All Episodes
Previous Next
May 16, 2022 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
45:40
Edition 635 - Luis Elizondo
| 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.
Well, I hope everything is good with you.
A little beam of sunlight is piercing its way into my apartment as I record these words now, and that's nice news.
It seems that certain days this week are going to hit about 24, 25 degrees Celsius, 75-ish Fahrenheit.
So, you know, it's springtime, but it looks like a little bit of summer is here.
And as you know, if you know me well enough, you get no complaints from me about any of that.
Okay, that's enough weather talk.
I hope that everything is okay in your world, though, and thank you for all of the emails that keep coming in.
Remember, if your email requires a reply, then please put in the email, I need a reply to this, and I will do my best to make sure that you get one straight away.
But do know that I see, read, and take on board all of the emails that come in, and you can email me easily through the website.
Theunexplained.tv is the website.
That also is the primary source of all the podcasts.
So if you're finding that a podcast portal is maybe stalled with providing you with new podcasts, you can always check in at the website because they are all filed chronologically there.
Theunexplained.tv.
And thank you to Adam, my webmaster, for his work on that.
Okay, the guest on this edition is somebody from my TV show, a big name on the show.
Second time he's been on The Unexplained, first time on the television show, Luis Elizondo, the former head of ATIP, the advanced aerospace threat identification program that made all of the news a few years ago and continues to do in the quest for the truth about UAPs and UFOs.
You will know, and you're about to hear his biography anyway, about Louis Elizondo and the work that he's been doing.
There are some very important hearings happening in Washington on the 17th of May.
That's tomorrow as I record these words.
Luis Elizondo was on my TV show last night late, 11 p.m.
So this is basically what was broadcast last night and all of this ahead of those hearings.
I will, of course, keep abreast of what is being said in those and bring you an update about them on the TV show as well.
And if there's anything that needs to be said that needs to be kept for posterity, that will be put here on the podcast as well.
We have a lineup of great guests coming up on the podcast, so please continue to support it.
Life is very focused at the moment, one way or another, but it's better than being idle, I guess.
I find.
Okay, that's, I think, everything that I've got to say.
Don't forget, when you get in touch with me, tell you as you tell me, or tell yourself if you like, but tell me where you are, who you are, and how you use this show.
The three vital things if you would do that.
And like I say, thank you very much for keeping in touch with me.
It is so important.
Let's hear now then from my TV show, from Luis Elizondo.
Luis Elizondo is a former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
He formerly headed the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, ATIP, until the program was defunded, apparently, but thereby lies a tale.
There may be more to that, as they say, than meets the eye.
ATIP was a secretive $22 million program initiated by the Defense Intelligence Agency in order to study unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAPs, also known as UFOs.
According to the Pentagon, it was cancelled in 2012.
In October 2017, Luis Elezondo resigned from USDI after expressing his concern of what he called bureaucratic challenges and inflexible mindsets in all levels of the department.
In his resignation letter, according to this biographical information again, Elezondo wondered why certain individuals in the department remained staunchly opposed to further research of unusual aerial systems interfering with military weapon platforms and displaying beyond next generation capabilities.
In other words, doing things that we didn't think that anything was able to do.
Which brings in the reports of the Tic-Tac UFOs and those famous videos shot, the USS Nimitz and the Princeton, those things that were seen and made international headlines and are still being talked about, that behaved in ways that nothing, we believe, we believe that nothing that we have created could behave.
So Luis Elizondo is going to be the guest in this hour, and I am delighted to say that we are now connected.
Lou, how are you?
Hi, Howard.
You know, I'm doing just fine.
There's an old saying we have in the military, any day above ground is a good day.
And so I'm doing quite fine.
But you are currently the busiest man in America.
You have so many engagements.
Everybody wants a piece of you.
Oh, my goodness.
Yeah, which is, you know, for me, a little unusual.
I've spent my life and my career living in the shadows.
You know, I didn't choose this job.
As probably a lot of your listeners may know who may have served in the UK military, a lot of times you're quote unquote voluntold.
And so this was no exception, of course.
And long story short, here we are, right?
We're on the precipice of hearings in my country not seen in the last 50 years.
And let me just preface by saying by no way is this because of me.
There's been a lot of people working very diligently behind the scenes on this for us to be where we are today.
Do you consider yourself that's very fair and you are a self-deprecating man, but do you see yourself as I see you as the tip of the spear here in the modern UFO era?
Ooh, yikes.
You know, it wasn't my intention.
I will tell you that when I left the Department of Defense, well, first of all, when I was assigned this job, originally my background was counter-terrorism and counter-espionage.
So whether you're chasing spies or you're chasing terrorists, in this particular case, it just turned out I was chasing UFOs, but I'm not really a UFO guy.
I never have been.
I'm not particularly interested in science fiction or anything like that.
I never really had the luxury to sit down and watch science fiction, really.
And so I know a lot of people look at me as kind of the poster child, if you will, for UFOs.
I think more I'm a poster child for truth and transparency and disclosure.
It just happens to be that it's about the topic of UFOs.
But I would have done it for anything else as well.
You know, I took an oath a long time ago to serve my country and my fellow citizens.
And it just turns out that in this particular case, I had to leave the Department of Defense to finish the job they gave me in the first place.
Now, ATIP, this advanced aerial threat identification program, you will know because people contact you, you see what they say.
There are lots of different shades of opinion here.
There are people who believe that ATIP as a thing never really existed.
There are people who believe that it still exists and it's still ongoing, but it's behind a lot of cloak and dagger material.
So in your definition, the man who is at the tip of the spear, the head of all of this, the one we read about, what was ATIP?
And perhaps more importantly, why did you choose, I think you've partially given us an answer to this already, but why did you choose to exit?
Wow, Howard, we would need more than an hour probably to talk about that.
The bottom line is, well, first let me answer your question.
What is ATIP?
ATIP stood for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.
It was a small nuanced program that was established by then the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, along with several of his colleagues.
So you had Senator Inoue from Hawaii and also Senator Stevens from Alaska, former astronaut John Glenn.
And all of them decided that it was time that the U.S. government began to look at UAPs or UFOs in the vernacular once more.
Look, the U.S. government has a long history of looking at UFOs.
Now, of course, people out there, they hear the word UFO and, of course, immediately tinfoil hats and silly UFO conferences and Elvis on the mothership, right?
But in reality, what we're talking about is beyond next generation technology that is being displayed, at least from our perspective, within controlled U.S. airspace.
We don't know what it is.
We don't know how it works.
We don't know where it's from.
And yet there it is.
And we're not talking about drones and quadcopters.
We're talking about beyond next generation technologies.
We're talking about vehicles, aircraft that are able to perform in ways that we simply can't replicate right now with our current technology, current state-of-the-art technology.
So ATIP was created from a Department of Defense perspective to try to get a handle on it.
And again, this is nothing new.
We did it before with Blue Book and we did it before with some other organizations and efforts.
You asked the question right now, was it real?
Yeah, ATIP was real.
It absolutely was real.
And I was part of it.
There's lots of documentation out there that substantiate it.
Folks in Congress already know about it.
They know it's real.
Unfortunately, because today's day and age of modern social media, a lot of voices out there that really aren't very informed state opinions as if they're facts.
But we're now at the point where I think most Americans, at least here on this side of the pond, realize the program was legitimate.
You had Senator Harry Reid for the record substantiating it was real and that I was in charge of it.
Pretty much everything else at this point, there's not a whole lot that's come out yet because it was rather classified.
There was a lot of aspects that remain classified and still are classified to this day.
Now, with that said, were there programs before?
Well, I think that's exactly or precisely what our Congress is trying to establish right now, right?
We know that there was a Project Blue Book, and then we know that there was my program, ATIP, later on.
The question is, what was in between and what was after?
Well, we know what was after.
There's something called a UAP Task Force.
In fact, what most people don't know, and I'll tell you on your show right now for the first time, the first commander or first director of the UAP Task Force was actually my deputy during ATIP.
So there was a succession, if you will, of, I guess, in the vernacular power, right?
So it went from ATIP now to the UAP Task Force and now to this new effort we call AIM or the AOIMSG.
Of course, my lovely department loves these wonderfully long acronyms.
But in essence, it's a working group trying to bring together the entire intelligence community and the Department of Defense to try to finally figure out once and for all what the heck are these things that we're seeing in our sky.
And by the way, what we're about to do now is having these public hearings in front of all the world's.
And I want to get to that in just a second.
Let's just complete the question now.
You've answered the first part of it very thoroughly.
But if you were part of this and presumably learning a great deal more about it, perhaps more than you can say, and I'm looking at you now, you can give me an indication of whether you know more than you can say.
I suspect you do.
You have to if you were doing that.
Why would you leave that?
If you were so committed to it and you clearly believe, and we've spoken before and I have no doubt in what you say, if you believe in the importance of what you're doing and the importance of getting answers to these important questions that are vital for humanity, it seems to me.
Why would you leave that?
Well, Howard, it's a matter of principle and integrity, right?
Anybody in the military and even in the UK, I had the honor and privilege of working with some of the UK's finest British SAS, MI5, MI6.
There is this code of ethic that we have in national security.
And that is, if you can't fix something from within, you don't stick around and make it worse.
What needed fixing?
Well, the bureaucracy.
So it was to the point where we had these incidents occurring on a very regular and routine basis.
And there was no one In my chain of command, that I could report this to, even though it was my job.
It was assigned by Congress to do this job.
Nobody wanted to know, or there were individuals in my chain of command that, frankly, I hate to say this, but couldn't be trusted.
There were investigations against them already for some other issues.
And so I wound up having to go to the very, very top.
And in this particular case, there was then Secretary Jim Mattis, somebody who had the honor and privilege to serve with in combat with.
And this is a person I've always known that wanted more information, not less.
And yet some of the, if you will, the proverbial Rio Brian guards around him, because of this topic, didn't want him getting briefed.
Now, keep in mind that on the backdrop that I'm getting emails on a daily basis from Navy captains saying, hey, look, Lou, I got these things all over my ship.
I can't keep people below deck forever.
What do you want me to do?
Right.
So there's these cries, these pleas for help.
Right.
And you're the guy they go to.
You don't have an answer for them.
And then you're passing it up the chain, trying to find somebody who's going to help you take this forward.
And they either don't want to know or somebody is stopping them from taking it further.
I can imagine that that's a situation that must have driven you nuts.
Well, it did.
And unfortunately, I wound up having to ultimately resign because I knew when I resigned that my resignation letter, which unfortunately got leaked, so most people can find it online now, was addressed directly to the Secretary of Defense.
I knew if I wrote that resignation letter, and because I'd worked with him before, I had a very good reputation in the department, that they would not be able to stop that.
And so that's precisely what I did.
And it's, by the way, really not that uncommon.
If you look at Secretary Mattis himself, almost a year later to the date, he resigned himself.
And it's not really that uncommon both in the UK and the US.
If you can't fix something inside, you do the right thing.
Maybe it's the gentlemanly thing.
I don't know.
Maybe it's a matter of integrity.
So you did what, look, you did what I would do.
If I was in that situation, I wouldn't stick around.
I would want to try and make change from outside.
But I'm working in the media.
You were working with national security.
It's maybe not an easy thing to just walk out.
Did they just shake you by the hand, present you with a gift and say thank you for your service?
Or did they say thank you for your service and make sure you don't talk about this?
Yeah, more of the latter.
There were some elements that were very, let's just say not very happy with me leaving and having this conversation.
And then you started talking about it.
What did they say then?
Well, it's not so much what they said, it's what they did.
They tried to investigate me.
They tried to come after me.
They tried to remove my security clearance.
They admitted that they deleted all my emails and files and records, even though there was a preservation order, court ordered, preservation order, in effect to protect all my communications.
They decided to delete it.
I'm always being pushed over time here now.
That's just the nature of the beast, Luce.
So I just want to conclude this segment by asking you this, because I think it's important.
You say that they tried to, there were people trying to stop you, discredit you.
Is that still going on?
If you could give me a short answer to that, but I think it's important.
I think to a much less degree.
I think there's enough people involved right now and they know what's going on that some of that has subsided.
There are still people not very happy with me, but they're becoming more and more the minority.
Big night for us.
Lou Elizondo is in the United States.
I don't want to waste a moment of this.
Lou, talk to me, will you, about the hearings that are going to be happening on Tuesday, because the media here is not really saying very much about it, and these are going to be significant, aren't they?
Yeah, I mean, I think it's historic.
I mean, not in 50 years, you know, more than half a century, have lawmakers sat down and began to grill the government, the U.S. government, on this topic.
And this is not just a bunch of Air Force people.
These are the senior intelligence officials within the Department of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence himself and one of his representatives, Scott Bray, a senior office of naval intelligence individual.
So I do think it's historic.
I also think we need to manage expectations.
I think if people are expecting some sort of revelatory admission that, you know, we've been keeping aliens in freezers or something like that in the last 50 years, I think people are going to be disappointed.
I think people are getting sick.
I'm sorry to jump in, but they're getting sick of the sound of a can being kicked down the road.
We've talked about this before, Lou, haven't we?
That, you know, we need to be getting somewhere.
And the interim report that was released last June was released on a Friday, so people couldn't pour over it.
You know, it was the weekend, so they managed to slip that out.
It didn't tell us very much.
I think the public are interested now, and that's going to be gratifying for both of us.
But we need to be hearing something.
We need to be thrown a little red meat here.
We need to.
They know things that we don't know.
And we need to know at least some of them.
I think what we're going to see is, look, first of all, this is not a one-hit wonder, so to speak, or a one-trick pony, as we like to say in my community.
I think people can expect more hearings.
This is just the first.
This is the very beginning.
And I think you're going to see Congress asking some questions to put DOD on notice.
Basically, what are you doing?
Who are you doing it with?
And what are you learning?
It's still very preliminary right now, but this is going to set the tone for future hearings.
And I think what we're going to see here, to some degree, is a lot of pro forma.
We're working, for example, with the intelligence community.
We've established this working group.
We're starting to have reports come in.
And what you're going to see is Congress setting a box, if you will, around the department and basically saying, okay, what are you doing and what do you need help with?
And by the way, if you say you don't need help, then fine.
But the next time we have this conversation, then you have no excuses for not providing answers.
And so I think that's what we're going to see.
I think we're going to see after this, probably more hearings.
You know, I hate to say how long.
I don't think it's going to be that long from now.
I think Congress is very determined.
And by the way, this is just a House.
So you have the HIPSI, which is the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Armed Services Committee involved to some degree.
And then you have the Senate side.
And here in the United States, we have two, if you will, committees or houses within our Congress.
You have the Senate, you have the House.
The Senate hasn't had hearings yet.
So the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, that hasn't happened yet.
So this is just the first.
This is just the House trying to get a lay of the land.
And you do, by the way, have a lot of members.
And these aren't just, you know, people that are hobbyists and interested in UFOs.
These are, in some cases, they chair some very senior committees.
So they're interested.
And they've also received some classified briefings.
That has been a lot more than just some grainy video that the average person gets to see on TV.
And so I think if there's any telltale sign, the level of commitment by Congress, you're now seeing it because they're putting their credibility on the line here.
Right.
A number of people politically have had their say recently.
And again, I think you'll have found this, I know you'll have found this more than interesting.
There's a Republican called Tim Burchett from Tennessee.
And I quote from him that he said that he didn't trust the Department of Defense after the latest secret briefings on UFOs, quotes.
Those are the last ones that happened.
Then there is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a very interesting person and a new name to most of us in the last year or so, member of both committees, calling the phenomena an urgent issue, quotes, and for the first time expressing her public dissatisfaction at the response.
So there seems to be, and that's just two people we're talking about here within the political firmament, there seems to be a groundswell of people politically saying we need to get some answers about that.
And they must be saying that because they may have been told that there is information and it is time for that information to surface.
What do you say?
Well, I think you're absolutely correct.
Look, this is a bipartisan issue.
You have Republicans and Democrats who normally wouldn't even look at each other in some sort of hearing, and yet they're co-sponsoring legislation and now law for greater transparency into this topic.
I've had the honor and privilege of speaking to several individuals on the Hill.
I won't say who.
And these individuals are very serious about this topic.
Senator Gillibrand and Marco Rubio and Congressman Tim Brushed and Gallagos and Gallagher.
And these are individuals, Warner, these are individuals who have a lot of responsibility and yet they want answers.
And yes, they've been told one thing by the Department of Defense and they've been told other things by pilots, right?
People have come in and actually said, hey, look, this is what I saw.
And here's a video.
Their staff has seen videos at the top secret level.
So you're not going to fool these people.
And I think when people say, well, I don't trust the U.S. government, look, I hate to be, I'm not a conspiracy theorist guy and I worked for the government, but we've done some dumb things in the past and we haven't always been forthcoming.
And this is no exception.
I mean, we can go back and say, you know, Vietnam and Watergate and Pentagon papers and, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Unfortunately, the normal reaction by our national security apparatus the moment something comes out that's salacious or conspiratorial is to shut it down.
First of all, they try to ignore it.
And then when they can't ignore it, they do what they did to me.
They try to obfuscate and try to destroy the credibility of the topic.
They go on an attack.
And only when that fails, then they are forced to come to the table like you see now and say, okay, yeah, maybe we probably should have a conversation.
And I think we're at that point.
I think the conversation has changed.
And I think we're well into the big, as people want to say, are we into disclosure now?
I think we are.
Right.
And what would you, based on what you know, what would you like to come out of these first hearings then?
What would you like, what tidbit or nugget would you like to be thrown to us, the masses who are interested and the waiting media?
Well, first and foremost, the truth and only the truth.
But second of all, I wish it is big truth.
And I wish just a fraction of what I was privy to would be provided in the public arena.
Unfortunately, I'm not privy to some of the internal discussions, and I certainly don't have any ability to influence that decision.
But I think if you had a chance to see what I've seen in the program that I ran, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
We'd be having an entirely different conversation.
That is a ton of email about all of this.
And again, I'm jumping in, and that's just because the hands of that clock.
We'll do a longer podcast at some point if you ever have the time to worry.
You said the stuff that you are privy to.
Now, a lot of my emails have basically said, Lue El is Ondo, and I know that you will be bound by non-disclosure agreements, requirements of the Department of Defense, and all the rest of it, which are very serious shackles that bind.
I understand that.
But I still have to ask you, you say that you're privy to things.
Are they the sorts of things that somebody who'd studied the possibility that we were not alone in this universe might actually connect with?
In other words, some of the things that you know, do they suggest that?
I mean, I don't think that's a secret.
If it's not our technology and it's not adversarial Russian or Chinese technology, then we've got a bigger discussion on our hands, don't we?
Sure.
have to do some serious soul searching.
But do you...
Or do you suspect it in your gut?
I'm fairly confident in my assertion.
And that assertion is that it's not our technology and it's not foreign technology.
Much beyond that, I want to allow the government an opportunity to tell Congress what it knows.
This is a conversation that we all need to have together.
It's really not up to me to just say, here, folks, here's here's all the answers.
Right.
You know, this this is a bit of a process.
We come back to the tip of the spear then, because here you are.
I mean, I see your face.
You're not going anywhere.
They are the indication that you are the beacon for those people to I'm not going away.
That's you.
It's time for us to be led as a population and not just the American population, but the world's population to be led towards what so many of us suspect has been the truth for so long.
These are floodgates.
This is the 75th anniversary of Roswell this year.
It is time, isn't it, for those floodgates to open?
I believe so.
I think they should have opened a long time ago.
I do understand some of the rationale why people may have wanted to keep this this conversation under wraps.
There are some some very compelling reasons.
I don't by the way, for the record, I don't agree with those reasons, but but I I can understand those reasons why people actually thought they were doing their their doing their duty, their patriotic duty by keeping this this conversation out of the public out of the out of the public.
But the difficulty always, Lou, isn't it, is that we've always known that, yes, we understand that for reasons of national security, what the people can accept, what we can afford to tell them at this point of time.
We know why for all of these decades we've had to go easy, maybe on some of this and not reveal all that there is to be revealed.
But the problem with that is always, isn't it?
And those who reveal anything now are going to be accused of this is when any kind of reveal comes.
The world's media and some of the public and people who follow ufology will say, but you lied to us.
You lied to us for decades.
So this has got to be done, isn't it, in a way that it reduces reduces the backlash.
Well, we we have to reduce that backlash.
We have to provide some sort of language, some sort of amnesty.
Look, I know people want their pound of flesh, but that's not very helpful towards finding the truth.
You know, there's been examples in the past where we have people that horrible things to each other.
And we've offered this, you know, truth and reconciliation where we offer amnesty, if you will, to individuals and say, look, if you come out and you have a conversation, we will make sure we continue to protect the information and you commensure to the level that you're used to.
But the time has come to have the conversation because ultimately it's just good governance.
At some point, all secrets have a shelf life and they begin to.
I've said this before, you know, this is this is not a conversation like fine wine where the longer you keep a cork on it, the more you keep a cork on it.
The better the wine.
In this case, this is more of a conversation like old vegetables in the refrigerator.
And the longer they stay in there, the more it's going to stink.
That's right.
So I think the time has come for us to have this conversation.
We do know that there's other countries that are very interested in this topic from a national security perspective.
I'm not going to say which ones right now, but but, you know, some of them aren't very friendly to.
the united states so so we we probably need to to really begin to get on the stick on this and open the aperture and bring more of the of the talent that resides in the u.s government and frankly with our allies look let's howard i got to tell you i know maybe we're short on time here but in the law it says we have to work with our foreign allies and partners well to the top of the list you uk i mean you guys are are our are our brothers and and in every every endeavor we've ever undertook
Um, so, so we need to be a part of this.
Look, I've got a whole stack of questions and I'm sorry to my listener viewer that I'm not going to be able to ask all of them.
I wonder if you can try and I'm sorry to put you in this position, Luke, to give me short is answers to all of these questions that I'm going to put as many as I can anyway.
Um, starting with one from Jonathan who says, uh, and I read this as well, Jim Green, ex NASA chief scientist reportedly said recently, well, he did say recently that we will have an alien encounter within the next few years.
Do you agree?
Says Jonathan.
Um, you know, I, I, I don't know if I can agree with, with a person.
I can tell you that NASA is, is very much, um, dedicating itself right now to this topic.
Um, you have the director of NASA himself, who is a former Senator, uh, who has said for the record that the topic of UAPs is a priority for them.
And I think, um, you did not hear this from me, but I think there may be some interesting announcements coming from NASA in the very near future regarding this topic that may be very, very promising for a lot of people.
And when you say some interesting announcements, just give me a clue.
What do you think?
Um, you know, maybe dedicating some more resources and time and attention, uh, in a more formal and official capacity, uh, to, to this, to this topic.
Because the new director has taken more of an interest.
Okay.
Question from Ian, um, who used to work technically for the BBC.
So he's got a certain amount of technical knowledge about these things.
Ian says, does Luis have an opinion regarding the idea that some UAPs, uh, maybe 3D atmospheric plasma objects generated by focused military lasers?
In other words, they're projections.
They're not really there.
Sure.
I mean, we're talking about, so we're really starting to get in the world of electronic warfare.
Um, things such as a pro for old programs we used to have like Nemesis, where we try to spoof, um, uh, enemy radar and let them think that there's something there that's not or vice versa.
But in reality, it's hard to do that with, with the naked eye.
Um, you know, we have a, this, this vernacular, we call it the Mark one eyeball.
Um, and in reality, it's very tough to spoof.
You can spoof a radar a lot easier than you can spoof a human eyeball.
And then of course you have, um, the technology issue.
Um, you're talking about being able to project things, uh, images in some cases, 30, 40,000 feet in the atmosphere.
Um, you have the issue with, with focusing, uh, optics, uh, because the atmosphere scatters beams.
And then last but not least, you have a temporal issue.
Um, does the technology exist?
Okay.
Well, let's say it does maybe.
two years ago we we invented it but in reality we've been seeing these things since the 1940s and 50s so when we didn't have that technology we didn't have that technology right so even if you know someone to argue well you know okay we have it now but we didn't have it back then so so how do you explain that i don't know i think it's a good question ian and thank you for that but that you know that's that is one of the issues that we have to put in the deck here uh Brian in Massachusetts,
one of my American viewers, says, I'd like to know who Lewis thinks are the UAP information gatekeepers for the American government.
In other words, who's keeping those floodgates shut and who's going to have to let them open when they do?
It's not really an opinion.
I'm pretty aware where those gates lie.
Unfortunately, I'm not able to have that discussion right now.
I've said before, I know it's frustrating for people, but this is a process.
Disclosure is not an event.
This is a relay race.
This is a very delicate topic.
This is not just trying to satisfy idle curiosity.
There's a lot of implications and ramifications of this conversation that have to be sorted out.
Right.
But the gatekeepers, are they within the military?
Are they within the government?
Are they within what has been called the military-industrial complex?
Where are the gatekeepers?
Yes, yes, I'm interested to know.
So it's all of those things.
It's a lot more complex than I think people.
It's not like someone just sitting behind a desk and kind of looking at their computer and laughing and saying, ha ha ha, you will not have access to this.
It's far more sophisticated than that.
I'll leave it at that.
Okay, listener Brad asks me this to ask you.
If there is another power from, you know, somewhere external to us here on Earth using such advanced aerial technology as we've seen on display with the Tic Tac UFOs and the rest of it, why haven't they made any kind of move yet?
They've just been kind of displaying to us.
Well, but isn't that communication?
I mean, look, if you're expecting someone to come down and speak your language and your vocabulary, well, I would challenge you to go to any international airport.
And chances are that's not kind of a tall order.
What is communication?
It doesn't have to be verbal.
Look, if you and I, Howard, if I go like this to you from across the room and I wave my hand to you, you know, that's, I'm communicating an intent to you.
Just like if I decide to stick up my middle finger, I'm also communicating to you different intent.
There's lots of ways to communicate.
And I'll give you a case in point.
When a Russian bear bomber comes off the coast of California or Alaska, what do we do?
Well, we scramble two F-22 fighter jets and we go intercept.
Now we don't talk, but believe it, we are absolutely communicating an intent.
In essence, if you don't get out of airspace, bad things are going to happen.
You don't have to talk to communicate.
And one could argue the fact that we see these things around in and around our nuclear equities and they've had the ability to disable some of our nuclear equities and in some cases, turn them on in other countries.
That is communication.
There's clearly signaling some sort of intent.
They're giving us the message then.
The message is we have this power and we don't necessarily like the fact, I guess, that you have this nuclear arsenal, you know, the United States or the other.
Not necessarily.
You know, I think we have to be careful on jumping to that conclusion.
Look, if I may, just for a minute, Howard, and I do not want to push a threat narrative.
I know a lot of people get very worried and because I'm a national security guy or former national security guy, oh, there's a threat narrative.
That's not the point.
But if you look at this truly, truly, truly, objectively, and you say, okay, let's say that they're here and they're trying to disable, you know, trying to dissuade us from using nuclear weapons.
Well, what happened in 1945?
My country vaporized 500,000 human beings, living souls, off the face of the planet with the dropping of Hiroshima bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nowhere were UFOs there.
In fact, nowhere were UFOs when we were testing them in the Nevada range, when China was testing, when Pakistan and when India were testing their nukes, when Russia was blowing them up in the atmosphere.
Nowhere were there UFOs.
There weren't UFOs there for World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam.
They weren't there for COVID.
They weren't there for world hunger.
There's very, very little evidence to suggest that whatever these are, they're here to help.
Now, it doesn't mean that they're not.
It just means that there's no obvious signs that they're here to help.
Now, what we do see is obvious signs of surveillance.
They are definitely interested in our military and our nuclear capabilities and not just ours, other countries.
So that we do see.
But so the question is.
But the question is, isn't it?
And I'm sorry again, that clock is counting me down here, is whether once they've done the displays, they're going to one day do something.
Do you think that's likely, just in a way?
Well, I think it's possible.
I don't know if it's likely.
I think it's possible.
Because of that, we have to understand that.
Anything that is, even if there's a remote possibility, anytime there's an asteroid and there's a one in 10,000 chance that an asteroid could hit the Earth, it's still a possibility.
We need to be prepared.
We need to know, right?
We need to know its trajectory.
We need to know where it's going to be.
That's just good governance.
That's just due diligence.
So I'm not opposed to that.
I don't think we should let fear control us.
I don't think we should let it drive our decision making, our decision-making matrix.
But I do think that it's a fair part of the equation.
Okay.
I've been given one minute handed to me like a golden nugget, so I'm going to ask you quickly this.
It's a quick point I think can probably be dealt with fast, but let's see.
Kay Costa emailed and asked about the claims that one of President Jimmy Carter's team saw classified pictures of a crashed saucer and military teams around it.
There have been a number of claims of that kind.
Do you know anything of the veracity of that?
I do.
I can't talk about it, but there are individuals that have actually come through some very interesting, sensitive, classified documents on behalf of certain presidents.
And, you know, there's a lot of information there.
So there were some presidents who knew more than they were able to let on.
I think that's a safe assumption.
Isn't that interesting?
Okay, let's park it there.
We'll take those commercials.
We'll come straight back for a couple more minutes.
Lou, thank you for giving me this time tonight.
I know you are the busiest man in America.
Very important week upcoming with those hearings.
Lou Elizondo, my guest, and I'm going to ask a couple more of your questions and then we are done.
But we've learned a lot, I think, tonight.
Lou, I think I've only got time for two more questions.
One is going to be from a listener.
One is going to be from me.
This is from John.
John asks, and we had Jeremy Corbel, who I'm sure you know on this show a while back.
But could you ask, Louis, what is opinion on Jeremy Corbel's video of the UAP swarm over the U.S. Navy fleet off the coast of California, especially the pyramidal object within that.
I'm sure you're aware of that.
What do you think?
Without actually discussing the specifics of the video, because if there is, first of all, anything that's leaked, I really can't talk about because I do have a non-disclosure agreement with the U.S. government.
So I'm not allowed to confirm or deny if something was actually authentic.
But what I think I can say is that Jeremy Corbel has done a fantastic job getting some of the conversation going as it relates to some of these incidents.
Because of course, on one hand, some of the members of the government say, yeah, nothing to see here, folks.
We didn't have an incident.
And all of a sudden, you have Jeremy Corbel coming out and say, well, what about this video that was taken by some of your folks two weeks ago, right?
And this video and this video and this data and this, you know, so Jeremy has been very, very successful in helping the conversation continue to move forward because a lot of times when the government says something, you know, sometimes just not entirely accurate.
And I'm not saying it's deliberate or it's for whatever reason they may have.
But I think Jeremy's been very successful.
You know, I don't know Jeremy very well.
I know of his work and I applaud him for what he's doing.
Jeremy is doing, he's attacking this problem from a slightly different perspective than I am.
You know, I'm bound by, again, by my non-disclosure agreement.
So I have to do things very much in a semi-official capacity.
I totally get that.
But what it means actually is that there are some people who are putting their necks on the block to be able to put that material out there, to put it in the hands of the market.
100%.
100%.
And it's not just Jeremy.
Jeremy's got a lot of really good sources, but it's the sources themselves that are risking a lot.
They know that they can get into a lot of trouble, but they're doing this because they feel compelled to because nobody's listening to them.
They'll tell you, listen, nobody cares.
I mean, everybody on the ship saw it.
It's almost like the worst joke around because we all know they're real.
We see them.
And yet we're told not to say anything.
The world is going to, I mean, this is for me, this last one, Lou.
And we've talked, like I say before, the one issue that hangs over all of this is the most intriguing one of all.
And sadly, the nature of the beast is we only have a minute left now.
But once this disclosure thing happens, and as we walk that road little by little and the signposts along the road, you know, we pass.
The world won't be the same place again, will it?
It'll be very different.
But that's okay, isn't it?
I mean, the world's always changing.
There's no such thing as a static world.
I mean, look at you and I. Take a picture of you 10 years ago and compare it to it now.
Change is, you know, nature changes.
Seasons change.
In fact, if you say, well, I'm going to be back here again tomorrow, no, you won't.
It's impossible because the mere fact is that the Earth is hurtling through the universe, around our solar system, around the Milky Way.
You'll never, ever be in the same place ever again.
It's impossible.
And so the world and the universe isn't static.
And so why should our understanding of anything, look when Sir Isaac Newton from your country, right?
Sir Isaac Newton came out and started proposing that our observations in nature can be explained through mathematics.
People thought he was crazy.
It turned out, oh my gosh, he was right.
Same thing with Darwin.
And then it turns out that this crazy cat with funny hair named Albert Einstein says, well, actually, space and time is flexible.
And it's a little bit more complex than that.
Everybody thought he was crazy.
And then they realized, wow, relativity is true.
And then, you know, 67 years ago, we have this introduction of quantum physics, right?
And someone explained it that you have a box and a dog walks into a box and all of a sudden, two minutes later, two cats walk out.
And yet that's kind of what we're observing, right?
This spooky action at a distance.
The universe isn't static and neither is our understanding.
There have been paradigm moments for our species over and over again where we have realized that our entire perception of the universe has been entirely wrong.
And that's okay because that's how we grow.
That's the definition of human evolution.
And so although those moments don't really happen very often in a single lifetime, they do happen a lot as a species.
Perhaps the first time when we walked out of a cave and we realized how big our world really is, the second time, maybe when mankind struck two stones together and created sparks and all of a sudden fire and now we can illuminate the darkness for the first time.
And maybe looking over a beach and saying, I'm going to sail over the horizon one day.
And everybody said, no, you're not, because you're going to fall off the edge of the world.
And, you know.
So we must have no fear.
Nobody's going to die.
This is just part of our progression.
This is Mother Nature.
And we must remember Mother Nature has a vote.
And whether we are prepared or not, usually the species winds up doing better.
I don't think anybody should be running around with their hands in the air.
I think this is a very serious topic, but I also think that our species can handle it.
You know, I say that, and of course, and I look at social media, and I'm questioning myself.
Maybe we're not.
But no, I think as a whole, I think we're ready.
I think that the vast majority of humans, I don't think they're going to be really surprised.
So all we need is to change governments or anything like that.
Are those decision makers and all of those people we talked about in the course of this conversation, which I'm very grateful for?
All we need is for them to listen to you.
Lou, listen, I know that you are the busiest man in America right now and you've got another interview to do, so I'm going to let you go.
Thank you very, very much for giving me your time, and thank you also to Sean for making this happen, Lou.
Please tell me.
I will.
Howard, honor and privilege doing this.
Sean's an amazing human being.
Next time in the UK, let's go grab a pint.
I'd love to do that.
And I'll take you to a nice place to do that.
Luis Elezondo, thank you so much.
Have a good day.
Your thoughts about Luis Elezondo and what he had to say?
Very valid and gratefully received.
If you want to send me your thoughts, then go to the website, follow the link, and send me an email from there, the website being theunexplained.tv.
We have more great guests in the pipeline here at the home of the unexplained online.
So until next, We meet.
My name is Howard Hughes.
The last time I checked, please, whatever you do, stay safe, stay calm, and above all else, please stay in touch.
This has been The Unexplained.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection