stuff, we are told, for decade upon decade, ever since Roswell, maybe before.
But now there is this critical mass that seems to be building and all of this stuff is going to come out, maybe be released in this report that is going to be released within weeks.
So I guess there are those of us who can be forgiven for asking why this, why now?
Sure.
Well, I would ask, you know, why ever?
It's because at some point there are some events that occur that allow for a conversation to occur, whereas before it couldn't.
You know, I think now is as good enough time as any.
I've often said before that this is not a conversation like fine wine, where the longer you keep a cork on it, the better it gets.
I think this is a conversation that's probably more like rotten vegetables in the refrigerator.
And the longer they stay in there, the more it's going to begin to smell and we should probably clean it out.
I think we're at a point now where we just, the information is overwhelming and compelling and is irrefutable.
It's undeniable.
And I think at this point, whereas maybe perhaps in the past, by a country keeping this information secret or classified, bought our countries more time.
Obviously, we had in the middle of the height of the Cold War, we were dealing with threats across the globe and a nuclear proliferation and a Cold War.
And so probably I would suspect that the mindset was, hey, look, let's just not address this now because first of all, there's not a whole lot we can do about it.
And B, it's probably not as much of a threat as, let's say, some rogue country that has nuclear weapons.
The problem is now that very same mentality is working against the conversation of keeping things quiet because whereas before you wanted to keep things quiet and out of the public eye to avoid the conversation, now it's reached its shelf life, its expiration date.
And now the longer you keep it secret, the more people are going to distrust the organizations that are keeping it secret.
So you think that the people's trust in democracy would be threatened if this stuff did not come out now?
Well, not so much in democracy, but certainly our leadership.
Certainly, I think that's the case.
I think people would recognize that, okay, enough people have come out, former directors of national intelligence, former directors of CIA and everybody else, that by not having the conversation, it appears disingenuous.
It appears now at this point, there's a reason, why are you trying to hide this information?
If all these people have come out to include ex-presidents and whatnot, what's your issue for having this conversation right now?
And I think that's fair.
I think people should be able to ask that.
I think at this point, enough, I think we've, I've often used the analogy as an investigator.
My job was simply to collect the truth and speak the truth.
That's it.
Pretty straightforward.
And, you know, in doing so, it's the American people and ultimately the world are going to decide what to do with that information.
And as more and more of that information becomes prevalent, shall we say, or more proliferated, you know, people are going to have this conversation.
And at some point, people know for themselves.
You know, people are going to make their own mind that, hey, look, this is something we should consider.
This is something that could be a national security issue.
When I say issue, I don't mean a threat necessarily.
I mean an issue.
And, you know, people are going to have the conversation regardless of what their governments tell them.
Does it strike you, Lou, as being incongruous?
It does to me a little, but maybe I'm wrong, that the same armatures of government are having an investigation, an inquiry, a report that will be delivered in a couple of weeks from now, we're told in Washington.
But these are the same people who were also told of, who know all about it anyway, and have been keeping it quiet for decades.
It's like one hand doesn't know what the other one is doing.
Well, yeah, I think that's fair.
That's a fair observation.
And this is why it's important that our government is forthcoming and transparent.
The last thing we want to do is further complicate this situation and give people an excuse not to trust their government.
So I think you're right.
It's critically important that we are open and honest.
I just don't think 180 days is long enough, to be honest with you.
There is 180-day requirement to have this report out to Congress.
And as I've said before, it takes longer sometimes to remodel a kitchen in your house.
And on top of that, we had COVID, which was further complicating things because most people weren't even at work to access the classified data that they needed to begin with.
I understand.
So does that mean, Lou, that what we're going to get when the report comes out may disappoint some people?
You know, look, you're not going to make everybody happy.
And I do think that it's going to be a preliminary report.
There's no way in 16 or 17 pages and in 180 days, you're going to give a comprehensive picture of the threat assessment to the United States over the last, you know, nine decades, certainly since the 1940s.
It's just, it's not, it's not realistic.
And so I think best case scenario we can hope for is some sort of interim report that comes back with a stipulation saying, hey, Congress, we need more time and a little bit more resources to do this right.
And then the role of the UFO community, the ufologists, the campaigners, the disclosure advocates is to make sure that that is kept on point.
And if they say we need more time, then yes, a reasonable amount of time, but not forever.
Correct.
No, no, no, no, no, not forever.
Maybe another 180 days or something like that.
And I also think a task force in governmental speak is a temporary activity to do a temporary job.
I think what we need, what's called for, is a long-term enduring capability.
I think we need something that's going to look at this issue for a very long time and is representative of a whole government approach, not just the Department of Defense, not just the intelligence community, but let's bring in the Department of Energy.
Let's bring in academia.
Let's bring in scientific community.
Let's bring everybody to look at this problem holistically.
Because ultimately, I think there's a lot more equities here than just a national security equity, in my opinion.
You told me earlier, and I didn't want to let this point get away, Lou, that you were aware of a lot.
A lot has come out, but there is a lot still to come out.
Can you give me a clue as to what may still be to come out?
What are we going to find out?
Wow.
Great question.
So what I don't want to do is prejudice the jury here.
I wanted to try to allow the system to work the best it can.
That indicates that there is stuff that you know.
Yeah, I mean, there is.
There's information I'm quite privy to and I'm aware of.
And, you know, I want to let the government do what it needs to do.
But I think what people will be very, very surprised is the frequency, the number, sheer volume of reports and incidents that occur on a continuing basis.
This isn't just the USS Nimnance incident that occurred in 2004.
This isn't just the Roosevelt incident that occurred in 2016.
And this isn't just the Omaha and the Kidd that occurred in 2019.
This is occurring regularly and routinely in our controlled U.S. airspace.
And I think that people may be very surprised that this is not anecdotal.
This is occurring on a regular basis, all the time, as of like last week.
Okay.
And they are similar kinds of things.
I mean, Jeremy Corbel, who we both know well, has done a lot of pioneering work in this, and he's been releasing bits of material.
Last week it was radar material, images, all sorts of things.
The last thing that he released was a swarm of craft or whatever they may have been, 14 around a U.S. naval ship.
All of this stuff is coming out.
And you are saying that these are really the tip of the iceberg.
That's correct.
These are just, yeah, that's correct.
Okay, I want to play a piece of sound to you, if I may, Lou, that you will have heard, and you've probably heard it a million times.
But let's remind my listener of it.
This is just a few weeks ago, where President Obama X, President Obama, spoke with James Corden, my countryman, on CBS's Late Late Show.
And, you know, you'll be aware of these words.
I'm sure they're emblazoned on your heart.
But let's just have a listen to them.
What is true, and I'm actually being serious here, is that there's footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are.
Well, when a former president says that, you got to sit up and take notice.
What did you feel when you became aware of those words?
Let me be completely honest with you.
I didn't think much only because I've been so saturated with this topic.
No offense to anybody.
I think it was wonderful that the president has acknowledged this, but I wasn't surprised.
Like I said, once you see the evidence, you begin to realize that we're beyond reasonable doubt here.
So anybody that has any type of common sense will recognize that as well.
So I'm not surprised that our president said that.
I suspect that he was probably privy to some of the information that some of our members of Congress were.
So I wasn't surprised.
But again, I guess relieved that at least some people are now in senior positions speaking out.
So why do you think Joe Biden, the new president, kind of laughed it off when he was asked about it at a White House news conference?
He just said, you know, laughingly, ask him.
Well, I can't speak for our president.
President Biden was duly elected and represents the people and the will of the United States.
So therefore, I'm going to defer to allow him to answer that.
But what I will say is I don't think incursions into our U.S. airspace is a laughing matter.
If that's the case, then we might as well take away our controlled airspace over the White House in Washington, D.C., if people don't care.
People are just going to laugh and say, okay, yeah, whatever.
Then, okay, fine.
But then let's not spend the millions of dollars we do each year trying to protect our national borders and our sovereignty because it doesn't matter at the end of the day.
And I also think that when you talk to our brave men and women in uniform who are encountering these things over our controlled U.S. airspace, they're telling us these things aren't that far from Washington, D.C. And I'm wondering if we'd have the same reaction from people laughing if these things were to, let's say, buzz the Capitol building.
I suspect at that point it wouldn't be a laughing matter because at that point, it's too close to home.
And so I think it's very easy for people to laugh things off.
I don't know why our president responded that way.
All I can do is respect his decision to feel that way.
Maybe he was caught off guard.
Maybe he wasn't prepared to have the conversation.
Again, that position, I can't imagine what it's like to be a president.
The amount of responsibility on your shoulders must be overwhelming.
And so maybe he simply wasn't prepared to have the conversation just yet.
Maybe.
Maybe Lou, that particular issue is not top of the pile for him right now.
Okay, let me ask you this.
Have you ever been shown or are you aware of crashed craft, exotic materials, so-called metamaterials?
Have you seen these things?
As some people down history have been, claim to have been shown these things, or do you know people who've seen these things?
What I'm going to say is what I've said before for the record.
It is my belief that the United States is in possession of extremely exotic material.
And what do I mean by extremely exotic?
That material in which, at least superficially, the origins of which are very hard to explain.
I think we need more time for more analysis to be conducted.
I have seen, boy, how should I say this?
I have seen what I consider to be hard evidence of the existence of this material.
That's about all I'm prepared to say.
Okay, and when you talk about this material, is this the material that they talked about at Roswell, the kind of material that flexes and you can't bend it?
It will always go back into shape.
It seems to have capacities and properties that nothing we understand has, or is this something else?
Let me stick with my original statement.
I don't want to expound upon that yet simply because I want to give people in our institutions more time to do any type of analysis that they deem necessary.
Again, please forgive me.
I'm not trying to be rude here.
I'm not ignoring.
I want to be very careful.
I don't, again, my big concern here is to say something that inadvertently prejudices the jury.
Well, let me put it this way then, and then we can move on.
What you have seen obviously confirmed you in your commitment.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah.
I mean, all it did was, I think, re-emphasize to me the compelling nature of this topic, that there is information and evidence that exists that needs to be looked at by experts.
Have you ever met Bob Lazar, the Area 51 man?
No, sir.
I've never met Mr. Lazar.
Would you like to?
I mean, sure.
I mean, like anybody else, I guess.
I'm not necessarily wedded one way or the other to meet anybody.
If somebody, the opportunity arises and sure, I'm glad to meet anybody and everybody that I can, especially if you have an opportunity to learn things from one another.
Can you believe what he says, that we're back engineering materials?
I can't speak for Mr. Lazar.
I've never met him.
And so, you know, it's what I happen to think about something or someone would be completely unqualified.
Frankly, it would probably be reckless for me to even say because it's completely from a perspective of ignorance.
Again, I have never met the individual just like he's never met me.
So I think this is part of the problem we have with ufology today.
People are willing to jump to assertions and conclusions about people without ever having met them, right?
And it's just, this is that whole conspiracy theory nonsense that we deal with in this community.
This is why I've always told people, look, I'm not a ufologist.
I'm not into ufology.
I'm just an investigator that happened to have this job.
I think, you know, one of the biggest issues we have and probably why we've been waiting so long for this disclosure that people keep talking about is because of the stigma and taboo and all the nonsense that goes on in this community, where people think that they have all the answers and anybody who doesn't comport to their narrative is automatically disinformation and all this wacky nonsense that for whatever reason,
people in this community adhere to.
And so as it relates to Mr. Lazar, I don't know.
I can't answer your question.
Totally, totally respect where you're coming from on that.
I'd love to meet him.
Sure.
Well, I'd love to meet him too.
I've been trying to get a conversation with him for years and haven't succeeded, but I'm still trying.
So look, you made a very important point there.
It's occurred to me too, Lou, and it bemuses me and depresses me sometimes that some of the ufology community, this is not all of them, in fact, this is a minority, I would suspect, but they seem to have a lot of time for ripping pieces out of each other rather than all working to a common end.
A lot of people seem to be spending an awful lot of time trying to discredit one another.
And that strikes me as being kind of depressing.
What do you say?
Well, it's counterproductive.
It's not helpful.
Again, these are people who, many of them have made a little cottage industry out of providing their narratives.
And, you know, they're guarding their little rice bowl jealously.
They know that, well, shoot, if what I'm discussing here doesn't wind up being accurate, then I've got to change.
And I may have to change my narrative and potentially lose a lot of followers and people.
And then there's people who are genuinely very emotional about this topic.
And I get it.
And you have these people that are claimed to be experiencers, which I have no idea one way or the other, if these people have had these experiences.
I believe in my heart that they believe they've had those experiences.
And it may turn out that they really have.
But there's no way to quantify and qualify that data yet.
And so at this point, it's simply anecdotal.
And I don't mean that in a bad way because people say, well, you don't believe people?
No, I do.
It has nothing to do with belief, but belief has no place in this conversation.
It has to deal with facts.
We need data.
This is why it's been so tough.
But I think for the last three years, we've come as far as we have because we haven't been going down the subjective road.
Everything that we've been talking about Can be backed up by electro-optical data and gun camera footage and radar and everything else.
So that changes the calculus.
That is empirical data that we can use, the same type of data that we use to prosecute a war or anything else.
So I think that's why, for me, I try to, the best I can, stick with the facts.
And that's why I've always said before, look, the reason why I don't offer my opinion is because the one thing I've learned in intelligence is you can be absolutely sure of something and still be absolutely wrong.
And I don't want to be that guy.
I think we need to stick to the facts and the data.
I have enormous respect for your position when you say that, because some people just jump in and they are proved wrong.
Now, look, if we get to disclosure, and I know that you think that we're getting closer to this, and I am certainly hoping and have for years that we do.
I remember having a conversation with Steve Bassett when he visited my home city, Liverpool, and we sat in the ruins of a bombed-out church, a church destroyed in World War II.
We talked about these issues.
We get to disclosure.
Are you confident, Lou?
Do you know that the U.S. government has a plan to manage this because it is the greatest story ever told and the ramifications of it have got to be handled with finesse?
Is the U.S. government, governments around the world, are they ready?
I think we're seeing that conversation occur now.
I think we're seeing people internally saying, well, okay, here we are.
And, you know, we've got to find a solution quickly because every day that we waste not having the conversation is a day that our credibility is going to be more and more impugned.
And so they want to desperately figure out a way how to navigate this conversation.
This is why I have tried not to be too aggressive in my approach.
I've tried to let the system work to the very best of my ability.
I haven't always been successful, but that's been my attempt.
I think what you're seeing now with this DOD IG evaluation that's been requested, that's another effort to find out what happened internally and see if we can fix it.
Ultimately, I think the leadership in our country realizes that at some point we're going to have to say something to someone.
So therefore, it's probably a good idea that we have this conversation now and try to figure out what this is going to mean to all of us.
Well, a lot of things are going to change, don't you think?
Well, I certainly hope so.
I can't imagine that we're still going to be here two years from now having this same conversation about the same thing.
I'm not sure how that's, I mean, I suppose it's possible.
I think unlikely.
You know, this is one of the main reasons why I said in jest initially, why if we are still having this conversation in two years, that forces people like me to go run for the government and run for office and run for elected position, because that's inexcusable.
At that point, there's no reason why we should still be here a year from now or two years from now.
We need to be having this conversation.
We need to have it globally.
I think what we need to do is have a conversation with the United Nations and probably set up an international community as well that's looking at this topic.
And again, I also think that this shouldn't be necessarily a national security conversation in the end.
There's parts of this conversation, quite frankly, I don't want the government involved in.
They have no business.
They have no purview.
And so why are we bringing them into a conversation?
If it's about national security, then fine.
I agree.
But anything beyond that and what this means to humanity and what this means to our species moving forward, I don't think that's necessarily within the realm of the U.S. government's interest or purview.
Again, I don't want to get into a habit of just giving my rights and privileges to think about a topic to anybody, let alone an organization or institution or government.
I think that needs to stay sacred.
I think we, the people, need to retain that ability and not rely on the government to tell us what to think about this.
And we also have to bear in mind that although a lot of the ufology community are kind of hoping that this is ET, it may well be another power here on earth that has technology that is going to blindside or has been blindsiding us.
We've always got to be ready for that one, haven't we?
Yeah, I mean, that's always a possibility.
I think it's looking increasingly unlikely, but it is a possibility.
And that's why I said all options have to stay on the table until they're no longer on the table.
We have to approach this open-mindedly.
And otherwise, if we don't, then we're going to go right back to where we were five years ago.
And no one's going to take this conversation seriously.
So there's a lot of risk here.
And I think if the one thing that ufologists want is disclosure, then my suggestion is don't screw it up.
If that's what you really want, don't interject your own opinion, your own narrative into something you have no idea about, that none of us do.
Let's let the system work.
Let's give it time.
Let's try to figure this out.
And then at some point when we have more data, then if you want to impose your own, if you will, opinions or narrative, then okay.
But it's too early for that.
We simply don't know what these are.
In other words, go with the evidence.
Now, I want to ask you one thing before I get to listener questions, and I want to be fair to the listener questions, Lou.
And again, thank you for your time today.
And you don't have to talk about this if you don't want to.
This was in the independent newspaper here.
And I'm going to read the story just very quickly.
Quotes, a former national security official who went public with reports of UFO sightings has filed a complaint against the Pentagon's top official for allegedly running a smear campaign to discredit him.
That's you.
Now, we don't have to go into specifics and individuals, but do you believe that there's been an attempt to discredit Lou Elizong?
Yeah, I don't believe.
We have the evidence to back that up.
That's fact.
That's not me pushing a narrative or trying to admit.
That is absolutely real.
There's information and emails that will substantiate all that.
Again, right now, I must let the system try to work.
I don't want to say anything that's going to interfere with the government's ability to try to reconcile this and do the right thing.
Out of due diligence and respect for the government, I have to give it the opportunity to at least try to fix this.
Sure.
And of course, this thing will be, as we say here, some due to say presumably going through the legal process, but it sounds like you're looking for an apology.
You know what?
If the cost of an apology, if I don't get an apology and I just get action for them to take this seriously and be honest with the American people, it's worth it.
Yeah, an apology is nice, but I never did this because I was seeking some sort of acknowledgement or apology.
In fact, I've always said for the record that if the cost of me, of disclosure is me taking the bullets and the arrows for this conversation, I'm willing to do it because it's well worth it.
But the problem is that the discussions that they're having in open about me are also about the program itself.
And they've been inconsistent and in many cases, disingenuous with the American people about the purpose of ATIP.
And they're wrong.
It's not accurate.
And they know they're not accurate.
And from my perspective, that must be corrected.
And yes, I'd love it if they also corrected the record about me.
But that to me is less important than them not fixing the record about this overall conversation.
That to me is most important.
I understand.
Do you believe, before we leave this, that there has been an attempt to portray you as a crazy man, which is something that has been experienced by people all through the modern UFO era, if you go back to the Sokoro incident in the 1960s and many, many more.
There have been many attempts to do those things.
Do you think that you've been the target of that?
Well, sure, but it wasn't very successful because obviously having one of the highest security clearances in the U.S. government, having polygraph examinations, having psychological evaluations, and furthermore, my evaluations for record for my entire career have been nothing but outstanding.
So you don't put somebody who's psychologically unbalanced in a position where they're going to, in essence, have the crown jewels of a country's national security secrets.
That's just not realistic.
And so I think most people realize, hey, look, that's probably the weakest of all arguments because if this guy really was crazy, there's no way in heck you would have put him in those positions.
I think most people see through that.
And yes, that's been, they have attempted to say that, but publicly, I think they're not as vocal about that as maybe they initially were.
Okay.
Thank you for answering that.
Last question for me, then I will dive into listener questions.
If ATIP is still running, who's running it and what's it doing?
A former colleague of mine is running it now.
Another former colleague of mine was running it until January of this year.
Hopefully that will all come out at some point because these individuals are incredible, incredible heroes to our country and they've been serving their country for many, many years.
I can't say specifically because those individuals haven't come out publicly yet.
So I have to do my best to try to protect their identity.
At some point, I suspect they will come out.
And then you can ask that question yourself.
Who are you?
But what I can tell you is that these are patriots.
They're competent.
They are some of the most fantastic human beings I've ever had a chance to work with.
And I really look forward to the day, one day, that they'll come out and come out into the open and people can see just what they've been able to do for their country and for us.
So you're still friends with them.
Oh, yes.
Yes, absolutely.
Okay.
Questions from listeners.
We need to go at some speed through these.
Bernadette asks this.
Thank you, Bernadette.
Can you ask Mr. Elizondo if there is a chance that the footage we've heard about from state-of-the-art radar will be released any time soon?
I was under the impression we'd had some of that.
But, you know, is there material?
Radar stuff is very evidential.
Is there more of this to come out?
I think is the question.
You know, my hope is that it'll come out in the 180-day report.
Again, I don't know for sure.
I certainly hope that's the case.
I can't force the government one way or another to release something it doesn't want to.
You know, you have to be careful sometimes with radar data because radar data can tell you a lot of things that maybe you don't necessarily want to reveal to the public.
It's not just a little blip on a screen.
There's locational data, there's call signs, there's circumstantial information in there that you maybe don't want to be made public.
So if there is data that is released, I suspect it will be watered down a bit.
Let's not forget that this report that's due to Congress is supposed to be at the unclassified level.
And the reason for that is so it can be consumable to the mass public.
And so for that reason, I suspect that if there's any radar data that's released, it will probably be thoroughly scrubbed and reviewed prior to being made available.
So it's not just as easy as opening the door and saying, here you go, guys, I understand.
Peter on the Isle of Man and Marcus ask a similar question.
Does Luis Elizondo feel that the UAPs are somehow coming from within this planet?
That maybe there is somebody somewhere, something that we don't understand, maybe under the oceans or in the mountains or something that has stuff?
What he's saying.
Again, all options are on the table.
I think it's quite possible.
As I've said before, they could be from outer space, inner space, or even the space in between.
So whatever that means to you, are these things from the Pleiades or something like that or are they from some sort of interdimensional space or are they from i mean you know the the the the potential the options go on and on and on and on there isn't necessarily you know a right answer um these things could be uh from earth here could be just as natural to this planet as we are uh but we're only now at a point where we can technologically begin to to interact look it's our planet has been here for for
nearly four and a half billion years, um, you know, to think that we are necessarily the epitome of evolution and we, we are, you know, we have, uh, we have evolved beyond anything else, uh, on this planet over the last four and a half billion years, you know, may, may turn out not necessarily to be, to be true.
Um, I think there's a lot of potential opportunity and this is why we want the academics and the, you know, the scientists and the philosophers, all part of this conversation because, um, in essence, it's all possible and, and we simply need more data before we can start, uh, sync inclusively one way or the other, what, what, where it's from.
Understood.
Again, we come back to the evidence.
Listener Gren asks if the intelligence behind whatever these UAPs, UFOs are, is testing our defenses.
If this is some kind of, some kind of test of what we are capable of.
So it's not, it's less of a demonstration of what they can do and more of a test of what we can do.
Well, if these were, if there was some sort of human intelligence behind these, absolutely.
This would be considered a provocative act, um, flying next to, uh, uh, next to a, a, a very well armed, uh, naval presence in the middle of the ocean and, and hovering over the, you know, the deck for, you know, hours on end would be considered a provocation.
So if these are, are these are, if these are intelligently controlled designed vehicles by human beings, uh, these are intelligently controlled and designed vehicles by human beings or something that thinks like a human being, then yes, this could be considered a provocative act.
Uh, but we simply don't know if, if, if it's not, it could simply be that, you know, when we fly over the Serengeti in a helicopter, we want to look at the migratory patterns of the wildebeest.
Uh, you know, we fly over, over the herd, we scare the hell out of them.
We, we, we dart them.
And then, uh, you know, we don't necessarily take the time to explain to the wildebeest, uh, you know, what we're doing or who we are, let alone what's inside the helicopter.
Um, it could be something like that as well.
We, we, we don't know.
And again, I know it's, it's unsettling for people because they want answers.
I want answers just like everybody else.
But, um, I think we have to be responsible here in our pursuit of answers and we have to make sure that we don't, we don't superimpose our opinions, uh, over, over, over the facts.
And, and again, I know it's unsettling, but my hope is that as unsettling as this is, we will start getting to answers here very soon.
And we're further on than we were.
Okay.
Um, listeners like Adrian look at some of this as a kind of conspiracy theory, I think.
Uh, and Adrian wants to know if this is just a kind of staged or fake UFO stroke alien invasion, uh, with the aim of ultimately forcing us into having a world government.
You must've heard that before.
Uh, wow.
Well, um, I, I, I've heard of it, but I, I don't subscribe to it because I, that's definitely not my agenda.
That's for sure.
And I can assure you that's not the agenda of Chris Mellon and some other people that I work with college.
Um, that's, that is definitely not the intent.
Um, is that the intent of perhaps some people?
I, I guess it could be, but, um, nobody that I'm associated or affiliated with that's, that's never been, that's never been a goal stated by, by anybody.
Um, look, a lot of us gave, gave sacrificed, uh, and some gave their lives, uh, friends of mine to, to, to ensure the freedom, uh, and the sanctity of life for all people.
Um, none of us are trying to, you know, uh, force our will on, on anybody that's never been part of the conversation.
Uh, so I guess to, to your listener out there, uh, I don't know if it's any, if it's reassuring or not, or any consolation, but that's, that's never been my agenda or the agenda that other people that I've worked with have.
David Pérez: Understood.
Derek asks, and this is a good one.
If, if the UFO, if, if we get UFO disclosure, we get disclosure, let's leave UFO out of it.
If we get disclosure and it comes out of the U S maybe it flows from that report that's about to be delivered.
Do you think that, are you confident that other nations will also come out and say what they know?
Derek: Well, they're coming out now.
We just had Japan come online and try to establish a bilateral relationship with the United States government for the sole purpose of sharing information on UAPs.
Uh, there's a couple other countries that I'm aware of.
I won't, I won't say any names right now because it's, it's really not up to me, uh, that have also indicated an interest and I've been working behind the scenes to, to facilitate that, uh, and, and get them to the right people within our own, own government to, to begin those conversations.
Um, you know, that is why I think initially if we could have a, some sort of body at the United nations, uh, would be great.
I'm actually going to be in, uh, in, in Europe late this summer, uh, actually I'll be in the UK for a little bit too, uh, for the sole purpose of trying to, um, get other organizations engaged in this topic and to work collaboratively with, uh, you know, with, with, with other organizations internationally.
Derek: Well, I'd love to talk to you when you come here, Lou.
I think there are a lot of people who will be very keen to see you here and see what, uh, what our government is going to be doing.
Uh, what else, uh, have we got here?
Connor, long time listener of my shows, wonders why we're getting disclosure piece by piece, why it's, it's a jigsaw.
Derek: Well, I, you know, I think anytime you, you embark on, on something like an endeavor like this, it's always piece by piece.
Look, when you, when I, I use the analogy, I tend to be what we call here a gearhead and here in the United States, I, I love rebuilding cars and whatnot.
Um, when you want to fix an engine, um, how do you do it?
Well, you do it piece by piece.
You have to take off the, the, the, the plenum and the intake manifold before you can get into, to doing a work on, you know, inside the engine block.
Um, that's the way you have to do things.
They can't be all at once because then you don't the the the information that you're looking at and the data isn't properly vetted.
You need to take the time to look at everything and you need to look at it independently.
Then you need to look at it together as a system.
And, you know, I think I've often said, you know, it's like drinking from a fire hose if you're not careful.
You know, there's a lot of information, potentially, potentially 70 years worth of history on this topic with military records and data that has to be looked at.
And I don't think you can simply just say, you know, quote unquote, give it to me, baby, because it's you're, we all need time to digest the elephant, right?
You got to take it all.
You got to bite it in small bite-sized pieces.
And that's the old Dale Carnegie thing, I know.
Yeah.
Back in the day, meeting one of the people from that organization, he said, Howard, how do you eat an elephant in bite-sized pieces?
And I guess that's how we're going to have to deal with this because it's an awful, this is a big elephant.
Ken wants to know this.
And I guess this is a fundamental question about all of this.
If we work out that there is something perhaps beyond this earth that we don't understand or beyond this dimension that we don't understand, we then have to get asking some very fundamental questions.
And the way that we ask them is very important.
Those questions are basically, who are they and what do they want?
Correct.
I mean, that's ultimately, that's a question that we as human beings ask ourselves all the time.
You know, it's whether you're exploring the deepest parts of the ocean or you're talking about a subject like this.
You know, ultimately, we want to know how things work.
It's in our DNA.
We want to know what is the intent behind something, the reasoning behind something.
That's just part of the human condition.
I think you're absolutely right.
These are going into some of the, if you will, the deepest parts of the human reptilian brain.
And when I say reptilian brain, I mean that from an evolutionary perspective.
I don't mean any, there's no innuendo there.
You know, we are a curious species.
We're always trying to figure out how things work and ultimately the question of whether or not we're alone in the universe.
That is a fundamental question that many, many, not just Western civilization, but most cultures around the world share some sort of interest in that very question.
Are we alone?
And if we are, that's terrifying.
If we're not, well, that's also terrifying.
And ultimately, if we're not, what does it mean then to be a human being?
Maybe if we realize that we're not necessarily alone in this universe, maybe it will force us to ask deeper, more intimate questions about ourselves.
It may enrich us.
Yeah, well, hopefully, you know, hopefully we don't do something stupid and immediately start use it as a reason to develop bigger, stronger weapons.
Hopefully we learn a little bit about ourselves in this process.
In 20 years of doing shows like this one, inspired by my hero Art Bell, who I got to know towards the end of his life, and I was amazed and gratified that he listened to the stuff that I do.
But he and I both have interviewed a lot of people who say that they were abducted by aliens.
Those people include Travis Walton, the guy from Pascagoula, Calvin Parker, Kathleen Marden, who, of course, is the niece of Betty and Barney Hill, the most famous alien abduction story of all.
Do you ever wish that you could be abducted yourself so that you are, at the moment, the Bible would say, blessed are those who have not seen yet believed.
Well, that's you.
You haven't seen.
But would you like to see?
I don't want to be abducted.
No, not by anybody or anything.
No, thank you.
If somebody is willing to do that, then fine.
But, you know, abduction for me is, you know, from my background, that's a crime.
It's a felony.
It's called kidnapping.
And I wouldn't want anybody that I'm close to ever be abducted or kidnapped.
Furthermore, if something were to touch you without your permission, we call that assault.
That's also illegal.
So no, I would not want.
Now, would I love an opportunity to engage a higher intelligence?
Absolutely.
I would welcome that opportunity.
But, you know, everything is circumstantial.
It depends on the circumstance.
Am I doing it as a peer or am I doing it as potentially dinner for something?
It's like when I go swim in the ocean, I'm an avid scuba diver.
You know, I love the ocean, but I don't necessarily want to swim naked in a feeding frenzy of sharks.
That's not what I necessarily want.
If that meeting of minds is ever to happen, you want it to be on your terms, on good terms.
Yes, of course.
And maybe that's just the human in me, right?
Maybe I want to be able to dictate the situation.
I'm with you.
I don't want to disappear from my bedroom at 3 a.m.
Thank you.
Right.
I'd rather hedge the bets in my favor if I'd possible, you know, but maybe that's just because I'm a silly human, I guess.
But don't do it.
Join the club.
I'm there too.
I've thoroughly enjoyed this conversation, Lou.
I hope I've done you justice.
I have a comment from longtime listener Sue, Sue Brook.
Sure.
She just wants to thank you for everything that you've done and basically say keep going.
Oh, well, you know, sir, let me say this.
You asked me earlier on a question, and, you know, if there's days I don't want to do this, yes, there are days, but what makes it worth it for me is waking up and hearing the outpouring of support, people who say, look, Lou, you know, I don't have a voice.
I don't want to talk about this topic publicly, but thanks to you, you know, I can and I can have this conversation.
And I don't have to feel so alone and isolated because there are people out there that are trying to have this conversation.
That is why I do what I do.
That is what keeps me going.
That is the reason why.
That is my motivation to do what I do, because people appreciate it.
Not everyone, but some people do.
And that's what, and I'll tell you too, they're more important probably than I am to the conversation, because ultimately our governments, our media, our institutions are all going to be listening to what the people Have to say, yeah, I'm kind of a, if you will, a loudmouth megaphone maybe for the conversation, but I don't have the influence and input that the masses have.
You know, all your listeners out there, if they were to get together one day and just start writing their government, there's a very good chance that somebody in government is going to listen to them, right?
I'm just one person, but you have a proverbial army that listens to you.
And that's incredibly important.
That's super influential.
They're the reasons why we're actually having this conversation today.
And I do appreciate people offering me credit for it.
But in reality, I can't accept that credit.
The credit goes to your listeners.
The credit goes to you for 20 years being behind this topic and despite the stigma and the social taboo, chipping at it every week and having this conversation.
That's why we're here today.
That's the real reason why we're here, not because of Luis Elizondo, but because of all of you and all of your listeners out there.
Hallelujah.
I totally agree with you on that one, Lou.
And I am a guy who's used to sit on news desks at the BBC and other places.
And some of my colleagues would laugh at me because I was doing this stuff.
But, you know, I happen to think it's important.
And thank God you do too.
This report that's coming out, well, it's now the beginning of June.
It is said to be only weeks away, we understand.
I mean, it should have been, I think, the 1st of June or the 2nd of June, but it's been delayed a little, we understand.
When is your best estimate and guess as to when this will be out?
I would say June 25th or earlier.
But again, hopefully this is just a interim report.
Fingers crossed that this is going to be the first of many reports to come out.
And by the way, when I'm over there in Europe, it would be my absolute pleasure to meet with you in person and have a conversation.
I don't know if you have a studio or anything, but if you do, I'm happy to do another interview with you.
I would love to do that in person when you get here.
And hopefully we will be a bit restriction-free at that point.
That day is coming.
So when that happens, let's do that, Lou.
And thank you so much for giving me your time.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
You've been more than generous with thes and your audience as well.
I really appreciate it.
Luis Elezondo, and it was worth the couple of years of waiting.
And I can't wait to meet him when he comes to London later this year, by the sounds of that.
What did you think of what Lou had to say there?
Please send me an email through my website, theunexplained.tv, and let me know.
More great guests in the pipeline here at The Unexplained, so until next we meet here.
My name is Howard Hughes.
This has been The Unexplained Online, as we've been for 15 years.
Until next we meet, please stay safe.
Please stay calm.
And above all, please stay in touch.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection