Ex-Pentagon Official Elizondo Says US Holds Non-Human Craft Materials

前五角大楼官员Elizondo称美国持有非人类飞行器材料 前AATIP主管Luis Elizondo表示，不明异常现象展现出超越人类能力的先进技术，并带来了尚未解决的国家安全风险。 Luis Elizondo详细介绍了其主持高级航空航天威胁识别计划（AATIP）期间的工作，并探讨了军方遭遇不明异常现象（UAP）的事件，包括2004年Tic Tac和Gimbal事件等多传感器证据。他断言人类并不孤单，并解释称UAP展现出了瞬间加速以及在没有可见推进系统的情况下进行跨介质航行等异常能力。Elizondo还谈及了美国政府的保密机制、历史遗留的回收项目、核设施附近的遭遇，以及这些无法解释现象所带来的安全影响。 前五角大楼高级官员路易斯·埃利桑多（Luis Elizondo）明确表示人类在宇宙中绝非唯一智慧生命，并透露多名美军人员因在军方记录的 UAP（不明异常现象）遭遇事件中遭受健康损伤，目前正在领取政府伤残补助金。 (0:00) 埃利桑多辞职前主导的 AATIP 项目将研究重点放在五类独特的可观测特征上，包括承受超过 2,000 至 3,000 G 的瞬间加速、超高音速急转以及在太空、大气和水下无缝切换的跨介质航行能力。 (24:04) 埃利桑多因五角大楼高层拒绝就飞行安全威胁向时任国防部长吉姆·马蒂斯（Jim Mattis）等最高层汇报，并系统性压制军方飞行员报告而选择抗议辞职。 (20:14) 公开的“Gimbal”与“Tic Tac”等著名录像仅是军方拥有的说服力最弱的材料，更清晰的高清雷达与传感器记录因涉及高度机密的情报搜集手段而未被公开。 (33:42) 埃利桑多证实美国政府手中掌握有回收的 UAP 实体残骸材料，经检测这些奇异材料具有完全不符合人类工艺制造特征的物理与结构属性。 (41:51)

Former Pentagon intelligence official Luis Elizondo contends that unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) represent a verified physical reality backed by decades of multi-sensor military data rather than foreign technology or delusion. He argues that institutional secrecy, bureaucratic self-preservation, and an inability to counter these incursions have systematically prevented elected officials and the public from understanding the national security implications. Multi-Sensor Corroboration and Anomalous Flight Capabilities (24:04) Elizondo asserts that military assessments of UAPs do not rely on anecdotal sightings, but on overlapping corroboration across independent military sensor suites. During encounters evaluated by the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)—such as the 2004 USS Nimitz incident involving the 'Tic Tac' craft and the 2014–2015 USS Theodore Roosevelt encounters—targets were tracked simultaneously by AN/SPY-1 phased-array shipboard radar, airborne early warning systems, forward-looking infrared (FLIR) cameras, and naval aviators. In the 2004 incident, after disappearing from sight, the object reappeared 60 miles away at the pilots' classified rendezvous point within seconds. According to Elizondo, genuinely anomalous craft consistently display five performance observables that exceed known human aeronautical engineering: instantaneous acceleration pulling between 2,000 and 3,000 Gs (far beyond the roughly 17 G structural limit of an F-16), hypersonic speeds between 10,000 and 13,000 mph without visible propulsion or control surfaces, low radar observability, and transmedium travel seamlessly bridging space, the atmosphere, and underwater environments without performance degradation. He notes that declassified footage released to the public represents the least compelling evidence available, as higher-resolution recordings remain classified to prevent adversaries from gauging sensitive U.S. sensor capabilities. Nuclear Interference and Physical Health Impacts (66:11) A primary justification for treating UAPs as a critical national security issue rather than an academic curiosity is their recurring operational interest in nuclear assets. Elizondo reports that UAPs have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to disable launch systems at nuclear facilities. Furthermore, KGB documentation shared during the post-Cold War diplomatic period described an incident where an unidentified craft actively initiated the launch sequence of Russian nuclear warheads before shutting down. Elizondo clarifies that while UAP intent remains unknown, their unimpeded penetration of restricted airspace over critical defense infrastructure represents an unmanaged security vulnerability. Direct physical exposure to operating UAPs has also caused documented medical trauma. Elizondo reports that U.S. service members—including Air Force Special Police officer John Burroughs, whose medical records were declassified following intervention by Senator John McCain after the Rendlesham Forest incident—receive official Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits for injuries incurred during documented encounters. Elizondo attributes these physiological injuries to intense directed-energy or radiation fields surrounding the craft, comparing close exposure to standing near an unshielded jet engine or industrial microwave. Institutional Secrecy, Retaliation, and Oversight Deficits (36:36) Elizondo attributes decades of government nondisclosure to Cold War priorities, the legal liability of legacy programs operating outside congressional purview, and the reluctance of authorities to admit they cannot defend airspace against these objects. He highlights historical policy concerns that acknowledging non-human technology would trigger widespread social panic and institutional collapse, leading officials to intentionally stigmatize reporting pilots as unstable. This internal resistance prompted Elizondo's own resignation from the Pentagon after leadership refused to brief senior defense officials, including then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. Government disclosure remains constrained by rigorous vetting and active retaliation against whistleblowers. While publishing his book, Elizondo underwent a year-long Defense Office of Pre-publication and Security Review (DOPSR) process, leaving redacted passages intact to demonstrate where the Department of Defense legally restricted details, including discussions of Area 51 and recovered exotic materials lacking human manufacturing signatures. Beyond formal review, Elizondo cites extrajudicial leaks of whistleblower personnel files—such as the rapid release of intelligence officer David Grusch's personal medical records—and references lethal force authorizations around top-secret facilities as evidence of the lengths defense institutions will take to shield legacy assets. Evaluating Alternative Hypotheses and Human Scale (72:15) Elizondo rejects conventional skeptical explanations attributing sightings to foreign adversary advancements or collective psychological delusion. He contends that adversarial explanations collapse under historical timelines: physical UAPs displaying identical capabilities have been tracked over continental airspace since the late 1940s, an era when neither the Soviet Union nor China possessed the industrial capability to field transmedium, gravity-defying propulsion decades ahead of modern physics. Conversely, dismissing thousands of corroborating multi-sensor radar feeds, optical captures, and military pilot testimonies as mass hallucination would imply that the personnel managing U.S. tactical air defenses and nuclear systems suffer from systemic psychiatric breakdowns. To counter anthropocentric assumptions regarding 'aliens,' Elizondo stresses that human perception is constrained by a narrow band of visible sensory inputs and physical scale. He notes that humanity only discovered microorganisms—the planet's dominant biomass—roughly a century ago, and mapped less than 10 percent of the ocean floor. By contextualizing Earth through Carl Sagan's 'Pale Blue Dot' perspective, Elizondo suggests uncataloged intelligences could originate from terrestrial, oceanic, or non-spatial domains rather than distant planets, warning against projecting human motives or technological limits onto non-human entities. Elizondo concludes that humanity is not alone in the universe, emphasizing that evaluating UAP reality requires data-driven analysis rather than rigid skepticism or blind belief. However, the precise origin, ultimate intent, and technical mechanics of these craft remain unresolved, leaving open the pressing question of how sovereign governments will establish operational defense doctrines and transparent oversight for anomalous incursions.

前美国国防部官员路易斯·埃利桑多（Luis Elizondo）指出，多传感器军事雷达与红外数据证实了不明异常现象（UAP）的客观存在，且美国政府掌握着非人类制造的实物材料。他强调，这些飞行器频繁干扰核设施并具备超越人类空气动力学的技术，但长期以来的军方保密文化、污名化策略与官僚阻力阻碍了真相的公开。 多传感器验证与五大可观测特征 (10:30) 埃利桑多强调，高级航空威胁识别计划（AATIP）的研究严格建立在军事级数据之上，而非不可靠的民间目击报告。以2004年“Tic Tac”事件和“Gimbal”视频为例，目标不仅被训练有素的战斗机飞行员目视确认，还同时被提康德罗加级导弹巡洋舰上的AN/SPY-1相控阵雷达、E-2鹰眼预警机、机载雷达以及前视红外（FLIR）设备协同锁定。这些独立设备记录的数据排除了单一仪器故障、罕见大气现象或集体幻觉的可能性。在军事情报分析中，真正将UAP与已知飞行器区分开来的是五大反常的可观测特征：其一是能承受2000至3000G过载的瞬时加速度，远超人类战机约17G的结构极限；其二是能够在无可见控制翼面、铆钉或喷气尾焰的情况下，以10000至13000英里/小时的高超音速飞行并完成直角转弯；此外还展现出极低的可探测性，以及能在低地球轨道、大气层与水下无缝穿梭的跨介质航行能力。埃利桑多指出，已向公众解密的视频实际上是军方库存中清晰度最差的部分，更清晰的影像因涉及雷达频率、光学精度等核心侦察情报而仍处于高度保密状态。 国家安全隐患与核设施受袭记录 (66:11) 埃利桑多将UAP定性为重大的国家安全关切，并借用“客厅地毯上的泥泞鞋印”作比喻：即使未发生直接攻击，当领空和敏感设施被自由出入时，军方就必须彻底查清其来源。他反驳了这些飞行器属于中俄秘密技术的假设，指出UAP在美国领空活跃已超过70年，若外国在1940年代末期即掌握重力偏转技术而17个美国情报机构完全不知情，将代表着比9/11事件更严重的情报崩溃。更具实质威胁的是其与核武器设施的互动。情报记录显示，UAP不仅多次使美国军方的核发射系统陷入瘫痪，解密的俄罗斯克格勃档案还记录了UAP曾直接启动俄方核弹头准备发射程序的极端事件。此外，埃利桑多证实多名美军服役人员在近距离接触UAP后，因遭受类似高能量微波或定向辐射场的伤害而患病；在已故参议员约翰·麦凯恩（John McCain）强制解密医疗档案后，包括兰德尔舍姆森林事件（Rendlesham Forest incident）当事人约翰·巴勒斯（John Burroughs）在内的军人，目前正通过退伍军人事务部（VA）享受完全的医疗伤残补助福利。 机构阻力、泄密惩罚与审查机制 (36:36) UAP真相长期被隐瞒的原因源于冷战时期的战略优先排序、对不可控技术引发社会恐慌的担忧，以及历史违规项目缺乏国会监管的法律风险。五角大楼高层长期严禁飞行员上报事件，导致目击者面临丧失飞行资格或安全许可的恐惧。由于领导层拒绝向时任国防部长吉姆·马蒂斯（Jim Mattis）等高层全面汇报险些相撞的事件，埃利桑多选择以抗议方式辞职。他指出，由于体制内存在“民选总统只是任期数年的临时工”的思维，历任总统掌握的简报信息极为不对等，例如吉米·卡特和乔治·H·W·布什获得了简报，而比尔·克林顿申请知情却遭拒绝。针对违背保密誓言的人员，体制内手段严厉，不仅51区周边被授权可使用致命武力，国会吹哨人大卫·格鲁施（David Grusch）更在作证后24小时内遭遇个人医疗记录被非法泄露的抹黑攻击。埃利桑多强调，其新书《迫在眉睫》（Imminent）并未非法泄密，而是经过了国防部出版前安全审查处（DOPSR）长达近一年的字句审查，书中保留的灰色涂黑块正体现了政府强行删改的敏感痕迹。 非人类实体假设与打破人类认知边界 (53:17) 在解释UAP背后的实体性质时，埃利桑多告诫人们避免拟人化偏见和好莱坞式的外星人刻板印象。他指出，人类的五感和可见光光谱在宇宙全貌中极其有限，正如人类在近几百年才认识到真菌和微生物的存在一样，主导性的生命形式完全可能来自深海、未知维度或以人工智能形态存在。对于这些实体的意图，情报界目前仅掌握其能力，尚无法定论其目的。埃利桑多提出了“野外科学研究”假设：外星智慧与人类的互动可能类似于人类生物学家对待野生角马——短暂麻醉、采集血液样本、标记耳标以监测迁徙，随后任其返回群体，这可以解释全球各地的接触与劫持报告；另一种可能性则是由于人类的技术进步可能在未来100至200年内缩小技术代差，高度暴力的文明即将成为太空邻居，从而引发了外部实体的严密观察。他呼吁公众既不要陷入盲目的狂热盲信，也不要采取拒绝证据的绝对怀疑，而应以科学态度直面宇宙未知。 埃利桑多指出，尽管他将著作命名为《迫在眉睫》，但这并不意味着外星人即将发起武装入侵，而是指主权领空面临未经授权的技术穿透已是迫切需要应对的现实防御危机。然而，面对军方关键传感器元数据的持续保密、DOPSR在关键章节实施的大规模信息审查，以及各方对UAP真实意图的空白认知，全面彻底的公开透明仍面临巨大的制度壁垒。

## Background 本期访谈由知名访谈频道《The Diary Of A CEO》于2024年10月31日发布在YouTube平台。节目简介指出，曾掌管五角大楼绝密“高级航空威胁识别计划”（AATIP）的前高级情报官员路易斯·埃利桑多（Luis Elizondo）做客节目，结合其畅销书《迫在眉睫》（Imminent），揭露了五角大楼深层隐匿多年的UFO/UAP绝密内幕与国家安全威胁。 ## TL;DR 前五角大楼情报官路易斯·埃利桑多在访谈中证实，军方调查的UAP（不明异常现象）具备瞬间超数千G过载机动、极速高超音速与跨介质穿梭等彻底超越人类科技的物理特征，绝非中俄秘密武器或群体幻觉。他揭露五角大楼内部派系长达70年系统性隐瞒真相、违宪绕过国会监督，并证实美国政府确实已回收并掌握了非人类制造的实体奇异材料。此外，访谈披露了UAP频繁干预美俄核武库甚至曾激活俄方发射系统、军方人员因近距离接触致残并领取官方抚恤等惊人细节，呼吁人类摒弃傲慢的拟人化偏见，以冰冷的数据和开放的心态直面这场不可逆转的认知大变革。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话沉浸在一种严峻、肃穆且充满张力的解密氛围中，兼具军事情报实战的冷硬与触碰深空未知的战栗感。埃利桑多展现出职业特工特有的审慎与克制，在言辞严守保密法律红线的同时，透露出曾遭遇暗杀名单与人身威胁的沉重与孤勇。主持人的追问层层设防、兼顾怀疑论与哲学思考，使得节目从紧绷的国家安全内幕交锋，自然过渡到审视“暗淡蓝点”时人类彻底释怀的敬畏感，带给观众强烈的心灵震撼与智力压迫感。 ## Bulletin - [40:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2448s) 前五角大楼 AATIP 负责人路易斯·埃利桑多证实，美国政府掌握着确凿的非人类制造“奇异材料”实体，且 UAP 曾多次直接干预甚至反向激活俄美核设施系统。 - [01:03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3785s) 因近距离遭遇 UAP 释放的强物理场或辐射而遭受生理损伤的美军与情报人员，现已正式获得美国政府官方批准的全额医疗伤残补助。 - [23:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1408s) 军方总结出 UAP 的五大可观测特征，包括超过 2,000G 至 3,000G 的瞬间加速度、破万英里时速下的直角转弯机动以及跨介质无缝穿梭能力。 - [40:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2448s) 埃利桑多透露，由于历史性隐瞒已越权绕过国会长达数十年，加之军工复合体担心核心专利与隐秘工程曝光，体制内顽固势力正不惜一切手段阻挠真相解密。 ## Key takeaways - [09:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=557s) AATIP 调查的 UAP 目标展现出的飞行性能完全超越了美军已知武器库的任何现有装备，且经过了顶尖战机飞行员视距目击与机载雷达等多传感器交叉验证。 - [13:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=819s) 从 UFO 到 UAP 的术语更迭旨在消除荒诞的社会污名化，并精准涵盖这些目标无视传统升力学、能在空中、水下与太空自由穿梭的跨介质物理特性。 - [18:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1107s) 五角大楼新设立的调查机构追踪的未解 UAP 案件数量从最初的 143 起飙升突破 800 起，呈持续激增态势而非被逐一排除。 - [20:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1214s) 埃利桑多辞职抗议的导火索在于五角大楼高层蓄意对国防部长马蒂斯封锁 UAP 侵入空域与逼近战机的真实险情，导致一线部队失去应对指导。 - [23:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1408s) UAP 展现的五大物理特征（瞬间加速度超 2,000G、高超音速即时转向、低可探测性、无升力面反重力及跨介质穿行）彻底颠覆了人类现有的工程与材料物理认知。 - [33:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2022s) 五角大楼绝不解密更多高清视频的原因在于保护核心情报源与技术搜集手段，避免向外国敌对势力暴露美军雷达与光学传感器的精确侦测极限。 - [38:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2315s) 冷战时期五角大楼因无力反制 UAP 且担心引发社会信仰与经济崩溃，故意采取长期污名化战术，如今被自身长达 70 年的谎言逼入死角。 - [40:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2448s) 五角大楼与承包商少数派系长期在无国会授权下运作巨额秘密项目，因面临违宪与欺骗监督机构的刑事风险而极度恐慌真相公开。 - [40:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2448s) 美国政府手中确已回收并拥有非人类制造的“奇异材料”实体，埃利桑多在通过 DOPSR 官方出版保密审查后正式证实了这一事实。 - [42:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2540s) 内部揭秘者面临远超牢狱之灾的人身安危与职业毁弃威胁，51 区等军事禁区明确标有使用致命武力的法定授权，推动吹哨人保护立法至关重要。 - [47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2864s) 历任美国总统并未全部掌握 UAP 机密，军事情报官僚常视民选总统为四年一换的“临时工”，且庞大的军工复合体极力阻挠档案公开以保全商业垄断优势。 - [01:00:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3607s) 将未知智能预设为好莱坞式的类人生物是狭隘的拟人化偏见，造访者完全可能以人类感知光谱之外的维度、无机系统或超越常理的形态存在。 - [01:03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3785s) 因靠近 UAP 承受强物理场与高能辐射致伤的军方人员，已正式获得美国政府发放的全额医疗伤残补助，兰德尔沙姆森林事件受害者即为确凿案例。 - [01:06:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3971s) UAP 频繁在核技术设施出没并曾致使美军导弹瘫痪及俄罗斯核系统异常激活，使该现象直接上升为关乎存亡的最高级别国家安全威胁。 - [01:12:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4367s) 针对 UAP 的怀疑论在逻辑上难以成立：若归咎于中俄科技则意味着美军发生了远超 9/11 的长达 70 年的情报溃败；若归为幻觉则等于掌控核按钮的精英全员精神失常。 - [01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4688s) 2004 年“Tic Tac”尼米兹事件在巡洋舰 AN/SPY-1 相控阵雷达、预警机与战斗机红外吊舱的立体监控下发生，飞行物瞬间跨越 60 英里并精准现身于机密集结点。 - [01:30:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=5416s) 新书命名《迫在眉睫》（Imminent）并非预言毁灭性外星打击即刻来临，而是指全人类面对真相浮出水面与世界观颠覆的历史转折点已经无可回避。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=0s) 引言与震撼内幕：五角大楼的UAP机密与国家安全威胁 前美国五角大楼高级情报官员路易斯·埃利桑多（Luis Elizondo）在开篇直言不讳地指出，人类在宇宙中绝非孤身一人。作为曾主导五角大楼绝密项目“高级航空威胁识别计划”（AATIP）的负责人，他曾亲自调查不明飞行物（UFO/UAP）侵入美国管制领空的事件，并证实公众所看到的军方解密视频绝非虚构，其背后所展现的技术完全超越了美军武器库中的任何已知装备。然而，海量更为惊人的影像资料至今仍被列为最高机密，因为美国政府内部有相当一部分势力极力阻止公众讨论这一议题。 埃利桑多指出，这些现象已经构成了严峻的国家安全威胁，尤其是这些不明飞行物对全球核设施的干涉迹象。有确凿证据表明，它们甚至曾激活过俄罗斯的核设施系统。当被问及是否有人因泄露真相而入狱时，埃利桑多直言现实往往比坐牢残酷得多——他本人的生命曾多次遭受严厉威胁，但他坚信公众理应得知真相。此外，针对民间的“外星人绑架”传闻，他披露美国政府确实有部分人员因卷入UFO近距离接触事件遭受生理创伤，如今正合法领取政府的医疗伤残补助；而关于著名的51区，美国政府确实掌握着“看起来绝非人类制造”的实体材料。埃利桑多最终因对体制内部的掩盖机制极度失望，选择以辞职抗议的方式打破沉默。 - **空域入侵与技术代差**：AATIP调查证实，在敏感军事基地与美国管制领空出现的技术，完全碾压人类现有飞行器性能。 - **核安全干预**：UAP曾对美俄等国的核武库及核设施展现出直接干预能力（如启动或关闭发射系统）。 - **生理伤残抚恤**：美国政府内部已有工作人员因遭遇UAP遭受生理损伤，并正式获得官方全额伤残津贴。 --- ### [02:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=125s) 路易斯·埃利桑多的军旅与情报履历：从微生物学到反恐前线 谈及自己的真实身份，埃利桑多带着一丝自嘲与严肃表示，这取决于你问谁：“对某些人来说我可能是一个爱国者，对另一些人而言我是父亲和丈夫，而在某些人眼里，我恐怕就是魔鬼。”他在迈阿密大学完成了高等教育，专修微生物学、免疫学以及寄生虫学。这段严格的理科训练使他始终将自己视作科学方法与实证原则的坚定追随者。大学毕业后，埃利桑多做出了一个出乎意料的决定：尽管凭借学术文凭完全有资格直接授衔成为军官，但他牢记父亲当年的告诫——“要想成为一名领袖，你必须先懂得如何去服从”，毅然选择以基层应征士兵的身份加入美国陆军。 在随军驻扎韩国并在亚洲服役一年后，埃利桑多进入了军事情报系统，并迅速被遴选加入一个特别项目，转型为美国陆军反间谍特别探员（Special Agent）。他曾长期在拉美、南美和中美洲指挥严密的谍报调查工作。在“9·11”恐怖袭击爆发后，埃利桑多被派往阿富汗及中东战区前线，专注于反恐作战，指挥针对真主党（Hezbollah）、伊斯兰国（ISIS）等恐怖组织的绝密跨国行动。多年的战地生涯让他在刀尖上舔血，错过了无数家庭生日与节假日，直到妻子严肃地告诫他：“下一次你再离开，可能就真的回不来了”，因为前线战友的伤亡率居高不下。为了家庭，埃利桑多重返后方转任主管，随后跨部门任职于美国国家反间谍执行局（NCIX）和国家情报总监办公室（DNI），成为一名游走于反恐、反间谍、打击毒品走私与非正规作战之间的多面手。 - **专业背景**：迈阿密大学毕业，微生物学、免疫学与寄生虫学复合背景，崇尚科学实证方法。 - **服役足迹**：曾以基层士兵身份驻守韩国，后成为陆军反间谍探员，长驻中东反恐一线负责打击真主党与极端组织。 - **跨部门履职**：先后服务于陆军反谍机关、NCIX（国家反间谍执行局）及ODNI（国家情报总监办公室）。 --- ### [04:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=278s) 2008年重返五角大楼：打破“9·11”后的情报壁垒 在2008至2009年间，埃利桑多被五角大楼紧急召回，负责主导一个涉及国家安全核心的系统工程，而这项工作最初与不明飞行物并无直接关联。这项绝密任务的核心在于实现国家级顶层情报与美国各州、地方执法机构之间的垂直整合与信息共享。埃利桑多深刻剖析道，大众普遍认为“9·11”事件完全是由恐怖分子的恶意袭击造成的，但这只是悲剧的表面结果，而非根本根源。 真正的根源在于美国内部情报机构之间的致命壁垒与体制惰性：中央情报局（CIA）、联邦调查局（FBI）和国防部（DoD）各自掌握着关键的情报拼图碎片，却深陷部门利益壁垒，彼此拒绝有效共享。这种严重的情报真空使得恐怖分子得以钻空子发动袭击。埃利桑多重返五角大楼的核心使命，就是探索一种革命性的机制：“如何将极度绝密（Super Secret）的国家情报降维解密，转化为普通一线执法人员能够直接消费并操作的形式，同时绝不危及最高情报来源和侦察手段的安全”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 911 Intelligence Failure vs Post-2008 Integration accDescr: 展现911前情报孤岛与2008年后埃利桑多主导的情报降维共享流向对比 subgraph Pre911["'9·11' 之前的情报孤岛（导致悲剧）"] CIA["中央情报局 (CIA)"] FBI["联邦调查局 (FBI)"] DOD["国防部 (DoD)"] Gap["情报壁垒与信息空白"] CIA -.-> Gap FBI -.-> Gap DOD -.-> Gap end subgraph Post2008["2008年五角大楼整合方案（埃利桑多任务）"] Intel["绝密级国家情报"] Transform["降维脱敏处理<br/>(保留情报价值/保护情报来源)"] Law["各州与地方执法部门/一线警员"] Intel --> Transform Transform --> Law end ``` --- ### [06:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=360s) 神秘接触：与火箭科学家詹姆斯·拉卡茨基博士的会面 就在着手解决跨部门情报共享难题期间，两名身佩最高权限“蓝色通行证”（Blue Badge）的情报官员走进了埃利桑多的敏感隔绝资讯设施（SCIF）。其中一人是资深情报官员杰伊·斯特拉顿（Jay Stratton），另一人由于安全协议至今姓名处于保密状态。他们声称正在寻找一位顶尖的反间谍与安全防卫专家，来为某项极度机密的官方项目筑起安全防火墙，却对项目的具体性质讳莫如深。经过几轮审慎的相互试探与专业交涉，他们最终为埃利桑多引荐了该项目的实际掌舵人——被埃利桑多誉为美国政府“首屈一指的火箭科学家”詹姆斯·拉卡茨基博士（Dr. James Lacatski）。 拉卡茨基博士在航天防御领域拥有登峰造极的威望，对弹道导弹第一级固体火箭助推器的燃料消耗率、低地轨道分导核弹头（MIRV）的重返大气层轨道速度等顶尖物理工程参数了如指掌。在一间安保森严的密室中，拉卡茨基博士向埃利桑多说明他们获得了一大笔秘密专项拨款用于推进这项任务，正需要埃利桑多这类专业谍报与安保专家的加盟。在谈话行将结束时，拉卡茨基博士推了推眼镜，目光犀利地直视埃利桑多抛出了一个突兀的问题：“你怎么看UFO（What do you think about UFOs）？” 埃利桑多陷入了短暂的错愕，随后平静地回答：“抱歉，我从不考虑它们（I don't）。”拉卡茨基追问这是否意味着他不相信UFO，埃利桑多坦承道：“不，我没这么说。你问我怎么看，我的回答是‘我不看’，因为我从不花时间去想它们。我每天都在忙着追捕恐怖分子和穷凶极恶之徒，为政府处理现实危机，根本没有奢侈的闲心去琢磨UFO。”听到这个回答，拉卡茨基博士点了点头，给予了他一段意味深长的告诫：“这很公平，但我必须提醒你：千万不要让你的‘分析偏见’（analytic bias）占据上风，因为你在这里即将学到的东西，将彻底颠覆你此前对这个世界的所有预设与固有认知。”埃利桑多走出会议室时一度怀疑这是一场精心设计的心理测试，然而随后的接触让他彻底震撼：美国政府不仅正在全力资助一项真实正规的UFO调查计划，而且那些在敏感军事要地与美军管制空域肆意游弋、性能完全未知的地外飞行器，全都是冰冷而严峻的现实。 - **接触人**：杰伊·斯特拉顿（Jay Stratton）与另一位匿名资深情报官员。 - **项目负责人**：国防情报局资深弹道与航天防御专家詹姆斯·拉卡茨基博士（Dr. James Lacatski）。 - **关键告诫**：拉卡茨基警示埃利桑多必须摒弃“分析偏见”，为颠覆人类现有认知体系的绝密事实做好心理准备。 ### [09:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=557s) 军方硬核证据：远超人类武器库的未知目标 路易斯·埃利桑多（Luis Elizondo）回顾了他最初接触到后来被称为 AATIP（高级航空航天威胁识别计划）的核心原因：军方遭遇了飞行性能彻底超越美军所有现有装备库存的未知飞行物。埃利桑多在项目中的职责，聚焦于针对 UAP（不明异常现象）入侵美国受控空域的具体调查，即所谓的“实打实的硬核调查”（nuts and bolts investigations）。他特别强调，他们调查的绝对不是“老奶奶在自家后院看到几个发光亮点”这种平民目击报告，而是训练有素的军事飞行员在驾驶战机时发生的近距离遭遇。 这些飞行员拥有顶尖的目视判别能力，他们能在 10 英里之外仅凭战机轮廓，在几分之一秒内准确区分出苏-22（Su-22）、米格-25（MiG-25）与 F-16，并瞬间判定敌我。更重要的是，飞行员的目击报告并非孤证，它们都得到了机载机炮摄像机画面、前视红外（FLIR）设备影像，以及机载雷达、地面雷达和海基舰载雷达系统的多重数据交叉印证。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 军方UAP目击与多传感器交叉验证链路 accDescr: 展示飞行员目击如何由机载影像、红外与海陆空多维度雷达系统共同交叉印证。 subgraph S1["第一目击层：精英观测者"] PILOT["资深军用飞行员目击<br/>（10英里精准辨识机型能力）"] end subgraph S2["第二记录层：光学与红外影像"] GUN["机载机炮摄像机数据"] FLIR["FLIR 前视红外热成像"] end subgraph S3["第三感知层：海陆空立体雷达系统"] AIR["机载雷达追踪"] GND["地面基地雷达数据"] SEA["海上神盾/舰载雷达"] end PILOT --> GUN PILOT --> FLIR PILOT --> AIR AIR --> GND AIR --> SEA ``` - **高精尖目击源**：调查对象仅限于受过专业空战训练的军事人员与特种作战单位。 - **全方位传感链条**：结合视觉轮廓识别、红外辐射特征以及海、陆、空全维度雷达回波进行系统验证。 --- ### [10:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=630s) 调入 AATIP：从反情报官到五角大楼特别项目负责人 谈到自己是如何加入该项目时，埃利桑多透露，在正式接触核心内容前，军方对他进行了多轮背景审查，以评估其技能与背景是否胜任。直到与该计划负责人吉姆·拉卡茨基（Jim Lacatski）面对面会谈时，谈话中才首次出现了“UFO”这个词。当时埃利桑多只是服从安排接受任务，甚至在谈完之后才真正搞清楚自己究竟签署了什么。最初，他的角色仅是为项目提供反情报与安全保卫支持。 然而，随着其前身项目 AAWSAP（高级航空航天武器系统应用计划）逐步缩减淡出，未知目标入侵军事空域的频率却呈现出“绝望的渐强音”（desperate crescendo），变得愈发频繁且严重，构成了公认的国家安全威胁。同时，政府内部某些派系出于外人意想不到的特殊原因，极力试图扼杀这项调查。为了保全项目，他们决定将该工作从国防情报局（DIA）剥离，直接提级移交给身处五角大楼的埃利桑多。埃利桑多当时担任国家项目特别管理部门主管（Director of National Program Special Management Staff），负责白宫和国家安全委员会（NSC）的特别准入项目（SAP）。凭借这一职权与密级保护，他将 AATIP 置于其管辖之下，成功避开了外界企图叫停该项目的窥探目光。 - **排查原则**：团队绝非“猎巫式”地执念于寻找外星飞船，每一次调查都默认寻找平淡无奇的常规解释（prosaic answer），例如新型无人机、导弹试射、气象气球等。 - **异常判断标准**：团队制定了严格的指标指引，只有当目标特征既非美军自身装备，又排除属于外国敌对势力的已知或推断技术时，才正式被划入真正的“异常”范畴。 --- ### [13:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=819s) 从 UFO 到 UAP：术语演变与跨领域物理学打破 针对主持人关于“什么是 UAP”的提问，埃利桑多系统拆解了该领域术语名称的演进史与背后深刻的物理原因： 首先，过去沿用数十年的 **UFO（不明飞行物）** 遭遇了双重困境： 1. **污名化与禁忌（Stigma and Taboo）**：该词一旦被提及，公众便立刻联想到“铝箔帽、疯子以及母舰上的猫王”等荒诞阴谋论，这导致大量军事人员因害怕职业生涯受损而不敢上报目击事件。 2. **空气动力学定义失效**：传统意义上的“飞行”（Flying）建立在四大基本力之上——推力（Thrust）、升力（Lift）、阻力（Drag）和重力（Weight）。人类通过机翼与控制面利用这些升力力学翱翔天空。然而，军方记录到的这些物体完全没有机翼、方向舵、升降舵、副翼、控制舵面，甚至没有座舱，却能违背传统气动原理在地球大气层中肆意悬停或高速机动。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 术语与认知演变路径 accDescr: 展现从UFO到UAP（空中），再到涵盖多领域的UAP（异常）的演进过程及推动原因。 A["<b>UFO</b><br/>不明飞行物"] -->|消解污名化<br/>摆脱传统气动力学定义| B["<b>UAP</b><br/>不明空中现象<br/>(Aerial)"] B -->|发现跨介质活动<br/>太空与水下目击证实| C["<b>UAP</b><br/>不明异常现象<br/>(Anomalous)"] ``` 随后，官方将名称修正为 **UAP（Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon，不明空中现象）**，但很快军方意识到即使局限于“空中”依然不够严谨。因为这些物体表现出令人咋舌的“跨介质”（Transmedium）能力：它们不仅出现在大气层中，还频繁被水下潜艇传感器捕捉到，甚至出现在超高空乃至近地轨道（Low Earth Orbit）。因此，为了涵盖其出没的全部物理维度，该定义在过去一年半里被正式重塑为 **UAP（Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon，不明异常现象）**。 --- ### [15:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=945s) 认知的彻底颠覆：从坚定的怀疑者到被海量数据说服 主持人询问埃利桑多在接手五角大楼这一项目之前，对 UFO 的真实态度如何。埃利桑多直言，自己从小甚至对科幻小说都毫无兴趣，如果当时有人问他相不相信 UFO，他会坦率回答：“大概率不存在（Probably not）”。但当被问及“那现在呢？”时，埃利桑多毫不犹豫地明确表示：“它们是真实存在的，这已无需怀疑。” 埃利桑多指出，无需仅凭他一人的言辞做判断，美国官方高层早已公开发声：多位前国家情报总监（DNI）、前中央情报局（CIA）局长乃至前美国总统都已向公众承认这些物体的客观存在。不仅是美国，南美多国长期深入处理此现象，日本近期更是与美国签署了双边情报共享协议专门用于交换 UAP 数据，中、俄以及多个欧洲大国也都掌握着极为丰富的情报并在该领域维持着强大的监控能力。 对于自己世界观的转变过程，埃利桑多将其划分为两种认知模式： - **顿悟型（Epiphany）**：一部分人经历一次震撼心魄的显现时刻，便当场惊呼“天哪，它们是真的！” - **渐进型（Slow progression）**：埃利桑多将自己归入这一类。作为一名长期与恐怖分子、间谍周旋的情报官员，他奉行“女士，我只要事实”（"Just the facts, ma'am"）的实用主义作风，只尊重冷酷确凿的数据，对流言和臆测毫无耐心。 埃利桑多坦言，最终摧毁他怀疑态度的，是堆叠至不可动摇的**压倒性证据链（Preponderance of evidence）**：每一次严密的事件分析中，不仅有顶尖飞行员的人眼目击与口述证词，更有机载机炮录像、FLIR 热成像以及多个波段雷达的联合锁定——当同一事件拥有多达五件、六件甚至七件独立物理传感器的数据相互印证闭环时，任何理智的情报官都只能得出唯一的结论：人类面对的正是一种超越自身现有科技认知的真实存在。 ### [18:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1107s) 法庭级别的确凿证据与不断攀升的未解案件 从情报和法律的角度来看，针对 UAP（不明异常现象）的证据链已经远远超越了法庭审判中的“排除合理怀疑”标准。Luis Elizondo 指出，如果把这些数据提交给陪审团，他们除了判定指控成立外别无选择。因为用来探测并追踪这些异常飞行器的，正是美军在战争中用来克敌制胜、打击敌方目标（用军事俗话说是“literally drop warheads on foreheads”）的最先进传感器套件。面对同样的时间、地点和环境下由这套国家级顶尖侦测系统记录到的事件，这绝非凭空臆想。 这是一个让许多人感到极度不适的话题，但也是政府必须正视的现实。如今美国已经为此立法，有大量吹哨人准备站出来向公众宣誓作证，五角大楼还专门成立了独立机构来调查 UAP，并投入了数以百万计的纳税人资金。然而，事情的发展出人意料：在官方调查机构成立之初，外界本以为首份报告中列出的 143 起未解事件会被逐步排查减少；但随后第二次报告的未解事件增加到了 300 起，第三次更是飙升至 800 起。数字非但没有下降，反而持续上升，且全属未解之谜。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: UAP 调查未解案件数量激增趋势 accDescr: 展示五角大楼 UAP 调查机构在不同报告周期中未解案例不断累积攀升的过程。 subgraph CaseGrowth["未解事件数量变化趋势"] A["初始首份报告：143 起未解事件\n(原计划逐一排查减少)"] --> B["第二次报告：激增至 300 起"] B --> C["后续报告：攀升突破 800 起\n(呈上升趋势而非下降)"] end ``` ### [20:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1214s) 以辞职表达抗议：五角大楼高层的避而不报与结构性失灵 当一个系统性问题无法在体制内解决时，唯一的正当选择就是离开。Luis Elizondo 解释了他辞去五角大楼职务的原因：情报团队投入了大量时间和纳税人资金，但国防部高层领导却选择对此视而不见，甚至极力阻挠向当时的国防部长吉姆·马蒂斯（General Jim Mattis）通报实情。Elizondo 强调，在美国体制下，如果你不想留在体制内制造更多破坏，就应当辞职并从外部推动解决。他指出，在他辞职仅仅一年后，国防部长马蒂斯本人也因政见不合而辞职抗议。 这种抗议并不是出于不忠，恰恰相反，是出于对国家和政府的最高忠诚。当时一线局势已经极其严峻：战机飞行员险些与不明飞行物发生空中相撞；海军舰长和舰队将领甚至发邮件向 Elizondo 求援，焦急地质问：“Lou，我们总不能把士兵永远关在甲板下面吧？到处都是这玩意儿，你到底要我们怎么做？”面对这些入侵敏感军事设施、甚至可能干扰核武器设施的未知飞行器，唯一有权下达应对处置决策的国防部长却被高层蓄意隐瞒，一线部队也得不到任何处置指导。 - **反恐与 UAP 的双重标准**：在反恐层面，全美机场和车站随处可见“看到可疑情况，立刻报告”（If you see something, say something）的宣传；但如果一名军人在敏感军事基地上空看到了 UFO，得到的指令反而是“闭嘴，千万别报，否则别人会把你当成疯子”。 - **无尾翼与动力盲区带来的沉默**：如果这些飞行器带有俄罗斯红星标志或朝鲜机尾编号，势必引发举国震动的国家安全危机；但只因它们没有机尾、看不到任何可见推进系统，整个官僚系统便陷入长期的集体沉默与推诿。 - **报告机制缺失的死循环**：一线人员想汇报却无合规渠道；若想建立报告机制，又需要逐级请示和安全简报；而高层官员却层层设卡回绝，导致整套流程陷入僵局。 ### [23:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1408s) 耻辱标签、职业威胁与颠覆认知的“五大可观测特征” 长期以来，围绕 UFO 的社会耻辱标签（Stigma）和文化禁忌让所有人避之不及。没有人愿意被贴上“那个研究 UFO 的怪人”的标签；对飞行员来说，一旦向上报告看到不明物体，其飞行资格往往会被立即吊销，甚至被发配去坐一辈子冷板凳（“fly a desk”），安全许可审查也会受到直接质疑。即便在今天的民航领域，飞行员们也只敢在私下窃窃私语，为保住饭碗绝不敢在官方日志上留下一字一句。 Elizondo 直言，自己在任内看过了大量高清无误的机密视频、报告和照片，这些影像证据足以彻底打消任何怀疑——其技术水准绝非人类所有。为了在情报分析中剔除常规飞行器等杂讯，军方情报部门提炼出了 UAP 的“五大可观测特征”（Five Observables）。在此次访谈中，Elizondo 详细拆解了其中的前几项核心能力： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: UAP 物理极限与常规人类飞行器对比 accDescr: 对比人类生理与常规战机在过载和速度、机动性上与 UAP 的巨大性能落差。 subgraph HumanLimit["人类与常规战机极限"] H1["人体耐受极限：9G\n(超出将导致黑视、红视乃至死亡)"] H2["F-16 结构极限：约 17G\n(超出则机翼折断、机体空中解体)"] H3["SR-71 黑鸟极限：高超音速\n(高速转弯需横跨半个俄亥俄州)"] end subgraph UAPCapability["UAP 观测特征"] U1["瞬间加速度：2,000G 至 3,000G 以上\n(远超一切已知生物和材料学耐受上限)"] U2["极速高超音速与瞬时转向：\n时速 10,000 至 13,000 英里以上\n可完成直角转弯及 180 度即时掉头"] U3["低可观测性 (Low Observability)：\n雷达与光学特征反常，肉眼可见却难描摹"] end H1 -. 物理落差.-> U1 H2 -. 结构落差.-> U1 H3 -. 机动落差.-> U2 ``` - **瞬间加速度（Instantaneous Acceleration）**：速度的极速剧变会伴随极大的惯性力（以 G 值计算）。人类承受约 9G 的重力加速度便会面临黑视、红视乃至死亡；目前机动性极强的人类载人战机 F-16 在解密状态下的结构极限约为 17G（超出该限制机体就会在空中折断解体）。然而 UAP 展现出的瞬间加速度往往超过 2,000G 至 3,000G，彻底粉碎了一切已知生物耐受性与材料科学的物理常识。 - **高超音速（Hypersonic Velocity）与瞬间机动**：高超音速定义为 5 马赫（约每小时 760 英里音速的 5 倍）以上。人类制造的洛克希德 YF-12A / SR-71“黑鸟”战略侦察机确实能达到极速，但在那种高速状态下执行一个右转弯，转弯半径几乎要覆盖半个俄亥俄州。反观 UAP，飞行时速常年保持在 10,000 到 13,000 英里以上，且能在此超高速下完成毫无缓冲的直角转弯甚至 180 度空中掉头。 - **低可观测性（Low Observability）**：一种近乎自相矛盾的隐身与探测特征，许多一线资深战机飞行员在接触后会茫然地向上级报告：“Lou，我就在那里，我亲眼看见了它，但我根本无法用现有语言把它描述出来。” ### [27:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1660s) 低可探测性与“跨介质”运行能力 路易斯·埃利桑多（Luis Elizondo）继续阐述不明航空现象（UAP）的五大可观测特征（Five Observables）。首先是“低可探测性”（Low Observability）：这些物体通常没有机翼、方向舵、尾翼，表面看不到任何铆钉或接缝，雷达上也常常出现反常回波，表现出类似主动电子干扰（Jamming）或欺骗（Spoofing）的迹象。虽然人类也制造出如 B-2 隐形轰炸机或女武神（Valkyrie）无人机等隐身飞行器，但 UAP 的低可探测性远超人类技术，甚至在肉眼观察下都极难看清和辨识。 紧接着是第四项特征——“跨介质或多介质穿行”（Transmedium / Multi-medium Travel），即在多种不同环境和领域（空中、水下、甚至太空）之间自如穿行的能力。路易斯指出，人类虽然有水上飞机这种能飞又能漂浮的多介质工具，但“水上飞机既算不上优秀的飞机，也算不上优秀的水上艇”。因为人类工程学受到物理法则限制，为了跨领域运作必须在设计和性能上妥协；这就是为什么潜艇长得像潜艇、飞机像飞机、火箭像火箭。然而，UAP 展现出的跨介质穿行完全没有人类工程学所必须付出的性能牺牲，能够无缝穿梭于空气与水体之间。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 跨介质工程学对比 accDescr: 对比人类技术与 UAP 在多介质运作上的性能与设计妥协 subgraph HumanTech ["人类传统技术"] H1["专用设计（单一介质性能极致）"] --> H2["跨介质尝试（如水上飞机）"] H2 --> H3["性能与机动性巨大妥协"] end subgraph UAPTech ["UAP 观测特征"] U1["无翼、无舵、无铆钉外形"] --> U2["多介质无缝切换（空中 / 水下 / 太空）"] U2 --> U3["零性能损失与无惯性机动"] end ``` --- ### [29:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1756s) 进入项目后的绝密接触与 51 区的传言 主持人询问路易斯刚接手项目时具体能接触到什么，是不是如同普通办公室里打开电脑文件夹一样。路易斯解释称，作为项目主管，他接手并查阅了此前调查团队积累的所有资料，包括军方拍摄的高清视频、原始照片、雷达遥测数据以及历史调查档案，而这些材料均属于高度绝密（Highly Classified），公众完全无法获取。 当主持人提及坊间传言“51 区（Area 51）保存并逆向工程了坠毁的 UFO 外星飞船技术”时，路易斯展现出资深情报官员的审慎。他表示美国政府确实斥巨资在偏远的测试靶场进行敏感试验，以避开敌对势力的窥探，但他“未获授权”讨论 51 区究竟藏有什么，只能确认那是一个众所周知的极度敏感的武器研发试验基地。关于鲍勃·拉扎尔（Bob Lazar）广为人知的爆料，路易斯直言自己从未见过拉扎尔，也不了解此人，因此无法对其关于“S-4 设施逆向工程坠毁外星飞船”的公开说法发表评判。 --- ### [31:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1905s) 出版《Imminent》的合规审查：宛如“大象分娩” 谈及自己的新书《Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs》，路易斯形容让军方解密并批准这本书出版的过程“艰难得就像大象分娩”（It's like birthing an elephant）。五角大楼内部阻力极大，许多高层竭力阻止讨论该话题。为了合法出书且不进监狱，他必须走完国防部严格的审查流程： - **DOPSR 审查机构**：即国防部预出版与安全审查办公室（Defense Office of Pre-publication and Security Review），负责确保离任官员公开的内容绝不包含现行机密。 - **长达一年的拉锯战**：全书经历了近一年的拉网式审查，最终军方对敏感词句进行了大量涂黑遮盖（Redactions）。路易斯刻意将这些灰色涂黑痕迹保留在印刷版中，直观向读者展示“某些当局不希望公众看到的内容”。 - **坚守法律底线**：路易斯强调自己是爱国者，一生忠于国家，“我不是泄密者，从未泄露过机密，也绝不会进行未授权的公开披露”。走通 DOPSR 审查是让他免遭牢狱之灾并能公开对话的唯一合法途径。 --- ### [33:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2022s) 标志性的“Gimbal”事件与未公开更清晰证据的原因 被问及是否存在某个“决定性证据”彻底击碎怀疑时，路易斯回答并没有单一证据，而是海量数据不断累加的结果——从 2004 年的“尼米兹号航母事件”（USS Nimitz），到 2014 至 2015 年的“西奥多·罗斯福号航母事件”（USS Theodore Roosevelt），每次当你以为掌握了最佳案例时，总会有更惊人的后续记录被递交上来。 关于印在《Imminent》封面的著名“Gimbal”（万向节）事件，路易斯与主持人回顾了当时由美国海军 F/A-18 大黄蜂战斗机前视红外（ATFLIR）吊舱捕获的真实细节： - **飞行员对话实录**：视频中可以清晰听到飞行员极度震惊的呼喊：“老兄，这是架无人机吧！”、“看态势感知显示器（SA），有一整支机队！”以及“它们都在顶风飞行，西向风速可是足足 120 节！” - **无视空气动力的反常姿态**：该飞行器在约 20,000 英尺高空顶着 120 节（约 222 km/h）强风逆风前行，随后突然原地进行 90 度自转并保持飞行。普通带机翼飞机若侧倾 90 度会瞬间损失升力掉高，该物体却完全不受升力法则影响。 - **为何不公开更多高清录像**：路易斯透露，军方掌握着大量比 Gimbal 画面“更清晰、更震撼”的视频，但之所以绝不公开，关键在于保护**情报的情报源与搜集手段（Sources and Methods）**。视频附带的元数据、拍摄角度、机载雷达与光学传感器的精确极限若被公开，等于将美军顶尖侦察武器的底牌暴露给敌对国家。当前流出的视频讽刺地“恰恰是军方评估后认为最不敏感、最平淡的部分”。 --- ### [36:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2196s) 五角大楼被自己 70 年的谎言逼入死角 对于“美国政府和五角大楼究竟想不想让公众相信 UAP 存在”这一问题，路易斯指出内部正处于深度分裂的双重矛盾中。直到最近几年，官方的主流态度依然是彻底否认和沉默。然而，经历了长达 70 年的系统性掩盖和否认后，美国政府已经“彻底把自己逼进了死角”（backed itself up after 70 years of denial into a corner），现在面对纸包不住火的真相，不得不硬着头皮寻找解套的方法。 一方面，国会力量的深度介入以及全域异常解决办公室（AARO）的建立，代表着内部要求信息透明和调查公开的改革力量；但另一方面，五角大楼内部深处依然盘踞着顽固势力，千方百计阻挠真相的全面浮出水面。 ### [37:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2222s) 对揭秘者的抹黑与冷战时期的战略抉择 五角大楼内部始终存在一股极力阻挠不明异常现象（UAP）公开讨论的势力，他们不惜采取一切手段去诋毁发声者并对其展开人格抹黑。路易斯·埃利松多提到他的前同事大卫·格鲁施（David Grusch）——一位战功卓著的退役空军军官兼资深情报官员。就在格鲁施打破沉默、公开站出来揭露内幕的24小时之内，五角大楼内部就有人非法泄露了他的个人医疗记录，企图借此摧毁其公众信誉。当主持人追问为何这股阻力如此坚决时，埃利松多深入剖析了二战以降美国军方形成的深层战略思维。 这一切在二战尾声就已初现端倪。当时盟军飞行员在空战空域频繁遭遇被称为“幽灵战机”（Foo Fighters）的神秘发光球体，它们紧紧尾随战机飞行。随着战后美国全力投入核武器研发，受军方严格管制的敏感领空、军事基地以及前沿科研设施上空，开始出现大量UFO目击报告。在冷战的高峰期，美苏两大核大国剑拔弩张，五角大楼将领们面临着一个残酷的现实选择：虽然明知那些空中物体真实存在，但它们并未展现出明确的直接敌意；而另一边，苏联拥有毁灭性的核武库，是迫在眉睫、关乎存亡的现实威胁。军方高层的决策逻辑简单而务实：“先全力对付苏联这个明确的威胁，至于那些未知的东西，以后再去头疼。” - 大卫·格鲁施（David Grusch）在公开揭发后24小时内，个人敏感医疗档案即遭政府内部人员非法泄露并公之于众，用于发起舆论抹黑。 - 自二战盟军飞行员目击“幽灵战机”（Foo Fighters）起，再到原子弹研发时代，不明飞行物频繁侵入军事禁区和核设施空域。 - 冷战时期的五角大楼奉行轻重缓急的防御原则：优先应对苏联的核打击威胁，暂时搁置未表现出公开敌对行为的UAP。 ### [38:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2315s) “没有解决方案的难题”与蓄意污名化策略 除了战略层面的权衡，政府在面对公众时还有一种根深蒂固的心理阻碍：任何政府都是“以解决问题为导向”的（solution-focused），承认一个自身完全无解的危机是极其痛苦且尴尬的。军方能清晰感知到这些飞行器的行动，却对其先进性能束手无策，根本无法实施拦截或阻止。埃利松多打了个生动的比方：试想政府要如何向纳税人坦白，“我们面临着一个巨大的未知问题，但我们对此无能为力”？ 这种“在找到解法前绝不承认问题”的思维方式在冷战历史上屡见不鲜。中央情报局（CIA）曾委托洛克希德·马丁公司的臭鼬工厂（Lockheed Martin Skunk Works）研制 U-2 高空侦察机，并违反美苏之间的双边协议，长期对苏联本土进行有人驾驶的纵深侦察。美国原以为 U-2 飞得极高极快，苏联根本无法察觉；而苏联虽然从第一天起就雷达捕获了 U-2 的踪迹，却在长达数年里对外保持沉默。直到苏联成功研发出 SA-2 地对空导弹并击落了一架 U-2，才向全世界揭露实情。苏联此前保持缄默的原因很简单：在拥有击落手段之前，承认领空任由对方出入只会暴露自身的软弱。 不仅如此，美国政府过去委托开展的多项专题秘密研究得出了一致的悲观结论：如果如实向公众公开“人类在宇宙中并不孤独、外星地外实体真实存在”，将引发无法承受的社会灾难。报告预测这会导致剧烈的社会动荡、公众信仰体系崩溃以及经济体系的雪崩。基于这一判断，军方高层制定了严密的信息封锁方针，甚至展开了长达数十年的蓄意污名化（stigmatization）行动，将“UFO”一词彻底妖魔化为荒诞、狂想和精神错乱的代名词，以至于连军方内部人员都对其讳莫如深。这一公关战役取得了惊人的成功，导致今天想要在体制内重新开启理性客观的探讨变得困难重重。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: UAP信息封锁与污名化的决策形成机制 accDescr: 展示五角大楼为何因无力应对、社会恐慌评估以及历史惯性而选择长期封锁并污名化UAP话题。 subgraph DefenseDilemma["防务困境与现实考量"] A["高敏感空域频繁遭遇未知UAP"] --> B["军方具备探测能力，但缺乏反制/拦截技术"] B --> C["政府属于'解决问题导向'<br/>拒绝向公众承认无解难题"] end subgraph ImpactStudies["影响评估报告结论"] D["官方机密研究评估公开后果"] --> E["断定将引发：信仰动摇、经济崩溃、社会动乱"] end subgraph SuppressionCampaign["封锁与污名化执行"] C --> F["全面压制真相与实施机密封锁"] E --> F F --> G["将'UFO'深度污名化为荒诞迷信"] G --> H["社会与体制内形成群体噤声"] end ``` - U-2 侦察机与苏联 SA-2 导弹的前例表明，大国在掌握确切的反制手段之前，普遍选择对侵入事件保持对外沉默。 - 早期多项政府研究一致认定美国社会在心理、宗教和经济层面均未做好接受地外生命真相的准备。 - 军方发起的污名化攻势极其成功，将谈论 UFO 的人推向社会和专业声誉的边缘，至今难以逆转。 ### [40:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2448s) 违宪隐瞒、国会调查与回收外星残骸的证实 阻碍信息公开的另一大核心症结在于严重的法律追责风险。埃利松多指出，这可能是当下最棘手的死结。几十年来，政府及国防承包商内部的部分孤立派系，做出了单方面向民选政府隐瞒真相的非法决策。根据美国宪法和法律体系，参议院情报特别委员会（SSCI）等特定监督机构拥有法定的“知情权”（designated need to know），涉及动辄数以十亿美元计的国家安全和机密项目支出必须向其报备。然而，负责秘密项目的官员长期越权跳过国会甚至美国总统。如今体制内许多曾参与秘密项目的人员深陷恐慌：“我们欺骗了国会长达数十年，一旦大白于天下，我们是否会因此锒铛入狱？” 当主持人直接切入核心事实，询问美国军方是否确实回收过坠毁或遗弃的 UAP/UFO 实体材料时，埃利松多的回答掷地有声：“我能说的就是我获准透露的，那就是——是的（Yes）。” 埃利松多解释道，直到他撰写的自传《紧迫》（*Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs*）正式通过五角大楼严苛的出版前安全审查（DOPSR）之前，他连这个字都绝不能吐露半句。过去他签署了无数具备法律约束力的终身保密协议，一旦违规将面临直接判刑。而如今，通过合法审查的流程，他终于能够在法律红线之内向世人证实一个震撼的事实：美国政府手中确实掌握着真实存在的实物材料，这些奇异材料（exotic material）的物理构造与微观属性表明，它们绝非人类科技所能制造。 - 政府内部少数派系在未经国会监督和授权的情况下，单方面隐瞒涉及数十亿美元的UAP研究项目，已构成严重的违法行为。 - 参议院情报特别委员会等国会监督机构长期被排除在秘密项目的情报简报之外。 - 埃利松多在新书通过国防部官方安全审查后，首次在法律允许范围内公开证实：美国政府确已回收并拥有非人类制造的“奇异材料”。 ### [42:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2540s) 守秘的极端代价与致命武力：从51区到历史前例 在追问保密协议的执行力度时，主持人询问是否有人曾因为谈论UFO而锒铛入狱。埃利松多的回答令人不寒而栗：“甚至比坐牢更糟（Worse）。”他坦言，这段黑暗的历史至今仍未被完全揭开。过去某些参与人员遭受了极端的纪律制裁、人生毁弃，甚至面临更为严酷的致命后果。这正是为何当前美国国会正在不遗余力地推动“举报人保护法”（Whistleblower Protections）立法的关键所在——只有消除内部知情人员对生命安危的巨大恐惧，他们才敢站出来向国会宣誓作证。 面对普通民众“现代文明政府绝不可能为了保守秘密而杀人”的天真幻想，埃利松多给出了直截了当的现实反驳：“去一趟51区的铁丝网围栏看看吧，上面明确写着‘授权使用致命武力’（lethal force authorized）。一旦你跨过那道围栏，他们有合法的法律授权将你当场击毙。”在极端特殊的情况下，为了捍卫所谓的核心国家安全，政府的强力机构会不惜一切手段采取最激烈的行动。 埃利松多进一步阐释，美国政府在历史上并非没有越过常规法律程序采取极端手段的先例： 1. **海外定点清除公民**：军方和情报机构曾使用无人机发射导弹，在海外直接肉体消灭涉嫌恐怖活动的美国公民及其未成年子女，彻底绕过了宪法保障公民在和平时期享有的“正当法律程序”（due process）与出庭受审权。 2. **罗森堡夫妇间谍案**：冷战时期因涉嫌向苏联出卖曼哈顿工程原子弹机密而被处以电椅死刑的罗森堡夫妇（Julius and Ethel Rosenberg）。后世解密与诸多分析显示，妻子埃塞尔·罗森堡（Ethel Rosenberg）很可能是无辜的；但由于当时政府掌握的监听破译情报（如维诺那计划）极其敏感，为了不向外界暴露核心情报搜集手段，法庭没有出示可能为其脱罪的关键底牌，最终导致了不可挽回的司法处决。 埃利松多沉重地总结道，写下这本书并公开发声，他非常清楚自己触动了庞大利益集团的逆鳞，也深知台面之下那些竭力阻止真相曝光的黑暗力量究竟有多么强大。 - 51区边界标牌上醒目的“授权使用致命武力”警示，是国家机器为保护最高机密不惜采取极端致命手段的公开明证。 - 举报人面临着远超监禁的职业报复与人身威胁，推动强有力的国会法律保护是知情人敢于作证的前提。 - 历史上存在政府为了保护极度敏感的情报能力或国家安全利益，绕过正当程序消灭目标或造成司法惨剧的真实先例。 ### [46:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2769s) 冒着生命危险发声与合法合规的信息披露 主持人指出，公开讨论这些绝密机密不仅可能招致牢狱之灾，甚至可能面临更为致命的惩罚，并询问路易斯·埃利桑多（Luis Elizondo）是否感到恐惧。埃利桑多毫不掩饰地承认自己并非毫无畏惧，而是甘冒巨大风险：“我可没说我不害怕，我的生命曾多次受到实质威胁。”为了保护自己和家人，他选择隐居在怀俄明州的偏远之地，随身重装戒备，家中还饲养了六只经过严格训练的德国牧羊犬。他坦言自己时刻保持警惕，但更关键的自我保护在于严格坚守法律的边界——无论承受多大压力，他都绝不会越雷池一步。他的新书《紧迫》（*Imminent*）绝非非法泄密，而是依法依规提交国防部保密审查机制并获准出版的合法产物。 埃利桑多强调，他绝不会为了推进所谓的“信息大公开”（Disclosure）而违背自己的国家安全誓词、出卖国家利益。事实证明，经过长达七年的公开推动与对话，他既没有身陷囹圄，也没有销声匿迹，依然能公开坐在这里探讨真相。这向外界证明了凡事皆有正道与歧途之分。他理解大众对“立刻公开一切”的迫切渴望，但他告诫道：“把事情做对（doing things right）和把事情立刻做完（doing things right now）是完全不同的两码事。”面对这关乎人类命运的议题，全人类只有一次把事情做正确的机会。通过理性、合法且不具有破坏性的集体沟通推进揭秘，才能避免任何人遭逢生命威胁、失业或身陷牢狱。 - **安全防御现状**：移居怀俄明州，全副武装戒备，饲养 6 只德国牧羊犬防身。 - **披露底线**：恪守国家安全审查程序（DOISR），绝不逾越法律红线或泄露涉及军力机密的源头与手段。 - **时间跨度**：自 2017 年辞职公开推动 UAP 议题以来已逾 7 年，始终坚持程序合法性。 --- ### [47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2864s) 美国历任总统知情权与军工复合体的重重阻力 当被问及美国历任总统是否掌握不明飞行物（UFO/UAP）真相时，埃利桑多揭示了一个耐人寻味的深层权力结构：部分总统知情，而另一部分则完全被蒙在鼓里。在五角大楼和情报机构内部，某些官僚持有极为冷漠的“临时工思维”，认为民选总统不过是四年一换的过客，若对方缺乏军事情报背景，向其通报这种最高机密反而构成泄密风险，因此干脆加以隐瞒。已知吉米·卡特（Jimmy Carter）确曾接受过简报，埃利桑多透露自己认识曾协助卡特调阅此类档案的关键当事人；而曾担任中央情报局（CIA）局长、情报背景深厚的老布什（George H. W. Bush）同样对相关项目了如指掌。相比之下，比尔·克林顿（Bill Clinton）虽极度渴望了解实情，却始终未能获得正式通报。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: UAP Briefing Flow to US Presidents accDescr: Decision pathway showing which presidents received briefings based on intelligence background or administrative gatekeeping. subgraph Decision["内部权力决策核心"] DeepState["情报官僚与项目主管"] View["视民选总统为'4年临时工'"] DeepState --> View end subgraph Briefed["获得深度通报"] Carter["吉米·卡特<br/>(经证实获得专门通报)"] BushSr["老布什<br/>(曾任中情局局长，深知内情)"] end subgraph Blocked["遭遇阻挠/未获通报"] Clinton["比尔·克林顿<br/>(积极索求却被拒门外)"] Trump["唐纳德·特朗普<br/>(欲解密却遭遇'激烈阻力')"] end Decision -->|具备情报背景/特批| Briefed Decision -->|缺乏背景/防范泄密| Blocked ``` 针对近年来的总统，埃利桑多指出奥巴马（Barack Obama）已公开在记录中明确将 UAP 列为切实存在的“国家安全议题”；而特朗普（Donald Trump）近期亦公开表示有意解密 UFO 档案，但承认当年在任时遭遇了来自内部机制的“激烈阻力”（fierce resistance）。埃利桑多严正质疑：如果连掌握最高行政权的三军统帅都无权决定解密或调阅档案，“究竟是谁在背后阻挠总统？究竟谁有这么大的特权凌驾于总统之上？”他推测这背后盘踞着庞大的“军工复合体”（Military-Industrial Complex）。作为全球最庞大的商业利益网络，军工巨头多年来依赖为政府研发绝密项目建立起垄断性优势，公开 UFO 档案不仅意味着他们必须被迫承认参与了这些隐秘工程，更可能导致他们掌握的尖端逆向技术与敏感军力底牌彻底曝光。 - **卡特总统的简报**：确有其事，埃利桑多知悉协助其调查的内部关键人士，相关记录属实。 - **克林顿的碰壁**：克林顿曾积极追查 UAP 档案与 51 区内幕，但遭到情报系统推诿阻拦。 - **军工复合体的顾虑**：一旦公开，企业必须公开其长期隐匿的秘密项目承包合同，并面临核心专利与军事优势公开的威胁。 --- ### [50:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3046s) 公众认知的懒惰与信息回音室困境 谈到普通公众对五角大楼和政府深层运作的了解程度时，埃利桑多的言辞十分犀利。他直言，不必谈论高深莫测的政府秘密，现实中甚至绝大多数父母都能对心仪橄榄球队四分卫的技术数据如数家珍，却答不出自己的孩子在午餐时坐在谁身旁、数学课与谁同桌。在信息过载的时代，人类在某种程度上“退化了”——大众习惯于接受各自偏好的媒体“喂食”现成的信息，陷入根深蒂固的信息茧房。 自由派只看合乎自由派胃口的频道，保守派只听保守派同温层的论调，人们只想听到自己期待的声音，甚至连自己的观点和立场都完全交由媒体去塑造。埃利桑多感慨，这已演变成一个远比 UFO 和 UAP 更为严峻的社会危机：作为个体，现代人变得极度思想懒惰，彻底丧失了独立思考并就现实世界提出尖锐、深刻问题的意愿与勇气。 --- ### [51:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3117s) 揭秘“传统项目”：跨越数十年的国家级研究 除了大众熟知的 AATIP（先进航空威胁识别项目）和 AAWSAP（先进航空航天武器系统应用项目），埃利桑多还谈到了规模更为庞大的“传统项目”（Legacy Program）。他解释道，许多人误以为 AATIP 是唯一的官方调查机制，但在历史上，从早期的“蓝皮书计划”（Project Blue Book）到其前身项目，美国政府内部数十年来一直存在着由各个情报、军事机构协作维持的长期努力，这套持续存在、跨越数代人的宏大体系即被称为“传统项目”。 与资金体量有限的 AATIP 相比，“传统项目”不仅架构更为稳固，其掌握的资源与预算也曾丰厚得多。至于该项目为何在后来遭遇资源缩减，埃利桑多透露由于涉及保密权限无法详述细节，但关键拐点出现在 2000 年代初期：当时发生了一场重大地缘政治与安全转向（指“9·11”事件及随后的反恐战争），导致国家层面的精力和巨额资源被迅速抽调并重组，原先聚焦于不明航空现象研究的核心资源因此被大量稀释与转移。 - **传统项目定义**：美国政府内部跨越数十年的多机构协作机制，涵盖蓝皮书计划及其后继秘密科研体系。 - **项目规模对比**：其历史深度、组织严密程度与资源调配体量均远超 AATIP。 - **资源抽调背景**：2000 年代初因国家安全重心全面转向反恐，导致该项目资金与关注度大幅流失。 --- ### [53:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3189s) 走出科幻刻板印象：用生物演化视角重新审视地外生命 针对大众受好莱坞科幻电影影响而形成的刻板外星人形象——大脑袋、惨白皮肤、四肢瘦长的异形生物，埃利桑多明确表示五角大楼真正的研究者不会轻易陷入这种思维定式。他告诫大家必须保持开放心态：“外星人”（alien）这个词本身就带着傲慢的预设，暗指对方必然来自外太空；但事实上有多种可能，它们完全可能以人类尚未理解的其他维度或形式存在于我们周围。 结合自己在迈阿密大学攻读微生物学、免疫学和寄生虫学的科研经历，埃利桑多借用“24 小时生物钟”的比喻来剖析人类对生命认知的狭隘： 现代智人（*Homo sapiens sapiens*）在地球上仅存在了约 10 万至 20 万年。如果将人类认知史浓缩为 24 小时，直到两千多年前的古希腊时代（相当于午夜前 10 分钟），人类学者还天真地判定地球上只有两类根本生命形态——要么是植物，要么是动物，而人属于动物。然而，仅仅在大约 300 年前的文艺复兴与启蒙时代，人类才猛然发现了真菌界（fungus）的存在，意识到有一种既非植物亦非动物的庞大生命形态一直与我们共存。 更具讽刺意味的是，在过去仅仅 120 年左右的时间里（在 24 小时钟上仅相当于最后的 10 秒钟），随着现代微生物学的发展，人类才终于认识到地球真正的统治级“霸主”究竟是谁：若将全球所有植物与动物的生物量加在一起，微观世界的生命仍占据绝对压倒性的优势。埃利桑多以此论证：我们以为自己洞察了世界的全貌，但人类科学认知的盲区远比想象中庞大，那些被视为神秘莫测的存在，或许本就一直潜伏在人类感知范围的边界之外。 ### [55:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3324s) 微观世界与地外生命的可能栖息地 路易斯·埃利松多（Luis Elizondo）以地球本身的生物多样性打了个生动的比方：如果把地球上所有真菌的生物量加在一起，依然远远比不上那些从始至终存在、微小却真正占据统治地位的生命体。直到人类掌握了打磨曲面玻璃的技术，通过小小的镜筒望过去并惊呼出那句著名的“微小生灵（Little beasties）”时，微生物的宏大世界才终于被揭开。这种真正的地球主宰生命早已无处不在，甚至充斥在人类体内、构成了人类本身，而我们直到近代才意识到它们的存在。 正因如此，当人们追问这些不明飞行物是否来自“外太空”时，埃利松多的回答是开放的：它们可能来自外太空（outer space），可能来自内部空间（inner space），抑或两者之间的某种维度。它们甚至可能和人类一样，原本就是这个星球自然生态的一部分。随着人类技术的发展，我们或许才刚刚迈入能够与它们产生互动的门槛。埃利松多特别指出，人类对脚下海洋的探索少得可怜，目前绘制出的海底地图还不足 10%，人类对月球表面的了解甚至超过了对自己星球海洋的认知。在彻底排除所有可能性之前，必须将所有假设都留在桌面上探讨。 - 人类目前仅测绘了不足 10% 的海底地形，对月球表面的了解远超地球海洋。 - “微小生灵”（Little beasties）引用了显微镜先驱列文虎克首次观察到微生物时的著名感叹。 --- ### [56:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3409s) 感官局限、尺度危机与真实的宇宙 埃利松多进一步引导听众从人类感官的局限性去思考现实。人类仅能依靠五种基本感官去感知世界，如果摸不到、尝不出、听不见或闻不着，往往就误以为不存在。他在怀俄明州的居所拥有毫无光污染的绝美夜空，肉眼能清晰看见银河；但若换成射电望远镜去观测同一片天空，呈现在眼前的将是完全不同的景象——紫外线、红外线、X 射线下的星云与能量辐射。人类的眼睛只能接收电磁波中极狭窄的“可见光”波段，就像如果人类突然拥有“手机视线”，能直接看见 Wi-Fi 和 5G 信号，周围的整个世界都会彻底改变。绝大多数的现实，本就隐匿于人类的感知光谱之外。 随后他谈到了令人战栗的“尺度问题”。人类生活在银河系偏远角落某颗不起眼的恒星旁，而在任何方向上，人类观测到的宇宙光线视界大约在 136 亿至 139 亿光年之间。光速每秒约 18.6 万英里（约 30 万公里），一秒钟即可绕地球七圈半，以如此恐怖的速度狂奔 139 亿年，构成了双向接近 270 亿至 280 亿光年的可观测宇宙；而科学家推测这甚至还不到宇宙实际尺寸的 10%，宇宙整体可能广达上千亿光年。在可观测宇宙内，恒星的数量就已经超过了地球上所有海滩沙粒的总和。更奇妙的是，单个氢原子的质量/尺度对应阿伏伽德罗常数数量级（约 $1 \times 10^{-23}$），人类所处的尺度恰好介于极微观的原子与极宏观的宇宙正中间，宏观世界浩瀚无垠，微观世界同样深不见底，人类却只能在自己所处的两三个数量级之间进行交互，其余绝大部分的现实，我们根本无从触及。 - 光速约为每秒 18.6 万英里（约 30 万公里/秒），一秒内可环绕地球约 7.5 次。 - 可观测宇宙单向视界约为 136 亿至 139 亿光年，双向跨度约 270 亿光年，但科学家估计这不足宇宙实际尺寸的 10%，整体规模可能达 1000 亿光年。 - 可观测宇宙中的恒星数量，超过地球上所有海滩沙粒的总和。 --- ### [01:00:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3607s) 摆脱好莱坞式的拟人化偏见 埃利松多尖锐地指出，大众一听到“外星人”这个词，脑海中浮现的往往是好莱坞塑造的形象——长着大脑袋、双臂、双眼和双腿的类人生物。这是人类典型的“拟人化偏见”（anthropomorphism）。人类习惯用自己的经验去投射一切，就像人们用人类的名字称呼宠物狗、把它们当成家人一样，我们总是一厢情愿地赋予未知存在人类的情感、价值观、动机与意图。 然而，我们面对的可能是一种完全不同的存在形式，甚至可能是类似人工智能的纯逻辑产物——只有纯粹的二进制输入与输出，毫无人类层面的情绪或道德考量。在不具备充分证据之前，用人类的好恶去推断对方的动机是极度危险且狭隘的，这也是为什么在军方调查项目推进的过程中，埃利松多始终坚持保留所有的假设和选项。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人类对未知智能的认知误区 accDescr: 展现从好莱坞拟人化认知到多维度真实可能性的思维转变过程 subgraph Anthropomorphic["拟人化投射误区"] A["好莱坞刻板印象: 类人外貌、四肢、大脑袋"] --> B["预设人类式动机: 情感、伦理、敌友二元论"] end subgraph RealisticOptions["开放维度的客观假设"] C["纯逻辑/无机系统: 类似 AI 的二进制输入输出"] D["非本土/本土隐藏演化: 远超人类维度的生命形态"] E["不可测意图: 观察、资源采样或科技监视"] end Anthropomorphic -.->|"破除偏见，转向全概率分析"| RealisticOptions ``` --- ### [01:01:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3671s) 造访意图与非洲角马的体检隐喻 谈及外星生命造访地球的潜在动机，埃利松多用了一个生动甚至带有一丝幽默的比喻：这就像人类开着直升机巡视非洲塞伦盖蒂大草原。研究人员在空中锁定了一头角马，抬手就是一记麻醉针。随后直升机降落，科学家走上前抽取角马的血液样本，检查其饮食结构、健康指标和迁徙路线。搞定后，人类乘机离去。而那头角马迷迷糊糊地醒来，摇摇晃晃地走到水坑边，对同伴抱怨说：“兄弟，你绝对不敢相信刚才发生了什么——天上掉下来个怪物，一堆乱七八糟的事，我被人全身摸了个遍，醒来浑身都疼。” 对于流传甚广的“外星人绑架事件”，埃利松多给出了十分严谨的评价： - 一方面，许多声称被绑架的人绝非蓄意撒谎，他们真切地认为自己经历了极其真实的事件； - 但另一方面，他绝不同意将这种现象浪漫化为“和平交流”——如果涉及违背当事人意愿的绑架，就绝不能轻率地宣称对方是怀着和平意图而来的； - 另一种可能是长期的战略监视：人类的技术可能仅仅落后它们一两百年，很快就有能力复制它们所展现的技术，届时人类将成为它们的“新邻居”。考虑到人类历史上彼此残杀的暴力天性，如果埃利松多处在对方的立场，他也绝不会对这个即将迈入星际门槛的危险种族掉以轻心。 --- ### [01:03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3785s) “UAP 接触”与美军人员的实际伤残赔偿 埃利松多披露了一个极其关键且具法律效力的事实：美国政府目前正以正式书面文件的形式，向部分因近距离接触 UAP 而身体受损的人员发放全额伤残补助（full medical disability）。这些人因为卷入了 UAP 遭遇事件，身体遭到了不可逆的实质伤害。 主持人追问何为“UAP 接触”，以及这种伤害究竟是恶意的攻击还是技术的副产物。埃利松多用民航客机作了解释：一名普通乘客坐进波音 737 客机飞往劳德代尔堡，在客舱内喝着鸡尾酒、看电影、翻杂志，没有任何危险；但如果同一个人直接擅自跑上机场跑道，正好站在一台正在加大马力全力运转的喷气发动机正前方，强大的气流和辐射能量瞬间就会将人重创甚至撕碎。许多遭遇 UAP 导致伤残的案例，其本质可能并非来自地外生命的故意敌对行为，而仅仅是因为当事人“距离这种极端科技的核心区域太近”，直接暴露在推进系统产生的强物理场或辐射之下所导致的附带伤害。 ### [01:04:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3844s) 接触不明飞行物致伤：被保密的医疗记录与兰德尔沙姆森林事件 路易斯·埃利桑多（Luis Elizondo）指出，包括美军现役军人与情报官员在内的多名人员，在近距离接触不明空中现象（UAP）后都遭受过身体伤害。这种伤害究竟是对方蓄意发起的攻击，还是由于靠得太近而承受的技术附带后果——埃利桑多用“把头贴近运转中的微波炉”作为比喻，说明其技术释放的能量本身就具有致命的破坏力。许多受害者的遭遇并非空穴来风，他们正接受政府军医的长期治疗，其中一些人也勇敢地站出来公开发声。 埃利桑多列举了一个极具代表性的案例：约翰·伯罗斯（John Burroughs）。伯罗斯曾是空军安全警察，在著名的英国兰德尔沙姆森林事件（Rendlesham Forest incident，亦称本特沃特斯事件）中，有不明飞行器在英美联合基地附近的树林中降落，伯罗斯与同袍前往调查并因此受伤。美国空军曾一度将他的医疗档案列入高度机密拒绝公开，直到已故亚利桑那州参议员约翰·麦凯恩（John McCain）介入并迫使空军解密这些记录，伯罗斯才最终获得了针对该起事件的全额伤残抚恤赔偿。 - **伤害性质**：无法断定是敌意攻击还是强辐射、定向能技术的副作用。 - **代表受害者**：空军人员约翰·伯罗斯（John Burroughs）。 - **关键推手**：已故参议员约翰·麦凯恩（John McCain）施压空军解密医疗记录。 - **受害现况**：目前仍有多名因靠近 UAP 致伤的政府人员正在接受军方医生的照料。 --- ### [01:06:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=3971s) 核武设施危机：干扰美国发射井与激活苏联核武库 UAP 频繁出现在核技术设施附近，直接使其升级为最高级别的国家安全问题。埃利桑多强调，UAP 展现出了瘫痪美军核打击能力的能力。虽然有人试图将其粉饰为“就像大人夺下小孩子手中的火柴”一样友好，但真实情报远比这种天真假设更为严峻——来自前苏联的记录显示，UAP 曾在俄罗斯境内反向“启动”过核导弹系统。 美军的“三位一体”核打击能力被埃利桑多形容为美国政府防御机制上的“皇冠明珠”（crown jewels），如果任何外部势力能够肆意干预或操控核反击力量，后果不堪设想。柏林墙倒塌后，美俄之间曾有过短暂的“蜜月期”，部分前克格勃（KGB）官员曾与美国政府共享绝密档案，其中便明确包含苏联核基地发射程序被 UAP 异常触发的调查报告。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: UAP 对美俄核设施的干预对比 accDescr: 对比 UAP 在美国导致核能力瘫痪与在苏联境内直接激活发射系统的异常操作 subgraph US["美军基地遭遇"] A["监测到 UAP 侵入"] --> B["切断控制信号"] B --> C["瘫痪核武发射能力"] end subgraph USSR["苏联/俄罗斯基地遭遇"] D["监测到 UAP 侵入"] --> E["克格勃秘密档案"] E --> F["直接激活开启核武器系统"] end ``` --- ### [01:07:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4046s) 巴西柯拉瑞斯岛事件与全球军方交火记录 主持人提及了发生于 1977 至 1978 年间的巴西柯拉瑞斯事件（Colares incident）。埃利桑多证实，这是一起由成百上千平民目睹、并由巴西军方正式立案调查的大规模接触事件。当时的行动由四星上将乌乔亚（General Uchôa）指挥。乌乔亚将军在去世前明确证实，不仅当地居民遭到光束袭击，甚至连执行调查任务的军方人员也遭到了 UAP 的直接攻击。当地人描述那些像“激光束”一样的定向能武器，造成了严重的组织损伤，赶赴现场的医疗团队对伤口检验后证实了这一损伤形态。 这种武装冲突与系统瘫痪并非孤立事件。埃利桑多指出，拉美多国（智利、秘鲁、乌拉圭）彼此互不相识的军官，都向他汇报过相似度极高的接触记录与飞行器外形，甚至有人尝试用机载航炮与 UAP 进行狗斗（近距空战），但毫无作用。类似的标志性事件还包括： - **1976/1978 年伊朗德黑兰事件**：一架 F-14“雄猫”战斗机试图锁定 UAP 并开火时，全机火控与航电系统在瞬间完全失效。 - **阿拉巴马州亨茨维尔测试事件**：在直升机试飞测试中，全部 8 名试飞员均目击到 UAP 环绕直升机飞行；其中一名试飞员的直升机系统彻底瘫痪并被迫进入紧急自转着陆（autorotation）状态，直到 UAP 飞离后才奇迹般恢复控制。 --- ### [01:10:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4219s) 泥泞脚印的比喻：国家安全隐患与威胁判定 当被问及公众是否应该感到恐惧时，埃利桑多澄清道，人们应当保持高度关切（concerned），但不必陷入惊慌（worried）。在情报分析框架中，“威胁”有着极其严谨的计算公式：**威胁 = 能力 × 意图**（Capabilities versus Intent）。目前，军方已经确凿目睹了这些不明物体超越人类认知的飞行与电磁能力，但对其背后的真正意图一无所知，因此不能直接草率地将其划为“既定威胁”。 为了向普通大众说明这种潜在风险，埃利桑多提出了著名的“客厅泥脚印”比喻： > “你每天晚上睡前都会锁好大门，甚至锁好窗户、开启警报系统。然而周日早晨，当你走下楼准备喝杯咖啡时，赫然发现客厅地毯上印着一串崭新的 12 码泥泞靴印。没有人受伤，没有东西失窃，但它就在那里。你能说这不是威胁吗？如果留下脚印的人想伤害你，他完全做得到。所以，当务之急是搞清楚他是怎么进来的。” 这与美国面临的空防窘境完全一致：不明物体能够畅通无阻地闯入受控空域、在绝密军事设施上空盘旋并干扰核心核资产，政府无论如何都必须查明其真相与进入通道。 --- ### [01:12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4328s) 站在对立面：假定 UAP 不存在的反方辩词 主持人向埃利桑多提出挑战：如果必须推翻自己现有的一切认知，站在反对立场去论证“UAP 并不存在”，他会拿出怎样的论点？埃利桑多回答称，直接宣称这些现象“根本不存在”在科学上已经站不住脚，因为物理实体已经被各类雷达和传感器反复捕获，其存在性已是铁证。 若要构建反方论据，只能从另外两个维度切入： 1. **地缘对手的技术代差**：假定中俄等战略对手在航空航天技术上实现了不可思议的飞跃，秘密掌握了完全超越美国认知的科技，并完美执行了这一长达数十年的战略威慑或侦察行动。 2. **群体性宏大幻觉**：将所有高级军用雷达的数据、光学影像以及资深飞行员和军方高层的目击证词，一律归结为人类心理学上的系统性认知偏差或幻觉。 埃利桑多随即准备对中俄技术突跃这一假说展开深入拆解。 ### [01:12:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4367s) 假设一：中俄秘密科技？比“9/11”更庞大的情报彻底溃败 路易斯·埃利松多（Luis Elizondo）针对“UFO/UAP是外国敌对势力秘密武器”的猜想进行了层层逻辑拆解。虽然中国此前确实曾向美国本土北部空域释放高空间谍气球且未受及时拦截，但如果将这一逻辑套用到过去70年以来的UAP现象上，就意味着有某个国家在长达70年的时间里，不仅秘密研发出了远超人类现有认知的高维科技，还能肆无忌惮地在美国大陆上空自由穿梭部署，同时做到完全不被归因识别。 回溯70年前的全球格局：美国当时刚刚走出第二次世界大战的硝烟，人类才勉强突破音障，尚未迈入太空时代的门槛；当时的中国正处于大饥荒时期；苏联的技术底子也绝不会比美国强多少。如果这些现象从那时起就属于中俄的技术产物——而美国拥有庞大的档案数据证明此类现象早已存在——那么这将是美利坚合众国历史上“最大规模的情报体系彻底溃败（the greatest intelligence failure）”，其严重程度将彻底盖过“9/11”事件。这意味着美国投入的数千亿美元国防预算以及17个国家级情报机构，在整整70年里对敌方这种天顶星级别的科技跃进竟然毫不知情。 路易斯打了一个极其生动的比方：如果1950年或1948年就存在这种技术，其荒谬程度“就像在1920年代首次踏入古埃及图坦卡蒙法老（King Tut）的墓穴，往里一照，竟然在陪葬品中赫然发现了一架组装完整、随时可以点火起飞的波音747客机”。古埃及人绝不可能拥有波音747，同理，半个多世纪前的人类阵营也根本无法创造出这种飞行器。因此，“外国先进武器”这一解释在逻辑与时间线上是完全站不住脚的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 假说逻辑排查链 accDescr: 对UAP现象来源的三大主流质疑进行逐层逻辑拆解与证伪 A["面对数十年的UAP现象数据"] --> B["假说 1：中俄秘密科技？"] A --> C["假说 2：群体性癔症/幻觉？"] A --> D["多传感器交叉验证事实"] subgraph S1["时间悖论与情报溃败"] B --> B1["70年前中俄尚处饥荒/战后恢复期"] B --> B2["如同在图坦卡蒙法老墓中发现波音747"] B --> B3["若成立：17家情报机构70年失职，远超9/11事件"] end subgraph S2["人员素质反差"] C --> C1["涉及顶级Top Gun飞行员与核打击操作员"] C --> C2["若全员发疯：美国面临的现实危机远大于UAP"] end subgraph S3["物理客观事实"] D --> D1["SPY-1雷达 / E-2鹰眼预警机 / FLIR红外"] D --> D2["大过载90°/180°直角转弯与瞬间机动"] D --> D3["不可辩驳的量化客观物理存在"] end ``` --- ### [01:14:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4478s) 假设二：群体幻觉？掌控核按钮的精英全疯了？ 排除外国科技假说后，路易斯引申出第二种常见的质疑路径：“这一切都不过是群体性幻觉（mass hallucination），所有目击者都疯了。” 路易斯顺着这个荒谬的假设继续推演：如果这是幻觉，那就意味着美国国防部与情报界最顶尖、最敏锐的精锐力量全都是疯子。那些从“Top Gun”海军战斗机武器学校毕业、肩负在繁华人口密集区上空悬挂实弹巡弋重任、以保家卫国赢得战争为己任的精英王牌飞行员，以及那些手指时刻放在真实核打击发射按钮上的高级军事骨干，全都成了“货真价实、无可救药的疯子”。路易斯直言，如果这些负责保卫国家命脉的关键人物全都精神失常、产生臆想，那么“美国眼下所面临的危机，恐怕要比UAP本身大得多得多”。 当主持人问及究竟有多少比例的军事人员曾正式上报过UAP时，路易斯指出无法用精准的百分比来衡量。因为在过往的污名化环境下，未上报的隐形群体庞大且无从统计。尽管当前政策逐渐开放让更多人敢于发声，但基数未明，依旧缺乏衡量未上报比例的具体量化指标。 --- ### [01:15:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4536s) 概率与巧合的钟形曲线，无法掩盖多传感器协同实测 主持人以统计学钟形曲线（Bell curve）提出质疑：极小概率事件的发生往往会被人们赋予超自然色彩。就像大家刚聊起神经科学家安德鲁·休伯曼（Andrew Huberman），手机突然就响起了他的来电，人们会在事后下意识强行关联并惊呼“这是奇迹”，却忽略了无数次提及别人却从未响铃的日常。同理，在千亿次正常观测的平庸数据旁，极少数无法解释的UAP目击会不会只是一种偶然的大气异常、球状闪电或相机镜头上的微小污渍？ 路易斯严肃地纠正了这一认知偏差：UAP的定性绝不是某个单独目击者的主观孤证，也不是某台机器偶发的镜头故障。在标准的军事接触事件中，存在着多套完全独立的尖端传感器系统在同一时间、同一环境变量下进行协同探测与交叉印证（Multi-sensor validation）： - 舰载大功率对空相控阵雷达牢牢咬定目标； - 战斗机机载机炮摄像机（Gun Camera）捕捉到了画面； - 前视红外热成像仪（FLIR）精准测绘出红外特征； - 空中预警雷达与多套异构雷达同时捕获航迹； - 此外还有多项涉及国家最高安全级别的尖端情报侦察手段（受保密法保护不可公开）同步记录。 路易斯补充道，如果是普通的火箭发射后残骸再入大气层，即便肼类燃料（Hydrazine）燃尽导致助推器在空中翻滚起火，也绝不可能做出90度或180度的极限瞬间急转弯。更不可能以人类飞行器完全无法承受的过载，从80,000英尺的高空断崖式跌落至水面50英尺悬停，随后又眨眼间直冲云霄。这是具有严密可测算性（Quantifiable）和明确物理定性（Qualifiable）的硬核数据，绝非概率钟形曲线边缘的巧合。 --- ### [01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4688s) 2004年“Tic Tac”尼米兹事件：宛如在下UFO雨 针对这些惊人的运动轨迹，话题自然切入了闻名世界的“Tic Tac”（白色飞行薄荷糖）事件。路易斯指出，公众常常以为这只是一次单独短暂的空中遭遇，但事实上这是2004年11月上旬发生的一连串旷日持久的接触事件（Incidents），甚至有雷达操作员惊骇地形容当时的空域“宛如在下UFO雨（raining UFOs）”。 整个军事接触过程中动用了当时全球首屈一指的尖端防空拦截网络： - **提康德罗加级巡洋舰“普林斯顿号”（USS Princeton）**：搭载了当时世界上最顶尖的海军防空雷达——AN/SPY-1无源相控阵雷达系统，该雷达具备极高的空间分辨率，足以在80,000英尺的高空精准锁定一颗棒球大小的物体； - **E-2“鹰眼”（E-2 Hawkeye）空中预警机**：在空中搭建全天候作战指挥与雷达空情保障网，同步捕获目标信标； - **F/A-18战机群及飞行员肉眼目击**：机载雷达与飞行员座舱视线多维度锁定； - **ATFLIR红外瞄准吊舱**：留下了著名的光电与红外追踪实拍录像。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 尼米兹/Tic Tac事件多平台立体监控网 accDescr: 展现提康德罗加巡洋舰、预警机与F18战斗机对Tic Tac目标的立体侦测过程 subgraph Space["80,000英尺高空至海平面"] TARGET["'Tic Tac'未知飞行器<br/>（高超音速/瞬时急停/反重力）"] end subgraph SeaAir["立体防御与监视网络"] CG["USS Princeton 巡洋舰<br/>（AN/SPY-1 相控阵雷达）"] E2["E-2 鹰眼预警机<br/>（战役级空中雷达指挥）"] F18["F/A-18 大黄蜂战机<br/>（机载雷达 / FLIR红外吊舱 / 肉眼目击）"] end CG -->|锁定监控| TARGET E2 -->|协同空情追踪| TARGET F18 -->|视距接触与红外咬定| TARGET ``` 飞行员在目视距离内描述该飞行物通体纯白、没有机翼、没有控制舵面，也没有可见的推进羽流，外形酷似一枚润喉含片（lozenge）、巨型白色丁烷罐，或者一颗常见的薄荷糖（Tic Tac）。物体原本处于80,000英尺高空边缘，在转瞬之间骤降至海面上空50英尺处悬停，随后以超乎物理常识的极速在海平线上“砰”地一声彻底消失。然而仅仅数秒之后，这具飞行器竟然直接出现在了60英里之外战机预设的集结折返点（CAP point, Combat Air Patrol point）。 这种完全压制现代物理常识的表现，完美印证了UAP的五大物理特征（Five Observables）：超高超音速机动、瞬时加速度、低可探测隐身性、无常规升力面的反重力漂浮，以及跨介质穿行能力。路易斯强调，Tic Tac只是极少数正式向公众解密的典型案例，而在保密帷幕之后，同类事件频繁上演。 - **SPY-1雷达的侦测极限**：该系统在当时代表了行星级的防空探测精度，能轻易辨识出80,000英尺高空的棒球级目标，绝无可能把气象杂波误判为固定轨迹的高速机动目标。 - **神级瞬移机动**：Tic Tac在数秒内跨越60英里的直线距离，且准确降落在未经无线电广播的机密战机CAP集合点，展现了难以理喻的情报感知与机动性能。 - **路易斯的履历注脚**：当主持人问及他在五角大楼AATIP项目任职的具体时长时，路易斯确认整整掌舵了“8年之久”，并指着自己的满头白发自嘲道：“我已经是老头子了，这头发是愁白的，可不是天生金发。” ### [01:21:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4887s) 节目中场：健康监测与红外热疗体验 在深入探讨五角大楼的绝密经历前，主持人穿插了一段健康赞助推荐。他首先提醒听众关注自身身体数据监测，随后分享了近期与伴侣深度使用的一款便携式远红外桑拿毯（Bon Charge infrared sauna blanket）。他谈到该设备通过直接加热身体而非周围空气的方式，提供了类似于健身房和水疗中心的红外桑拿效果。主持人结合自身体验指出，睡前使用能够明显改善睡眠评分，并在运动次日缓解肌肉僵硬与酸痛、促进血液循环，同时红外技术在改善皮肤状态方面也表现出色。 ### [01:22:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4959s) 五角大楼的“骑虎之行”：UAP与关塔那摩的双重重担 当主持人问及在五角大楼负责 UFO 项目的日常生活细节时，路易斯·埃利松多（Luis Elizondo）苦笑坦言，自己当时承担着整个五角大楼里最不受待见的两个“最糟糕业务组合”。一方面，他负责敏感且充满污名化的非正常飞行器（UAP）调查；另一方面，他还负责处理高度政治化且局势极度棘手的关塔那摩湾（Guantanamo Bay）事务。他把自己形容为一个“受人排斥的边缘人”，每天的工作状态就如同“骑着一头时刻想要把你撕成碎片的猛虎去上班”，稍有不慎便会被吞噬，只能拼尽全力死死抓住不放。 这种高压环境在2014年达到了极其危险的个人危机——埃利松多被正式告知，由于他参与处理关塔那摩湾的相关工作，他已被列入了极端组织“伊斯兰国”（ISIS）与“基地”组织（Al-Qaeda）的暗杀名单中。在职业与人身安全的双重巨大压力下，那段岁月异常艰难。尽管如此，当被问及是否热爱那份工作时，埃利松多表示自己深爱身边的战友、肩负的使命，以及为国家做正确事情的信念；他往往是因为过去的优秀表现而被高层亲自指派去啃这些硬骨头，虽然艰险，却义不容辞。 - **工作职责交叉**：同时兼管五角大楼最棘手的两大项目——UAP/UFO 追踪与关塔那摩湾拘押事务。 - **严重人身威胁**：2014年因关塔那摩工作被 ISIS 和基地组织列入处决名单。 - **履职态度**：虽然承受常人难以想象的心理煎熬，但始终出于国家职责与对团队的忠诚坚持履职。 ### [01:24:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=5066s) 面对未知的数据思维：从“暗淡蓝点”看人类的渺小与独特 当主持人试图探讨埃利松多是否“相信存在地外生命形式”时，埃利松多纠正了这种说法。他强调自己的核心态度“不是相信生命，而是相信可能性”。作为调查者，他从未亲身飞入太空，因此绝不会武断下结论宣称银河系某个角落一定生存着何种形态的生命，而是主张保持全然开放的心态，让冰冷确凿的科学数据自己开口说话，再基于证据得出审慎推论。 主持人随即分享了自己的共鸣：在观看浩瀚宇宙或黑洞纪录片时，人常会产生两种交织的情绪——一方面深感自己如浩瀚海滩上的一粒细沙般微不足道；另一方面，这种极端渺小感反而能奇妙地消解现实生活中的焦虑，让人觉得万事皆虚，无需庸人自扰。为了回应这种情绪，埃利松多让主持人用身旁的平板电脑搜索著名的“暗淡蓝点”（Pale Blue Dot）图像。 当主持人放大图像并看到漆黑虚空中那一束太阳光晕里极其微弱的亮斑时，埃利松多动情地解释：那正是人类生存的地球。人类历史上所发生过的所有悲欢离合、每一段文明史诗与每一段记忆，都发生在这个疾速穿行于冰冷真空的微小尘埃上。埃利松多指出，这张由远行探测器回望拍摄的画面固然会让人感到无足轻重，但它更深刻的意义在于揭示了人类的珍贵与独特——我们既可以在宇宙的宏大尺度前感知自身的微小，又能在现实的存在中体悟到生命的无可替代。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 认知宇宙尺度的双重心理维度 accDescr: 展示人类面对浩瀚宇宙时产生的渺小感与独特性认知。 subgraph Scale["宇宙宏观视角：暗淡蓝点"] A["浩瀚深空与无尽虚无"] --> B["地球仅为阳光中的微弱光斑"] end subgraph Perception["人类内心的双重认知体验"] B --> C["消极与释怀层面：<br/>感知极端微小与虚无，<br/>客观上消解现实焦虑"] B --> D["积极与存在层面：<br/>见证生命孕育之奇迹，<br/>体认人类家园的不可替代"] end C --> E["身处虚无却体察非凡：<br/>在渺小中确认自身独特价值"] D --> E ``` ### [01:27:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=5272s) 父亲身份与独立思考：宇宙中我们绝非孤身一人 在谈到家庭时，埃利松多的语气变得极其温柔而坚定。他直言不讳地表示，成为父亲是他一生中最伟大的成就，世上没有任何世俗荣誉或工作成就能够与抚养女儿相提并论。对于孩子们如何看待他的 UAP 调查工作，他强调自己从未强迫女儿们去“相信”任何结论，而是培养她们以数据为准绳、坚持独立思考的习惯。他告诫孩子们不必盲从父母的脚步，要勇敢地拥有自己的主见并从错误中学习。 随后，主持人提出了一个直击灵魂的问题：“你是否相信我们在宇宙中是孤独的？”埃利松多毫不犹豫、斩钉截铁地回答：“我们在宇宙中绝对不是孤身一人。”紧接着，主持人感叹道：“那我们只能祈祷其他的生命是仁慈的了。”埃利松多对此展开了哲学层面的辨析，探讨“仁慈”究竟该如何定义，并赞同主持人更具体的表达——至少应当期望对方不具恶意、不会将人类根除，且不会完全置人类利益于不顾而肆意妄为。 ### [01:29:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=5393s) 新书命名《迫在眉睫》：潜在威胁与未知文明 对话最后切入埃利松多的畅销书《迫在眉睫：五角大楼UFO搜寻内幕》（*Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs*）。主持人好奇为何选用“Imminent”（迫在眉睫）这一极具压迫感的词汇作为书名。埃利松多建议主持人直接翻开该书正文第一页、序言之前的前言段落。主持人逐字读出开篇的文字，书中坦承读者或许会疑惑为何定此书名，因为“迫在眉睫”这个词往往与另一个令人不安的词汇紧密绑定——那便是“威胁”（threat）。虽然初看之下全书似乎聚焦于未明飞行现象所带来的潜在国家安全与生存危机，但其背后所承载的信息与真相追寻，远比单一维度的恐慌更为深远。 ### [01:30:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=5416s) 书名《Imminent》的真正含义与对未知的释怀 路易斯·埃利桑多（Luis Elizondo）针对自己新书的书名《Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs》（迫在眉睫：五角大楼UFO猎手内幕）进行了进一步澄清。许多人可能会下意识地联想到某种外星入侵已迫在眉睫的威胁，但埃利桑多强调这绝非他的本意。他解释道，根据词典中的常规定义，“imminent”（迫在眉睫）通常意味着某件事“即将发生”、“逼近”或“不可避免”。这正是他选定这个标题的真正原因——并非宣告毁灭性的外星打击即刻降临，而是说明人类面对真相、认知突破与历史性转折的时刻已经无法回避。 随后，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出了该播客的闭幕传统环节：上一位匿名嘉宾留给下一位嘉宾的问题。留给埃利桑多的问题是：“你曾经极度恐惧、但现在不再害怕的事情是什么？” 埃利桑多沉思片刻后，给出了一个极具冲击力的答案——“恐惧”本身。他回忆起自己过去的岁月，坦言自己曾对一切都充满畏惧：害怕实战战斗、害怕死亡、害怕战争、害怕医疗健康出现危机，甚至不仅为自己担忧，更为其他人的安危深感焦虑。但如今，彻底摆脱恐惧让他感受到一种前所未有的解脱与释放。正如那句古老的名言所言，“我们唯一值得恐惧的，就是恐惧本身”。埃利桑多坦白道，虽然内心仍然保持着清醒的“关切与忧虑”，但真正的恐惧已经荡然无存。他已经年过半百，回顾自己的一生，不仅过得充实丰盈，还拥有深爱的非凡家庭；无论未来遭遇什么阻力、发生什么事情，对他而言都已经不再重要。 ### [01:31:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=5516s) 执念与偏见的陷阱：在未知面前保持谦卑 主持人向埃利桑多致谢，感谢他抽身接受访谈并撰写了这部罕见披露五角大楼在不明异常现象（UAP/UFO）领域真实运作情况的著作。主持人分享了自己对宇宙生命的看法：他坚信人类在宇宙中绝非孤独存在，但具体意味着什么、存在何种形态的智慧生命，目前无人能断言。他认为，任何坚称自己百分之百知道答案、或者自以为了如指掌地描摹出造访者是谁的人，本质上都是一种天真与无知。 埃利桑多对此深表赞同，并指出“狂热的深信者”（true believers）与“狂热的怀疑论者”（true skeptics）其实在本质上是同一种人，只是处于同一光谱的两极——无论向他们出示怎样翔实客观的数据和证据，他们都早已被自身预设的立场绑架，绝不可能改变原有的叙事。主持人总结道，面对历史和未知，最明智的姿态始终是保持开放心态（open-minded）；回顾人类文明发展史，无数次人类自以为弄明白了一切，最终却被证明大错特错，若在今天还狂妄地认为自己掌握了全貌，那无异于自欺欺人的愚蠢。 - 极端阵营的共通性：“狂热深信者”与“极端怀疑论者”皆因顽固的先入为主而拒绝审视事实，丧失了客观探索的能力。 - 探索科学与宇宙的态度：承认认知的局限性，在证据面前保持诚实与谦卑，是探寻未解之谜唯一理性的路径。 ### [01:33:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=5594s) 节目收尾与对话卡牌特别推荐 在对埃利桑多的致谢与告别后，主持人向听众展示了《The Diary Of A CEO》播客专属的周边产品——全新升级的第二版“对话卡牌”（Conversation Cards）。 该卡牌的设计灵感来源于节目每期结尾的嘉宾提问环节。制作团队将历届嘉宾在日记本中留下的每一个深度问题整理并制作成了这套实体互动卡牌。每张卡牌不仅印有嘉宾留下的独特问题，背面还附有专属二维码；扫描该二维码即可直接观看对应嘉宾亲自回答该问题的独家视频片段。这款产品此前曾两度瞬间售罄，主持人向观众介绍了在官方网站获取限量版卡牌的方式。 ## Notable quotes > [02:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=125s) 要想成为一名领袖，你必须先懂得如何去服从 — 路易斯·埃利桑多之父（转述） > [06:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=360s) 你怎么看UFO（What do you think about UFOs）？ — 詹姆斯·拉卡茨基博士 > [06:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=360s) 这很公平，但我必须提醒你：千万不要让你的‘分析偏见’（analytic bias）占据上风，因为你在这里即将学到的东西，将彻底颠覆你此前对这个世界的所有预设与固有认知。 — 詹姆斯·拉卡茨基博士 > [15:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=945s) 它们是真实存在的，这已无需怀疑。 — 路易斯·埃利桑多 > [20:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=1214s) Lou，我们总不能把士兵永远关在甲板下面吧？到处都是这玩意儿，你到底要我们怎么做？ — 海军舰长/舰队将领（转述） > [46:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2769s) 把事情做对（doing things right）和把事情立刻做完（doing things right now）是完全不同的两码事。 — 路易斯·埃利桑多 > [47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=2864s) 究竟是谁在背后阻挠总统？究竟谁有这么大的特权凌驾于总统之上？ — 路易斯·埃利桑多 > [01:10:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=4219s) 你每天晚上睡前都会锁好大门，甚至锁好窗户、开启警报系统。然而周日早晨，当你走下楼准备喝杯咖啡时，赫然发现客厅地毯上印着一串崭新的 12 码泥泞靴印。没有人受伤，没有东西失窃，但它就在那里。你能说这不是威胁吗？如果留下脚印的人想伤害你，他完全做得到。所以，当务之急是搞清楚他是怎么进来的。 — 路易斯·埃利桑多 > [01:27:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=5272s) 我们在宇宙中绝对不是孤身一人。 — 路易斯·埃利桑多 > [01:30:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY&t=5416s) 我们唯一值得恐惧的，就是恐惧本身 — 路易斯·埃利桑多 ## Mentioned Luis Elizondo (路易斯·埃利桑多), Steven Bartlett (史蒂芬·巴特利特), AATIP (高级航空航天威胁识别计划), AAWSAP (高级航空航天武器系统应用计划), Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs (《迫在眉睫》), Pentagon (五角大楼), Dr. James Lacatski (詹姆斯·拉卡茨基博士), Jay Stratton (杰伊·斯特拉顿), General Jim Mattis (吉姆·马蒂斯将军), Bob Lazar (鲍勃·拉扎尔), David Grusch (大卫·格鲁施), John Burroughs (约翰·伯罗斯), John McCain (约翰·麦凯恩参议员), Jimmy Carter (吉米·卡特), George H. W. Bush (老布什), Bill Clinton (比尔·克林顿), Barack Obama (奥巴马), Donald Trump (唐纳德·特朗普), General Uchôa (乌乔亚将军), DOPSR (国防部预出版与安全审查办公室), AARO (全域异常解决办公室), CIA (中央情报局), FBI (联邦调查局), DIA (国防情报局), NCIX (国家反间谍执行局), ODNI (国家情报总监办公室), Area 51 (51区), Gimbal 事件, Tic Tac 尼米兹号事件 (USS Nimitz), USS Theodore Roosevelt (西奥多·罗斯福号航母), USS Princeton (普林斯顿号巡洋舰), Colares incident (柯拉瑞斯事件), Rendlesham Forest incident (兰德尔沙姆森林事件), Project Blue Book (蓝皮书计划), Lockheed Martin Skunk Works (洛克希德·马丁臭鼬工厂), AN/SPY-1 相控阵雷达, Bon Charge, WHOOP, The Diary Of A CEO ## Video description Are we alone in the universe? If we aren't, are we among friends or enemies? A former top U.S. official reveals the classified UFO secrets that the Pentagon has hidden for years. Luis Elizondo is the former head of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) that operated within the Pentagon. He is also the bestselling author of the book, ‘Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs’.  00:00 Intro 02:05 Who Is Luis? 02:24 Luis's Professional Resume 04:38 What Pentagon's Project Did You Work On In 2008-2009? 10:30 Joining AATIP (Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program) 12:12 AATIP's Mission 13:46 What's A UAP? 14:21 Stigma Associated With The Term 'UFO' 15:45 Luis's Beliefs On UFO/UAP 20:21 Leaving The Program And The Role At Pentagon 23:28 Why Don’t They Want The Public To Know? 29:23 What Type Of Information Do You Have Access To In This Role? 30:08 The Area 51 Conspiracy Theories 31:00 Bob Lazar's Claims 31:45 The Process Of Clearing Highly Classified Information To Share With The Public 33:42 Evidence On UFO/UAP 34:09 The 'Gimbal' Incident 35:24 The Reason Why There's No More Declassified UFO Videos 36:36 Why US Government Doesn't Tell People About UFO's 41:52 Have There Ever Been Recovered UFO/UAP Materials? 42:28 People Going To Jail Or Even Harder Punishment For Speaking Out 43:40 Who's In Charge Of Preventing Information Leakage? 43:57 US Killed US Citizens With Drones 46:09 Danger Of Publishing "Imminent" 47:51 Do American Presidents Know About UFO/UAP? 48:17 Which Presidents Were Aware Of UFO/UAP? 50:53 How Much Does An Average Citizen Know About What's Going On In The Government? 52:04 What Is The Legacy Program & Why Is It Not Well Funded? 53:17 How Do People In Pentagon Perceive Aliens? 01:01:18 UFO's Motives To Visit Earth 01:03:30 What Is A UAP Encounter? 01:06:11 UAP Sightings At Nuclear Technology Facilities 01:06:49 Interference With A Nuclear Facility In Russia 01:07:33 The Colares Incident 01:10:27 Should We Be Worried? 01:12:15 Case Against UFO 01:15:43 Is Witness Testimony Enough To Prove UFO's Existence? Probability And Statistics 01:18:11 The 'Tic Tac' Incident 01:22:46 Ad Break 01:22:47 What's A Day In The Life Of Someone Working For AATIP? 01:24:33 How Has Luis's Work Changed The Way He Lives? 01:24:11 How Do You Feel Being Such A Small Part Of The Vast Universe? 01:27:59 What Do Luis's Kids Think Of His Work And UFO? 01:29:30 Are We Alone In The Universe? 01:30:01 Why Is The Book Called 'Imminent'? 01:30:47 What Is Something You Were Once Deeply Afraid Of That You're No Longer Afraid Of? Follow Luis:  Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/u43uFQui1Mb  Twitter - https://g2ul0.app.link/hzR3O0Di1Mb  Website - https://g2ul0.app.link/eGOTgVFi1Mb  You can purchase Luis’ book, ‘Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs’, here: https://amzn.to/3B9Rbit You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb  🌟 Get access to exclusive Diary of a CEO content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGq-a57w-aPwyi3pW7XLiHw/join Get your hands on the brand new Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards here: https://appurl.io/iUUJeYn25v Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb  Sponsors: WHOOP - https://join.whoop.com/CEO Bon Charge - http://boncharge.com/diary with code DIARY for 25% off [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNVSju99HY)

[2:05] 路易斯·埃利桑多之父（转述）: 要想成为一名领袖，你必须先懂得如何去服从 [6:00] 詹姆斯·拉卡茨基博士: 你怎么看UFO（What do you think about UFOs）？ [6:00] 詹姆斯·拉卡茨基博士: 这很公平，但我必须提醒你：千万不要让你的‘分析偏见’（analytic bias）占据上风，因为你在这里即将学到的东西，将彻底颠覆你此前对这个世界的所有预设与固有认知。 [15:45] 路易斯·埃利桑多: 它们是真实存在的，这已无需怀疑。 [20:14] 海军舰长/舰队将领（转述）: Lou，我们总不能把士兵永远关在甲板下面吧？到处都是这玩意儿，你到底要我们怎么做？ [46:09] 路易斯·埃利桑多: 把事情做对（doing things right）和把事情立刻做完（doing things right now）是完全不同的两码事。 [47:44] 路易斯·埃利桑多: 究竟是谁在背后阻挠总统？究竟谁有这么大的特权凌驾于总统之上？ [70:19] 路易斯·埃利桑多: 你每天晚上睡前都会锁好大门，甚至锁好窗户、开启警报系统。然而周日早晨，当你走下楼准备喝杯咖啡时，赫然发现客厅地毯上印着一串崭新的 12 码泥泞靴印。没有人受伤，没有东西失窃，但它就在那里。你能说这不是威胁吗？如果留下脚印的人想伤害你，他完全做得到。所以，当务之急是搞清楚他是怎么进来的。 [87:52] 路易斯·埃利桑多: 我们在宇宙中绝对不是孤身一人。 [90:16] 路易斯·埃利桑多: 我们唯一值得恐惧的，就是恐惧本身

[2:05] Luis Elizondo: In order to be a leader, you must first know what it means to follow. [4:38] Dr. James Lacatski: Don't let your analytic bias get the best of you, because you may learn things here that will challenge any preconceived notion or narrative that you have about the topic. [20:14] Luis Elizondo: I resigned in protest, but not out of disloyalty. I resigned because of my loyalty to this country and to this government. [41:51] Lethal Force Authorized [50:46] Luis Elizondo: As humans... we don't know anything, and we're so used to being force-fed information by whatever outlet du jour we want to tune into... We as people have become extremely lazy, and we are no longer willing to ask the hard questions. [70:27] Luis Elizondo: I'm sure you live in a lovely home... do you lock your front door before you go to bed?... You wake up one Sunday morning to have yourself a nice hot cup of tea or coffee... you notice size 12 muddy boot prints on your living room carpet that were not there the night before. Now, no one's been hurt, nothing's out of place, but despite you locking the front door and checking the windows and turning on the alarm, there are now boot prints in your living room floor... My response is, it could be if it wanted to be, so we should probably figure out how it's getting into the house. [78:11] Radar Operator: It was raining UFOs. [82:47] Luis Elizondo: riding a tiger to work [87:59] Luis Elizondo: There'll be nothing in my life that will ever come close to the achievement of being a father. Period. Full stop. [87:59] Luis Elizondo: We are absolutely not alone in the universe. [90:21] Previous Guest: What is something you were once deeply afraid of that now you are no longer afraid of? [91:56] Luis Elizondo: The true believers and the true skeptics, they're just on opposite ends of the spectrum because no matter what information you give them, they're never going to change their narrative.

[0:00] We are absolutely not alone in the [0:01] universe. And I know these things are [0:02] real because I was asked to investigate [0:05] UFO incursions into controlled US [0:06] airspace by the Pentagon. These videos [0:08] here, there's no question what you're [0:10] seeing. [0:10] And there's more videos like this that [0:12] you've been exposed to. [0:13] Oh, yeah, but they're classified because [0:15] there are a lot of people that don't [0:16] want us talking about this. [0:17] Should we be worried about this? [0:20] Luis Elizondo is a respected [0:21] intelligence officer and former head of [0:23] the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat [0:25] Identification Program, where he led [0:27] efforts to investigate UFO sightings and [0:29] unidentified aerial phenomena. [0:31] There were real things that we were [0:32] encountering over controlled US airspace [0:34] by an unknown technology that frankly [0:36] could outperform anything that we had in [0:38] our inventory. And there was a big [0:40] national security issue because there's [0:42] potential for these things to be [0:43] interfering with our nuclear equities. [0:45] There's evidence to suggest that they [0:46] turned on the nuclear facilities in [0:47] Russia, right? [0:48] Yeah, that's a big deal. [0:50] Has there ever been anyone sent to jail [0:51] because they've spoken about this [0:53] subject matter? [0:53] Worse, my life has been threatened many [0:55] times. I've taken huge risks, but I [0:57] think we deserve the truth. So, let's [1:00] go. [1:00] People say that they were abducted by [1:01] aliens. Do you believe any of those [1:03] reports? [1:03] I can tell you that we definitely have [1:04] people that are now on US government [1:06] medical disability because they were [1:07] involved in a UFO encounter. [1:09] And then one of the rumors is that at [1:11] Area 51 they found UFO materials. [1:13] I cannot comment what Area 51 might or [1:16] might not have. All I can say is that [1:17] the government is in possession of [1:18] material that doesn't look like it's [1:20] made by us. [1:21] Do you have any theories as to why they [1:22] might be visiting here? [1:23] Oh gosh, well, where do I start? [1:25] You eventually resigned. Why? [1:27] I resigned in protest because [1:32] This has always blown my mind a little [1:33] bit. 53% of you that listen to this show [1:36] regularly haven't yet subscribed to this [1:38] show. So, could I ask you for a favor [1:40] before we start? If you like this show [1:41] and you like what we do here and you [1:42] want to support us, the free simple way [1:44] that you can do just that is by hitting [1:46] the subscribe button. And my commitment [1:48] to you is if you do that, then I'll do [1:49] everything in my power, me and my team, [1:51] to make sure that this show is better [1:52] for you every single week. We'll listen [1:54] to your feedback, we'll find the guests [1:56] that you want me to speak to, and we'll [1:58] continue to do what we do. Thank you so [1:59] much. [2:03] Luke. [2:05] Steve. [2:06] Who are you? [2:08] Wow, depends who you ask. [2:10] I think to some people I'm probably a [2:14] a patriot, to other people [2:16] I'm a father [2:18] and a husband, and to other people I'm [2:20] probably the devil. [2:24] What's your professional CV? What does [2:26] your professional resume say? [2:27] Went to college, went to the University [2:29] of Miami. [2:30] I studied uh microbiology, immunology, [2:33] and parasitology. [2:35] Uh I consider myself a disciple of uh [2:37] scientific method and scientific [2:39] principles. [2:40] I then joined the army, [2:42] uh United States Army. [2:43] I went in as enlisted. I had an [2:46] opportunity to go in as an officer [2:47] because of my education. [2:49] But uh the words of my father always [2:52] rung in the back of my head, and he [2:54] said, "In order to be a leader, you must [2:55] first know what it means to follow." [2:58] And so I joined the army as an enlisted [3:00] soldier, [3:01] um spent some time in deployments Korea, [3:03] spent lived a year in Asia. [3:05] Um [3:06] was in military intelligence, and then I [3:08] was recruited very shortly thereafter [3:10] into a special program where I became a [3:12] civilian special agent in [3:13] counterintelligence running [3:14] investigations. [3:15] Um supervised investigations throughout [3:18] Latin America, South America, Central [3:19] America, and then um [3:22] spent the rest of my time after 9/11 uh [3:25] uh over in Afghanistan in the Middle [3:26] East. [3:27] Primarily uh dealing with uh terrorism [3:30] issues, uh running operations against uh [3:32] Hezbollah and and ISIS and other other [3:35] organizations. [3:37] And then um [3:39] after probably several years of that, my [3:40] wife got very tired of it. [3:42] Missed too many birthdays, missed too [3:44] many uh [3:45] holidays, and [3:47] she said, "You really need to come back, [3:49] and more importantly, I'm afraid the [3:50] next time you leave you may not come [3:52] back. Uh we are losing some people over [3:54] there quite a bit, and so [3:56] I listened to my wife. I came back, took [3:57] a supervisory job, ran uh investigations [4:00] worldwide, um [4:02] terrorism investigations. And then from [4:04] there I went to several other [4:06] three-letter agencies. I worked for the [4:08] NCIX, National Counterintelligence [4:09] Executive. I worked for the DNI, the [4:11] Director of National Intelligence. [4:13] And uh it was in 2000 uh shortly [4:16] thereafter um that I was asked to be [4:18] part of a [4:20] very interesting program in the [4:21] Pentagon. Um what my CV is, I'm probably [4:25] uh a jack-of-all-trades, but an expert [4:27] in nothing. I've done a lot of things. [4:29] Mostly national security crimes, [4:30] terrorism, espionage, um some [4:32] counter-guerrilla operations, [4:34] counter-narcotics, [4:35] uh counterinsurgency uh missions. [4:38] You said in 2000 and sort of 8, 2009 you [4:40] were asked to come back to the Pentagon [4:42] to work on a particular project. What [4:44] project was that? [4:45] So, well, it wasn't the one that wound [4:48] up being the project that everybody [4:49] knows me for. So, [4:51] uh in 2008, they asked me to run a [4:55] program to help integrate [4:58] national-level intelligence [5:01] to with law enforcement, local and state [5:04] law enforcement agencies. Now, why is [5:06] that important? Because and then to kind [5:08] of lead to the next thing. [5:09] After 9/11, people think here 9/11 was [5:12] was caused by by unfortunately some [5:14] terrorists doing some bad things. [5:17] That was an effect, that wasn't the [5:18] cause. The actual cause was us here in [5:21] the United States not being able to [5:22] share information with ourselves very [5:25] well. We had pockets of information at [5:27] the CIA, pockets of information at the [5:28] FBI, pockets of information at the [5:30] Department of Defense, but we weren't [5:32] sharing it with each other. And thereby [5:35] there was an information gap, an [5:36] intelligence gap, and the folks in 9/11 [5:39] were able to do what they did, [5:40] unfortunately. [5:42] So, we learned that lesson [5:43] by trying to create um better [5:46] integration. So, how do you take super [5:48] secret information and get it down to a [5:52] level that can be consumed and usable [5:54] without compromising sources and [5:55] methods. So, that was the problem I was [5:57] asked to come back and fix. [6:00] It was shortly thereafter is when I was [6:02] visited by some individuals and had some [6:04] conversations with some other [6:05] individuals about a program that I had [6:07] no idea was that was I was ongoing, but [6:09] it was. [6:10] And it was a program involving the [6:13] investigation, the government's [6:14] investigation into UAP or in the [6:17] vernacular [6:18] you might call them UFOs. [6:21] Who approached you? [6:22] So, there were two individuals. One of [6:23] them I can talk about, the other one is [6:25] identity is protected. [6:26] It's a gentleman named Jay Stratton [6:29] uh, who at the time was another [6:30] intelligence official like me and [6:33] another one of his colleagues. And they [6:34] came to me and they started asking me [6:36] questions. They had a blue badge, so I I [6:38] knew that they were cleared. They had [6:39] the same security clearance I had. We [6:40] all worked in SCIFs. [6:42] And it's not uncommon when you need [6:44] expertise in a particular portfolio or [6:46] mission that you you outsource. You find [6:48] the right people to do this right job. [6:50] And so, [6:51] I was told they were looking for [6:52] somebody to run counterintelligence and [6:54] security [6:55] for this capability that they had. They [6:57] didn't tell me what the capability was. [6:59] Um, and I was a counterintelligence and [7:02] security guy who was an expert in it. [7:04] So, after several conversations um, a [7:06] bit of a dance if you will, you know, [7:08] kind of like [7:09] trying to figure each other out. They [7:11] arranged for me to have a meeting with a [7:12] individual and I met [7:15] uh, the what I would consider is the [7:17] premier rocket scientist for the United [7:20] States government. Now, when I say [7:22] rocket scientist, I mean literally a [7:23] rocket scientist. [7:25] This is a gentleman who can tell you the [7:29] fuel consumption rate of a first stage [7:31] solid rocket motor booster. He can tell [7:33] you the the orbital velocity of a MIRV [7:36] vehicle, multiple re-entry vehicle [7:37] coming in from lower Earth orbit. I [7:39] mean, the best of the best of the best. [7:42] He was running a program, and I still [7:44] didn't know what the program was, but he [7:45] said, "Look, you know, we've been doing [7:46] it we've been given a lot of money to do [7:48] it right, and we're looking for somebody [7:49] with me with your skill sets." And his [7:51] name was Dr. James Lacatski, and the [7:54] epitome of a rocket scientist. And at [7:57] the end of the conversation, I remember [7:58] him looking at me over his glasses, and [8:01] he said to me, "What do you think about [8:03] UFOs?" [8:05] And so, I thought for a moment, and I [8:06] said to him, I said, "I Sorry, I don't." [8:10] And he said, "Well, what do you mean? [8:11] You You don't believe in UFOs?" I said, [8:13] "No, I I didn't say that. [8:14] You asked me, what do I think of them? [8:16] And my response was, I don't, because I [8:19] don't think about them. I I'm too busy [8:22] chasing bad guys and trying to fix [8:24] problems for the government. I I never [8:25] really had the luxury to think about [8:26] them." [8:28] And he said to me, "Okay, that's fair, [8:29] fair enough, but let me just warn you, [8:32] um don't let your [8:34] analytic bias [8:36] get the best of you, because you may [8:37] learn things here that will challenge [8:39] any preconceived notion or narrative [8:41] that you have [8:43] about the topic." [8:45] And so, I left that meeting thinking to [8:48] myself, is this some sort of [8:49] psychological evaluation? Was it that a [8:51] serious question, you know, or [8:54] And it was very soon thereafter that I [8:56] learned the reality that the United [8:58] States government was absolutely [9:00] invested in a UFO investigative program, [9:03] and more importantly, that it was [9:05] legitimate. I It was real. There were [9:07] real things that we were encountering [9:09] over controlled US airspace, over [9:10] sensitive military installations, [9:13] um by an unknown technology that frankly [9:17] could outperform anything that we had in [9:19] our inventory. [9:22] So, that was my uh that was my [9:23] introduction to now what is known as [9:26] AATIP. My focus was specifically more on [9:29] the nuts and bolts investigations of [9:31] these UAP incursions into controlled US [9:33] airspace, encounters by military [9:36] aircraft of these things. [9:37] Um we weren't really focused on [9:39] civilians information, right? We This [9:41] wasn't like a grandma seeing some lights [9:43] in the backyard. [9:44] These were These were well, to lack of a [9:47] better term, close encounters by trained [9:49] military pilots, trained observers. [9:52] By the way, [9:54] who could recognize a silhouette [9:56] between an F SU-22, a MiG-25, and an [9:59] F-16 from 10 mi away and make a [10:01] split-second decision if it is a friend [10:03] or foe? [10:04] And what these pilots were encountering [10:06] were also being backed up by by gun [10:09] camera footage. And and FLIR footage, [10:12] forward-looking infrared footage. And [10:13] oh, by the way, [10:15] that was being further backed up by [10:16] radar data, airborne data, airborne [10:19] radar data, and also ground-based radar [10:21] data, and sea-based radar data. [10:23] How did you go from the project you were [10:24] working on into AATIP? Cuz that was the [10:26] first sort of meeting, right? That was [10:28] like an introductory conversation. [10:30] So, there were several meetings before [10:31] that where they were trying to vet me, [10:33] see if I had, I guess, the the right [10:35] background of skill sets. It wasn't [10:36] until that meeting with Jim Lacatski [10:38] that the word UFO was used. Um [10:42] and how did I how did I go about that? [10:44] He's the one who made the decision. It [10:46] was his program. I had nothing to do [10:47] with that. I just, you know, said, [10:48] "Yeah, I'll do it." I didn't even know [10:50] what I was signing up for until after my [10:51] meeting with him. [10:52] So, did he say to you, "Okay, well, we'd [10:53] like you to work on this program, this [10:55] AATIP program. Um the acronym that [10:56] stands for Advanced Aerospace Threat [10:58] Identification Program." [10:59] Correct. [11:00] Um and eventually you became the [11:01] director of that program. [11:02] Yeah, so it there was a there was a [11:04] natural evolution of it. Um initially, I [11:06] was just there were brought in to [11:08] provide counterintelligence and security [11:10] uh expertise. [11:11] Um but as that program, ASAP, faded [11:14] away, [11:15] the the necessity and urgency of some of [11:17] these incursions were were it was [11:18] getting to a a desperate crescendo. It [11:21] was getting really There was a lot of [11:22] these incursions happening. There was a [11:24] big national security issue that that we [11:26] were all recognizing. And there were [11:29] some elements in the government that [11:30] were trying to kill [11:32] the effort. Um and not for reasons you [11:34] might think, believe it or not. [11:35] Completely different. Um [11:38] And so, the decision was made to bring [11:39] it up to the Pentagon, up to where I [11:41] was, take it out of DIA, Defense [11:43] Intelligence Agency, and with the [11:44] authorities I had, I was the Director of [11:46] National Program Special Management [11:48] Staff. And so, that was my job. Um I ran [11:51] special access programs for for the [11:53] White House and for the National [11:55] Security Council. [11:56] And uh [11:58] we uh we put the program under that, uh [12:00] keeping it out of the the prying eyes of [12:02] some of the folks that previously were [12:04] trying to kill the program. [12:05] So, this program, Advanced Aerospace [12:07] Threat Identification Program, was [12:09] really focused on [12:10] um investigating [12:12] reports and incidents of [12:15] UAPs or UFOs um [12:17] in military environments. So, if there [12:20] was a UFO {slash} UAP in a I don't know, [12:24] in a military base, [12:26] then this project would investigate what [12:28] that was. Is that Is that correct? [12:29] Correct. That's Correct. So, it was only [12:31] military-focused. [12:32] Um it wasn't interested in civilian [12:34] data. At the time we were running it at [12:36] the Pentagon, it was really looking at [12:39] for example, nuclear carrier strike [12:40] groups that were encountering these [12:41] things all the time. It would be, for [12:43] example, an Air Force base or a Navy [12:45] base or uh there was a special [12:48] operations unit on a particular patrol, [12:50] and if they happened to encounter a UAP, [12:53] those type of reports. And [12:55] I also want to emphasize here, we [12:57] weren't looking for UFOs. You know, we [12:59] were we were always coming into a [13:01] situation [13:02] with the understanding that there's some [13:03] sort of prosaic [13:05] un- there's a prosaic answer to what [13:07] this is, right? It actually wasn't a [13:09] UFO, it was a drone, a test fire of a [13:11] missile, it was a drone, it was a [13:13] balloon, it was whatever, whatever. [13:15] Because there are certain signatures and [13:16] profiles that you can look very quickly [13:18] determine, oh, that's just conventional [13:19] technology. [13:21] But there was a guideline that we use [13:23] that al- helped us understand when [13:26] something really was anomalous. When we [13:27] really we're talking about [13:29] it's not our technology and whatever [13:31] that is, it's probably not adversarial [13:33] or foreign technology. So, now we're [13:35] getting into the real world of UAP. That [13:37] that's that's anomalous. [13:39] What's a UAP? [13:40] Unidentified anomalous phenomenon. So, [13:43] let me if I can for let me backtrack a [13:45] little bit. [13:46] For years and years and years the term [13:47] UFO, unidentified flying object, was [13:50] used. [13:51] Um [13:52] there were several reasons, but later on [13:54] the term was changed to UAP and it stood [13:56] for unidentified aerial phenomenon. And [13:59] that's probably in the last year, year [14:00] and a half, you're starting to see yet [14:02] another definition of UAP, unidentified [14:05] anomalous phenomenon. And there's a [14:07] reason for that. I'm happy to explain if [14:09] you want, but um [14:10] the decision was made to change from UFO [14:13] to UAP. [14:14] I read that it was because a lot of the [14:15] sort of military personnel stopped [14:17] reporting their sightings because [14:19] there was a stigma associated with the [14:20] term UFO. [14:22] Correct. So, it's two two reasons. [14:24] Uh there was stigma and taboo associated [14:25] with the term because the moment you say [14:27] UFO, people think tin foil hats and [14:30] They think you're crazy. [14:30] Yeah, Elvis on the mothership and you [14:32] know, nonsense like that. [14:34] Um [14:35] but the reality is is that this this was [14:37] a real issue, a national security issue [14:38] for our nation and other nations too, by [14:40] the way. But also the term UFO isn't [14:42] really accurate anymore. So, what do I [14:44] mean by that? Well, unidentified flying [14:47] object. What is flying? Well, flying [14:50] means you have four fundamental forces. [14:52] You have thrust, lift, drag, and weight. [14:55] And when you understand that, you can [14:56] create wings and create lift and that is [14:58] the definition of flying, right? [15:01] These things didn't have wings. They [15:03] didn't have rudders, elevators, control [15:05] surfaces, ailerons, cockpits, [15:07] um and yet somehow they were able to [15:10] remain aloft in our atmosphere. So, they [15:12] weren't flying, technically. So, the [15:14] name was changed to anomalous uh I'm [15:16] sorry, unidentified aerial phenomena cuz [15:18] they were being seen in the air, but [15:20] then they realized, you know what? [15:21] They're also being seen underwater. [15:23] They're also being seen in high altitude [15:24] and possibly low Earth orbit. So, to say [15:27] that they're aerial isn't even accurate, [15:28] either. So, then they said, okay, it's [15:30] unidentified anomalous phenomenon to [15:32] cover all the separate domains or [15:34] environments that these things are being [15:36] encountered in. [15:37] Before you had the meeting regarding [15:39] this project at the Pentagon, [15:42] what did you believe about UAPs and [15:44] {slash} UFOs? [15:45] I didn't. I was never interested even in [15:46] science fiction as a kid. [15:48] Did you believe they were If I'd asked [15:49] you then, if I'd come up to you and [15:50] said, "Are UFOs real?" [15:53] And I say UFOs because that's the sort [15:54] of [15:55] Sure. [15:55] social term, but [15:57] what would you have said? [15:59] Probably not. [16:01] I mean, I would have said literally, [16:02] probably not. I wouldn't say for for [16:04] sure not because I didn't know. [16:05] What about now? [16:06] Oh. [16:08] Yeah, give me. I mean, [16:09] yeah, it's These are real. I mean, don't [16:11] take my word for it. Our government's [16:12] already said it. I mean, we [16:14] You have a former director of national [16:15] intelligence [16:17] telling the world, yeah, these these [16:18] things are real, whatever they are. You [16:19] have a former director of CIA. You have [16:21] a former president of the United States. [16:23] Um [16:24] we've known for a long time they're [16:26] real. And by the way, it's not just our [16:27] country. There's other countries that [16:28] are very forthcoming. [16:30] Um there's countries in South America [16:32] that have been dealing with this for a [16:33] long time. Japan just entered into a uh [16:36] bilateral information sharing agreement [16:38] with our country for the express [16:39] purposes of sharing UAP information and [16:41] data. China's interested. Russia's [16:43] interested in this. Um [16:45] several European countries have a fairly [16:48] robust capability and have have a lot of [16:49] information on this. [16:50] Was there a moment when your belief [16:52] changed? Was there a moment that you can [16:54] remember where you thought, you know [16:55] what? [16:56] What I thought about UAPs [16:59] was wrong? [17:00] Sure. Um [17:02] And what I often tell people, there's [17:04] there's there's two types of individuals [17:05] the way that we process this [17:07] information. [17:08] In one category, you have people that [17:10] will sit there and say, [17:12] "I had this epiphany. This revelatory [17:14] moment where all of a sudden it's like, [17:15] oh my god, they're real. Right? Are you [17:17] kidding me? [17:19] And then there's another group of people [17:20] which I probably fall into that second [17:22] category, the latter category, which is [17:25] more of a slow progression [17:28] and realization of what we're dealing [17:30] with is not a conventional technology. [17:33] It's not [17:35] our technology. It's It's something [17:38] else. [17:39] Um [17:42] At some point, the preponderance of [17:44] evidence is so overwhelming. Let me give [17:45] you an example. I am [17:49] I spent my life in in investigations. [17:53] Terrorists [17:54] spies, whatever. [17:56] And um I've always been what I [17:58] considered just the facts, ma'am, kind [18:01] of guy, very very data-driven. I don't [18:03] really care about innuendos and [18:04] suppositions and your opinion very much. [18:07] I care about what the data says, right? [18:08] What does it What does the data suggest? [18:10] And in this case, this particular case, [18:14] you have [18:15] eyewitness testimony. [18:17] You have it backed up by gun camera [18:18] footage. You have it backed up by fleer [18:20] footage. You have it backed up by radar [18:22] information. You've got five, six, [18:24] sometimes seven pieces of corroborating [18:26] sensor data. [18:27] That's all reporting the same event at [18:30] the same time at the same place [18:32] under the same circumstances. [18:34] Now, if I was in a court of law and I [18:36] was presenting this as evidence, [18:39] we are well beyond reasonable doubt. The [18:41] jury would have no choice but to convict [18:43] because the evidence is the same [18:45] collection sensor suite that we use to [18:48] prosecute and win a war [18:50] and forgive the vernacular, but [18:51] literally drop warheads on foreheads, is [18:54] the same information the same same [18:55] systems we're using [18:57] to collect the data on the anomalous [19:00] vehicles we're seeing. [19:01] Um and so [19:03] you know, I know it's a very [19:05] uncomfortable conversation to have. I'm [19:07] not saying it's not. [19:09] What I'm saying is that we have to deal [19:10] with this. And it's not me just telling [19:12] you that. This is our government. We [19:14] know we've already we have laws now on [19:16] the books because this topic is now so [19:18] serious. We have whistleblowers ready to [19:21] come out and testify before the American [19:23] people because this is so serious. We [19:25] have set up an organization specifically [19:28] its sole purpose is to investigate UAP [19:32] because this topic is so serious. So, [19:35] this is not a [19:36] you know, flight of fancy here. We're [19:38] we're investing millions of dollars [19:40] taxpayer dollars [19:41] to try to figure this out. And [19:42] interestingly enough, I think when the [19:45] investigative body first came was was [19:48] realized was was created, there was this [19:50] hope that in the first report they said, [19:52] "Oh, there's these 143 incidents that [19:53] remain uh [19:55] unidentified, but we're going to whittle [19:57] them away." What happened the next time [19:59] they had a report? There was now 300. [20:01] And what happened after that? Now 800. [20:03] The number's going up, not down. [20:05] They remain unresolved. And so, um [20:09] you know, we've we've we've got to have [20:11] this uncomfortable conversation with [20:12] ourselves. [20:14] You eventually left. [20:15] I did. [20:16] Um your that project, but also more [20:18] broadly you you resigned uh from working [20:21] with the Pentagon in the role that you [20:22] were working with them. Why did you [20:24] resign? [20:25] I resigned because that's what you do [20:27] when you can't fix a problem internally. [20:29] My concern [20:31] was that [20:32] we were spending time and money [20:35] on an issue [20:37] that leadership didn't want to know [20:38] about. [20:40] That leadership didn't want to inform [20:42] the boss, the then Secretary of Defense, [20:45] General Jim Mattis, [20:47] um [20:48] the details about what was going on. And [20:50] there's reasons for that, and we can [20:52] certainly get into that if you want. I [20:53] understand them. I don't necessarily [20:54] agree with them, but I understand them. [20:56] But at least here in in our country, [20:59] when you can't fix a problem, you don't [21:01] stay and make it worse. [21:03] You leave. You resign. And then if you [21:05] still want to do something, you do it [21:06] from outside, but you don't create [21:08] problems inside. And um it's not that [21:10] uncommon, is it? Because if you look [21:11] just a year later after I left, [21:13] Secretary of Defense himself resigned. [21:15] Right? So, I resigned in protest, but [21:18] not out of disloyalty. I resigned [21:20] because of my loyalty [21:23] to this country and to this government. [21:25] And [21:26] What is that protest, sorry? Just to be [21:27] clear. [21:28] The protest is that we weren't able to [21:30] get [21:31] the information and the help we needed [21:34] with with this issue up to the right [21:37] level of people. They were happy with us [21:38] doing it, but they said, "Don't tell the [21:39] boss." But wait a minute, the boss needs [21:41] to know. We're we're having almost a [21:43] mid-air collision [21:44] with our fighter pilots. We have [21:46] captains and admirals of Navy ships [21:48] asking us, "What do we do about these [21:50] things?" Like I there's an email that [21:51] said, "Hey, Lou, we can't keep these [21:53] guys below deck forever. What do you [21:54] want me to do? They're all over the [21:55] ship." [21:57] You know, so a decision has to be made. [21:59] What are we going to do about it? And [22:01] that decision has to be made by the top [22:03] guy, the Secretary of Defense. And for [22:05] whatever reason, [22:07] the upper echelon of leadership didn't [22:08] want to tell the boss. And then the And [22:10] we weren't getting any guidance on what [22:11] to do about it. Now, [22:13] keeping in mind, these things are coming [22:15] over our sensitive military [22:16] installations as well. And there's [22:18] potential for these things to be [22:19] interfering with our nuclear equities. [22:21] That's a big deal. [22:23] And nobody wants to have the [22:24] conversation? [22:25] Now, wait a minute. Let's let's let's [22:27] put this on the backdrop of of other [22:29] national security issues, right? Like [22:30] terrorism. If you go to any airport in [22:32] the United States today or any train [22:33] station, you always hear over the [22:34] announce- ments, "If if you see [22:36] something suspicious, say something. [22:37] Report it." [22:39] Well, [22:40] that wasn't the case [22:41] with these things. In fact, people were [22:43] told not to report. Yes, if you saw a [22:45] UFO and you saw it over a sensitive [22:46] military installation, [22:48] don't report it cuz they'll think you're [22:49] crazy. [22:50] And that is dangerous. That is a [22:52] dangerous mindset because if these [22:54] things had a Russian star on the tail or [22:56] a North Korean tail number, [22:58] this would be [22:59] huge. But because these things didn't [23:01] have a tail at all and didn't have any [23:03] obvious signs of propulsion or whatnot, [23:05] it was cricket. People would know about [23:07] it. It was a worst-kept secret. People [23:08] like, "Yeah, we see them all the time, [23:09] but we don't want to report it." Well, [23:11] you have to report it. Well, there's no [23:13] reporting mechanism. Okay, well, let's [23:14] create one. Well, we can't create one [23:16] cuz we need permission to do it and this [23:17] person needs to be briefed up. [23:18] Meanwhile, you're being told, "No, you [23:20] can't. You can't. You can't. You can't." [23:21] Why wouldn't they want to [23:22] report this information? Why wouldn't [23:24] they want the public to know? Why [23:25] wouldn't they want the boss to know? [23:27] Well, I think cuz of stigma and taboo. [23:29] Well, there's several reasons, but I [23:30] think superficially stigma and taboo. No [23:32] one wants to be known as that UFO guy or [23:34] gal. I I get it, you know, especially if [23:36] you're a pilot cuz historically, you'd [23:38] be taken off flight status. You you [23:40] know, put behind a desk and you'd fly a [23:42] desk the rest of your career because [23:43] people think you're mentally unstable. [23:45] Could affect your security clearance. I [23:46] mean, there's all sorts of things that [23:48] can happen. Um and so, people were being [23:51] being reinforced not to report this [23:54] information. Even civilian pilots today, [23:56] if you talk to them, they'll tell you [23:57] quietly, "Yeah, yeah, we see things in [23:59] the sky, but we're not going to report [24:00] anything cuz I need a job, you know." [24:02] What did you see? [24:04] Oh my What day? I mean, I [24:06] videos, reports, photographs. I mean, we [24:09] have There's videos that are so [24:11] compelling in high definition that [24:13] there's no question what you're seeing. [24:15] It's not our technology. [24:17] It's not our technology and the [24:18] capabilities are beyond anything we can [24:19] do. [24:20] I mean, I can I'm happy to explain some [24:21] of those capabilities if you like, but [24:23] but you know, when you when you look at [24:24] this from a rational perspective, [24:27] you only come to one outcome. [24:29] That's only one outcome. The other one [24:30] is so remotely possible that the mental [24:33] gymnastics to get to that and we can go [24:35] into that in a minute. It's It's It's [24:37] absurd. And so, [24:39] um [24:39] let's go into a little bit about what [24:40] make these things [24:42] unique, okay? Cuz planes fly and UAPs [24:45] are in the air, so that doesn't make [24:46] them unique and you know, things go fast [24:47] and whatnot. [24:49] So, you have to in intelligence, if you [24:51] want to [24:53] filter out [24:55] data and and and only focus on certain [24:58] data. You have to create parameters. [25:00] So, we realized early on in the [25:01] government that these things had five [25:03] parameters, five observables that made [25:06] them stand out away from everything [25:08] else. [25:09] And so, the first one was instantaneous [25:11] acceleration. So, what is acceleration? [25:14] It is the change of velocity, right? It [25:16] is the ability to change your velocity [25:18] very quickly. And as a result, as a [25:20] consequence, there are inertial forces [25:22] that are experienced. So, for us human [25:25] beings, we express those inertial forces [25:27] as G-forces. So, the force of gravity is [25:29] pulling on us equally at 9.8 m/s [25:32] and that's that's that's experienced as [25:35] 1 G. [25:36] A human being can withstand up to 9 G's [25:40] for a very short period of time before [25:42] you start having medical consequences, [25:44] right? You have things like blackouts [25:45] and redouts and ultimately death. [25:48] To compare that to, let's say, standard [25:50] technology, um one of our most highly [25:52] maneuverable aircraft, manned [25:54] maneuverable aircraft, let me emphasize [25:55] manned, is an older aircraft. It's [25:57] called the General Dynamics F-16, built [26:00] by General Dynamics. It's the F-16. Um [26:02] and that at an unclassified level can [26:04] pull about 17 G's before you start [26:07] having structural failure, meaning wings [26:09] snap off, right? The plane begins to [26:11] disintegrate while you're flying it. [26:13] What we are seeing are objects that are [26:15] performing in excesses of 2,000 and [26:17] 3,000 [26:19] G-forces. Okay? [26:21] Well beyond the healthy limitations of [26:23] anything biological to withstand and [26:25] certainly from a material science [26:27] perspective, [26:28] more than [26:29] more than we have. [26:31] It It There's an advanced technology [26:32] here. [26:33] The second observable is hypersonic [26:35] velocity. So, what is hypersonic? [26:37] Hypersonics are those speeds in excesses [26:39] of Mach 5 or above. What's a Mach? It's [26:43] the speed of sound, roughly 760 some [26:45] miles an hour at sea level. So, it's [26:48] really fast. Now, [26:49] do we have technology that can do hyper [26:51] Sure, we do. Absolutely. We have a [26:54] One of the best examples is a Lockheed [26:55] YF-12A SR-71, otherwise known as a [26:58] Blackbird. [26:59] It can get to about Mach 5, which is [27:02] really fast. [27:03] But at that speed, if the SR-71 wants to [27:06] take a right-hand turn, [27:08] takes roughly half the state of Ohio to [27:10] execute that maneuver. [27:12] We are seeing things not doing Mach 5. [27:15] We are seeing things doing in excess of [27:17] 10,000, 13,000 miles an hour, and [27:20] executing immediate right-hand turns and [27:22] even 180s, right? So, [27:25] that is another observable that is [27:27] significantly above and beyond anything [27:29] we have. [27:30] Another observable, it's a bit of an [27:32] oxymoron, but it's called low [27:34] observability. Meaning, you'll hear from [27:36] the pilots, "Lou, I was there. I saw it, [27:38] but I can't describe it." [27:40] Didn't have wings, didn't have rudder, [27:42] a tail, anything. No rivets, nothing. [27:46] Uh and then also on the radar, you will [27:49] get these non-senticle returns. These [27:51] returns like uh it's there's some sort [27:53] of active jamming or spoofing going on [27:56] uh with within the radar system. So, low [27:58] observability. Now, do we have low [28:00] observable vehicles? Sure. For example, [28:02] the B-2 bomber and the Valkyrie. These [28:04] are stealth vehicles. Well, this is a [28:06] little more than that because it's [28:08] actually also with the human eye very [28:10] hard to discern. [28:12] The fourth observable is something [28:14] called transmedium or multi-multimedium [28:18] travel. So, that means the ability to [28:20] operate in multiple domains, or more [28:22] specifically, multiple environments. [28:25] Now, once again, do we have multi-domain [28:28] vehicles? Absolutely. A seaplane is a [28:31] perfect example of a multimedium [28:33] vehicle. It can fly and it can float. [28:36] But let's face it. [28:38] A seaplane is neither a really good [28:39] airplane or a good boat. And why? [28:42] Because there are design compromises [28:44] that have to be made in performance and [28:46] design in order for it to operate in [28:48] multiple domains. And that's true with [28:50] just about every technology we have. The [28:52] more domains we want something to [28:53] operate in, the more sacrifices we have [28:56] to make. That's why a submarine looks [28:57] like a submarine cuz it's designed to be [28:58] underwater and a plane looks like a [28:59] plane, and a rocket looks like a rocket. [29:02] Um these things [29:04] can operate in multiple different [29:06] domains. It can operate in air, [29:08] underwater, and possibly even space, but [29:10] they don't have that performance and [29:12] design sacrifice that we have to do with [29:15] our technology. [29:16] So, is it like a when you get this job, [29:19] do you get to see like a folder [29:21] on a computer? All right, like I'm [29:23] trying to understand what access you you [29:26] you're given to these things. [29:28] you you are you're seeing the [29:29] investigations that were done [29:32] uh previously by other members of UAP. [29:35] You're seeing video. You're seeing [29:36] photographs. You're seeing the [29:37] historical reports. [29:39] And are these classified? [29:40] Oh, absolutely. Very. [29:41] Okay, so the so the general public can't [29:43] see these kinds of things and they [29:44] haven't been published. [29:46] Correct. They have not been public made [29:47] publicly available. They are highly [29:49] classified. [29:50] Okay, so it's videos, it's photos, it's [29:52] various accounts, it's [29:54] Correct. [29:54] You know, a lot of people talk about [29:55] Area 51 when they talk about UFOs and [29:57] and such. [30:00] I think one of the sort of rumors is [30:02] that at Area 51 they've found and um [30:06] retained [30:08] UFO material, spacecraft, etc. that [30:11] they've studied to understand the [30:12] technology so that they can introduce it [30:14] to the US military. Is there any truth [30:16] in that? [30:17] You know, the US government invests a [30:18] lot of money in research. [30:20] They have a lot of test facilities where [30:21] we want to be able to test things [30:23] outside the prying eyes of um of our [30:26] enemies. And so we we we we create these [30:28] test ranges for that purpose. [30:30] We do all sorts of things at those test [30:32] ranges. [30:33] Um [30:34] you know, I I cannot comment on on [30:37] what Area 51 might or might not have. Um [30:40] I would not be authorized to to talk [30:42] about that. [30:43] Um all I can say is what is in the [30:44] public domain, which people already know [30:46] that is a [30:47] it's a sensitive test facility where [30:49] where we we experiment with with things. [30:52] Because there was a a gentleman, I [30:54] think, from that worked near Area 51 [30:56] that's talked a little bit about this [30:57] publicly, Bob Lazar. [30:59] Mhm. [31:00] I I actually didn't know anything about [31:01] Bob Lazar until about 2 hours ago. So, [31:04] what is exactly is it that Bob Lazar is [31:06] claiming? [31:07] Well, to be fair, you'd probably have to [31:09] ask Bob. I I don't know Mr. Lazar. I've [31:11] never met him. I've never spoken to him. [31:13] Um his claims were that he worked at a [31:15] particular facility and he had access to [31:18] uh and privy to [31:20] one of recovered vehicles, [31:21] um crash retrievals [31:23] uh that was uh allegedly performed by [31:26] the United States [31:28] uh and acquired and and and brought [31:29] there. Um that is what is in the public [31:32] domain. Um I I I cannot and will not [31:35] comment on on Bob Lazar cuz I don't know [31:37] him. [31:37] So, when you say you can't comment on [31:39] something and as it relates to something [31:41] that's classified, um is have you had to [31:44] go through some process? You've got [31:45] There's a book in front of me called [31:47] Imminent, which is the book you've [31:48] written. It says Inside the Pentagon's [31:49] Hunt for UFOs. What is the process in [31:52] when you're writing books like this to [31:53] get information cleared so that you can [31:55] share it? [31:56] It's like birthing an elephant. [31:57] Right. [31:58] I can only imagine uh if I was ever a a [32:00] woman and had to had to give birth. [32:02] Um [32:03] Cuz they probably [32:05] don't want you talking about these [32:06] things. [32:06] There's a lot of people that don't want [32:08] us talking about this. Um but there's [32:10] also a lot that do. Um so, you go [32:12] through a process, it's called DOPSR. In [32:15] the US government, we love our acronyms. [32:17] It stands for Department of Defense [32:19] Office of Pre-publication and Security [32:21] Review. [32:22] As a former defense official, if I want [32:24] to write anything, it has to go through [32:26] a review process to make sure it's not [32:28] classified and I can talk about it. That [32:30] book went through an exhaustive almost [32:32] 1-year process through the government [32:35] before they allowed me to publish it. [32:37] And even then they redacted portions [32:39] out. If you look in there, you will see [32:40] grayed-out portions [32:42] because I wanted Americans to see [32:45] what [32:46] some people don't need to see. And so [32:48] those redactions are there by the [32:50] government. Um [32:52] and it is it is a very exhaustive [32:54] process, but it's important because [32:56] that's what keeps us legal. That's what [32:58] keeps people like me not going to jail [33:00] because [33:01] you I I go through the proper [33:03] procedures. I'm I'm not a leaker. I have [33:05] never leaked classified information. I [33:06] will never discuss classified [33:08] information. An unauthorized disclosure [33:10] is something that that should be avoided [33:11] at all times. [33:13] Um I'm like I said, I'm a patriot. I'm [33:14] loyal to my country. I'm not disloyal. [33:17] So, there's a right way and a wrong way [33:18] to do things. So, if you want to write a [33:20] book uh and you want to talk about [33:22] things you're not sure you can talk [33:23] about, you go through this Doxer [33:25] process, and that's exactly what I did. [33:27] And that's how that book was able to be [33:30] published. Otherwise, right now I'd [33:32] probably be in jail. [33:34] Is there a single most compelling piece [33:36] of evidence that you were witness to as [33:38] it relates to your belief in UFOs and [33:41] UAPs? [33:42] They were they were all significant. [33:43] There wasn't one that said, "Oh, that's [33:45] it." because they were all compelling in [33:47] their own way. Whether you can go back [33:48] to the USS Nimitz incident in 2004 or [33:51] the Roosevelt incidents in 2014 and [33:53] 2015, [33:54] there was so much data. Every time you [33:57] think you had one that was great, [33:59] another would come that was even better. [34:01] Um So I mean, you've put one on the [34:03] front cover of this book there, right? [34:04] Yeah. [34:05] What is this incident on the front cover [34:06] of your book? [34:07] That is known as the Gimbal incident. [34:09] That is a video [34:12] that was taken by [34:14] uh an F-18 and uh you can hear the [34:17] exasperation. If you listen to the [34:18] actual video, you can hear the pilots [34:21] um trying to discuss what it is. And [34:23] then you also hear on it the discussion [34:25] of there's a whole fleet of them. Look [34:27] at the ASA. And oh, by the way, it's [34:29] going 120 knots against the wind at [34:32] roughly 20,000 ft. So, it's not a [34:33] balloon and you begin to see this this [34:36] this vehicle orient itself in a 90° [34:38] angle. Now, if this was a plane like you [34:40] see your wings, if you go in a 90° [34:42] angle, you lose altitude, right? Cuz [34:44] that's how the principles of lift work. [34:46] That's not the case there. [34:48] I think this is the video. [34:50] Yep. [34:51] Dude, this is a drone, bro. [34:54] There's a whole fleet of them. Look on [34:56] the SA. [34:58] My gosh. [35:01] They're all going against the wind. The [35:02] wind's 120 knots to the west. [35:04] Holy dude. [35:09] That's not a that's not a missile, is [35:10] it? [35:10] That is not a missile, dude. [35:12] Well, the flares look like the same [35:13] thing. [35:15] It's rotating. [35:17] And that was shot by two US [35:20] sort of fighter pilots. [35:21] Yep. [35:23] There's a lot more of those out there [35:24] and a lot clearer, too, but they're [35:25] classified. [35:26] It The So, there's more videos like this [35:28] that you've been exposed to. [35:29] Oh, yeah. [35:30] But they won't [35:31] But they won't release them. [35:32] They will not release them. [35:33] Why? [35:34] Because of of sources and methods, [35:36] because they remain classified because [35:38] how they were taken, where they were [35:39] taken, under what circumstances, what [35:41] technological capabilities were used to [35:43] collect the information. [35:45] The US government wants to keep out of [35:47] its out of the hands of its adversaries [35:49] what our true capabilities are. So, [35:51] let's say you're flying a mission over a [35:53] denied area and you don't want the enemy [35:55] to know that you're over it, right? The [35:56] last thing you want to do is release a [35:57] video where you can look and say, "Oh, [36:00] we're in this location and now the enemy [36:01] knows or we have this capability or we [36:03] can see this this good. These are the [36:06] technologies we have." These videos [36:08] here, ironically, are probably some of [36:10] the least compelling videos. Now, people [36:11] say, "Oh, these are incredible." But [36:13] these are the ones that were [36:13] unclassified that could be released. The [36:16] other one, some of these are so clear. [36:19] The problem is is how they were taken, [36:21] the collection capabilities that were [36:22] used to take them, where they were [36:23] taken, under what circumstances, the [36:25] metadata in the video, [36:26] all that is a consideration. [36:28] Okay. [36:30] And did do do you the US government and [36:33] the Pentagon generally want people to [36:34] believe that UFOs UAPs [36:38] exist or not? [36:40] I think it's both. I think [36:42] up until recently [36:43] nobody wanted to have this conversation. [36:45] The problem is the government backed [36:46] itself up after 70 years of denial into [36:49] a corner and it it it has to figure a [36:51] way out. [36:53] There are some elements now that want [36:54] the conversation to occur. And so that's [36:56] why you see Congress getting engaged, [36:58] why the creation of AARO, but there are [37:00] still elements unfortunately in the in [37:02] the Pentagon that don't want this [37:03] conversation to occur and they will [37:04] continue doing what they can to [37:06] discredit individuals and and launch [37:08] this campaign against them. Uh one of my [37:11] colleagues, David Grusch, who was a [37:13] decorated Air Force officer and a senior [37:17] intelligence official, the moment he [37:19] broke rank and went public about this [37:21] topic, within 24 hours uh they released [37:24] his medical records trying to discredit [37:26] him and they did it illegally. [37:27] Um so there are people there that [37:29] definitely don't want this conversation [37:31] to occur. [37:31] Why? [37:32] Well, there's a lot of reasons why. Um [37:34] you know, back historically [37:37] Great question. Let's um can I unpack [37:39] that a little bit? Do you mind that? [37:41] Okay, so [37:43] let's start really at the heels of World [37:45] War II, you have these foo fighters that [37:47] are being observed by Allied pilots. [37:50] Um these these these luminous balls that [37:52] would follow them into combat areas. And [37:54] then after um particularly as we started [37:58] developing in the atomic weapons, we [37:59] started releasing a lot of UFOs over our [38:01] controlled military [38:02] airspace and over our sensitive military [38:04] installations, our research facilities. [38:06] And so at the time you have this [38:08] mindset, you have [38:10] height of the Cold War, United States [38:12] versus Soviet Union. And by the way, [38:14] they had nukes and so did we, right? So [38:16] you got a real potential threat over [38:17] there. [38:18] And then you've got these other things [38:19] over here. So as as a general in the [38:21] Pentagon, you say, look, I know these [38:23] things are real, but they're not showing [38:25] any over hostilities. Meanwhile, we've [38:27] got this real issue over here, this real [38:28] threat called Soviet Union. [38:30] Let's focus on this threat, and then [38:33] we'll worry about this other stuff [38:34] later. [38:35] The other part of that is the the [38:37] mindset of look, um [38:39] it's really uncomfortable [38:41] as a government to have a conversation [38:43] with its people [38:44] about a problem that there's no solution [38:46] for, right? We can see what they do, but [38:49] there's not a damn thing we can do about [38:50] it. That we we we can't stop what [38:52] they're doing, and so do you really want [38:53] to have a conversation [38:55] with the American people and admit a [38:57] problem for which we don't have a [38:58] solution for it? That governments are [39:00] solution-focused. [39:02] And that is not a great spot to be in, [39:04] right? And it's by the way not the first [39:06] time this has happened. Let's look at [39:07] the U-2, for example, spy plane. [39:10] When we first built that, the CIA [39:12] commissioned it through Lockheed Martin [39:13] Skunk Works, and we were flying that [39:15] vehicle in contravention to a standing [39:19] treaty we had with Russia that we would [39:20] not fly with manned reconnaissance [39:22] missions over Russia, mainland Russia. [39:24] We were. [39:25] But we built this plane to fly so fast [39:27] and so high, we thought they couldn't [39:28] detect us, right? And for a while we [39:30] thought they couldn't, because we went [39:32] unchallenged until [39:34] the Russians were able to develop the [39:36] surface-to-air missile, SA-2 missile, [39:39] and successfully shoot one down. And [39:41] then, and only then did they admit to [39:43] the world we've been tracking these [39:44] things since day one. [39:46] The reason why they didn't talk about it [39:48] is because he didn't have a means to [39:49] shoot it down. So, why admit [39:52] a problem for which there's no solution [39:53] until you have a solution? So, that's [39:54] another mindset in the Pentagon. And [39:56] then you had [39:57] several studies done that were [39:58] commissioned by the US government in the [40:00] past that asked the question if we were [40:02] to be honest and truthful about [40:04] disclosure, about we're not alone in the [40:06] universe, these things are real, what [40:08] would the consequences be? And the [40:10] studies came back unanimously said you [40:12] can't do it. The American people are not [40:14] ready to have this conversation. It'll [40:15] cause civil discord, and it'll cause [40:18] it'll upset the population and people [40:20] will lose faith in their religions and [40:22] the economy may crash. You can't do it. [40:25] And so the decision was made, okay, [40:26] we're not going to do it. In fact, we're [40:27] going to actively suppress this [40:28] information. We're going to stigmatize [40:30] the heck out of it so bad that no one [40:32] will ever want to even mention the word [40:33] UFO. [40:34] And it was very successful. That that [40:36] that campaign to stigmatize this topic [40:39] was so successful, in fact, that even [40:41] now it's hard to unwind the tape and [40:44] have the conversation. [40:45] And so therein lies [40:48] part of the problem. Why doesn't the [40:50] government parts of the government want [40:51] to have this conversation? Then you've [40:52] got a legal issue, which is probably [40:55] probably the biggest issue now. [40:58] You have elements in the government that [41:00] were making unilateral decisions not to [41:02] inform Congress and not to inform the [41:04] President of the United States, right? [41:07] That's illegal. [41:09] There are oversight committees that have [41:10] a [41:11] designated need to know on all [41:13] intelligence matters, especially when it [41:15] comes to funding, right? We're spending [41:16] billions of dollars on these projects. [41:18] You've got to inform Congress, certain [41:20] elements of the certain oversight [41:21] committees like the Senate Select [41:22] Committee on Intelligence. [41:24] They weren't being briefed to this. [41:26] There's also this fear by some people on [41:28] the inside of the government that oh my [41:29] gosh, I used to work on a secret UFO [41:31] program. [41:32] Am I going to be in trouble now because, [41:34] you know, I [41:35] we've been lying to Congress. [41:37] And so it it's a little more complicated [41:39] than than necessarily just saying, oh [41:41] well, we want the truth, be honest. [41:43] It's not that easy. [41:45] To your knowledge, has there ever been [41:46] recovered um UAP or UFO materials? [41:50] What I can say is what I've been allowed [41:51] to say, which is yes. Up until recently [41:53] I wasn't even allowed to say that. [41:55] When did that change? [41:56] When that book got reviewed. Up until [41:58] that point I had signed documentation [42:00] from the government saying I will never [42:01] discuss that, ever. [42:02] What happens if you did? [42:03] Uh jail. [42:05] Oh, yeah. [42:06] That's why that book I had to go through [42:07] the process because what I wrote in that [42:09] book I am allowed to talk about. I can't [42:11] go beyond that, but at least I can talk [42:13] about that. And in the book I talk about [42:15] Yes. [42:16] That the government is in possession of [42:17] material, exotic material that doesn't [42:19] look like it's made by us. [42:21] Has there ever been anyone sent to jail [42:23] because they've spoken about this [42:24] subject matter? [42:25] Worse. [42:27] Worse. [42:28] And that that story has yet to be told. [42:30] Yes, there are people who have had faced [42:33] uh extreme disciplinary actions and and [42:37] and potentially worse. [42:39] The death penalty? [42:42] I'm not going to elaborate right now um [42:44] because there's some things happening to [42:45] try to This is why Congress is working [42:47] hard for whistleblower protections. [42:50] Because um [42:51] we want people to feel safe to come out [42:53] and have a conversation. And right now [42:55] they don't feel overly safe. [42:57] Um they've seen some of the tactics and [42:59] techniques that were applied to try to [43:01] keep people quiet in the past. [43:03] Um let me say this in general terms. [43:05] People say, "Oh, well, the government [43:06] would never [43:07] kill anybody to protect a secret." [43:10] Try going to Area 51 and look at the [43:11] signs on that chain link fence where it [43:13] says lethal force authorized. [43:16] You cross that fence and they can kill [43:18] you dead. [43:19] Okay? So, [43:21] the government can, under certain [43:23] extreme cases, under certain extreme [43:25] situations and conditions, [43:27] they can do whatever they need to do to [43:28] protect national security and they will. [43:33] Which department is that? [43:34] I cannot go into that conversation, [43:36] unfortunately. [43:37] Because people think of it as maybe the [43:39] CIA or something, but [43:40] I I can't I can't elaborate, [43:41] unfortunately. [43:43] You know, I I cuz I I don't know very [43:45] little about American uh [43:47] governmental departments and such, but [43:49] obviously most of the world knows about [43:50] the like presidential assassinations and [43:52] things like that. So, and I've spoken to [43:54] a few CIA agents and stuff like that on [43:55] my podcast before, but um [43:58] I've never really understood [44:00] frankly who would who would be making [44:01] such an order and how those things don't [44:03] leak, [44:04] you know? [44:05] Well, [44:06] you know. [44:08] good question. [44:09] Um [44:11] Look, we we we've done it in the past [44:14] in other situations, some pretty [44:15] recently. Um [44:18] you know, let me give you a case in [44:19] point, and this is not, you know, [44:20] attacking anybody. [44:22] Um we have uh droned, used drones to [44:26] lethally kill people, Americans, an [44:29] American citizen specifically, and and [44:31] and the person's child [44:33] without due process. [44:35] In the US? [44:36] Not in the US. He was a US citizen. [44:38] Oh. [44:38] Uh he was suspected of being a [44:39] terrorist, and there's some other things [44:41] there I'm not going to go in there. [44:42] But, um [44:43] we as American citizens are are as [44:46] American citizens we are afforded [44:47] something called due process under the [44:49] law of peace. [44:50] Um and meaning you get your day in [44:52] court, no matter what. And there've been [44:54] Americans where that hasn't been the [44:55] case. [44:56] Um they didn't get a day in court. Um [44:59] someone made the decision to [45:00] uh liquidate them. Um you know, there [45:03] are examples of that happening. You [45:05] know, there's one with [45:07] with uh Rosenbergs, [45:09] the uh those who were accused of selling [45:12] uh the atomic secrets to the Russians, [45:13] actually giving it to them. [45:15] And uh if you know a little bit about [45:17] what happened with his wife, um [45:19] turns out that [45:22] sh- she was innocent. [45:23] What happened to his wife? [45:24] They hung her. Hung her and him for for [45:27] for espionage. [45:29] Uh but because of the information that [45:31] we had at the time, we was so sensitive, [45:35] we'd have to reveal a capability, so [45:38] unfortunately, uh [45:40] it looks like maybe we may have we have [45:41] done something that we maybe shouldn't [45:43] have done. [45:44] Um I wasn't around for that, so I can't [45:45] tell you definitively what happened. Um [45:47] I can only tell you what what [45:49] what my understanding of it is. [45:51] I could absolutely be wrong, and I [45:53] really hope I am. [45:54] But, it turns out that, you know, there [45:56] are extreme examples where we will take [45:59] drastic measures to to national [46:00] security. [46:02] So, in writing this book and in s- [46:04] talking about this subject, you [46:05] understand that there's some people that [46:06] don't want you talking about these [46:07] subjects. [46:08] Oh, yeah. [46:09] Oh, yeah. [46:10] So, and you also understand that [46:12] punishment for talking about these [46:14] subjects can range from jail or worse. [46:17] Yeah. [46:18] So, you're not scared? [46:19] I didn't say that. I didn't just say I [46:20] wasn't scared. [46:21] Mhm. [46:22] I mean, I'm I'm taking huge risks. I I [46:25] but I've been My life has been [46:26] threatened many times. [46:28] And it's very concerning for me. It's [46:30] the reason why I I live in Wyoming and [46:32] I'm heavily armed and have now six [46:34] German Shepherds. [46:35] Yeah, I'm very cautious and careful, but [46:37] I'm also understanding I also know the [46:39] left and right limits of the law, and [46:41] I'm not going to break the law under any [46:42] circumstances. [46:44] I didn't This book isn't a leak. I'm [46:46] authorized to talk about that book [46:48] because I went through the proper [46:49] processes of getting it reviewed. [46:51] Whether they like it or not. But yes, I [46:53] am absolutely worried. You know, this is [46:56] why I'm very careful [46:58] when I say things cuz I don't want to [46:59] stop walk up to the line. I will not [47:00] step over the line. I will not violate [47:02] my security oath and compromise national [47:04] security for disclosure. And I don't [47:07] think I have to. I think the proof is in [47:08] the pudding, the fact that it's been 7 [47:09] years and we've come this far in the [47:11] conversation and I haven't gone to jail. [47:14] And I'm still here to have the [47:15] conversation. I think it's indicative of [47:17] the fact that there is a right way and a [47:18] wrong way to do it. I understand people [47:20] want disclosure and they want it now. [47:21] But I've told people before there's a [47:23] difference between doing things [47:25] right and doing things right now. [47:27] They're different and we only get one [47:29] chance to do this right. And so, [47:32] hopefully we can have this conversation [47:33] this collective conversation in a way [47:36] where we don't have to be disruptive. No [47:37] one has to be threatened. No one has to [47:39] go to jail. No one has to lose their [47:41] jobs or anything like that. [47:44] You mentioned presidents of Iran. Do you [47:46] Presidents of the United States know [47:49] about UFOs? [47:50] Some do, some do not. Unfortunately, [47:52] there's a mindset by some people that [47:54] think [47:56] that politicians and presidents are [47:58] temporary hires. They're here today, [48:00] gone in 4 years. So, why brief them up [48:02] on something, especially if they have no [48:04] military or intelligence background? [48:06] It's a risk. So, you know what? Don't [48:09] brief them. [48:09] Which presidents do you do you think [48:11] were aware of UFOs and [48:13] this sort of these kinds of programs? [48:15] Sure. Well, we know for sure there were [48:16] several, you know. [48:17] For sure, for example, Carter was. But [48:19] then [48:20] How do you know? [48:21] Well, well, because Carter was briefed. [48:23] I I know somebody who actually worked [48:24] with Carter to get information on this [48:26] topic. I can't almost say the person's [48:27] name. The person's still alive, so I [48:29] don't have permission to talk about [48:30] that. But, we know that for a fact, and [48:32] there's records of it. But, there's [48:33] other presidents like Bill Clinton who [48:35] wasn't briefed, but wanted to be [48:36] briefed, right? And so um [48:40] And again, I this this this is the crux [48:42] of the problem. Who's making the [48:43] decision on what president gets briefed [48:45] and what doesn't? [48:46] That's that's nonsense. President George [48:49] Bush Sr. [48:50] was briefed. And he was also the [48:51] director of the CIA, so he was very well [48:53] aware of this topic. But, then there's [48:55] other presidents that weren't. And so, [48:57] this is again, this is that this is [48:58] highlighting the very problem that I [49:00] have. [49:01] Who's making the decision to choose who [49:03] gets briefed and who doesn't? [49:04] What about Obama and Trump? [49:06] I can't answer for them. Um [49:08] Obama has uh recently stated for the [49:10] record that these UAP are a national [49:13] security issue, not a threat, but an [49:15] issue. That there's something there, [49:17] that these are real, whatever they are, [49:18] whatever it is. [49:20] President Trump recently uh former [49:22] President Trump said uh week and a half [49:23] ago, for the record, when he [49:25] that he would be willing to release the [49:27] UFO files, and that he wanted to do it [49:29] in the past, but he faced fierce [49:31] resistance. [49:32] Now, think about that statement for a [49:33] minute. [49:35] Who the hell is giving him resistance to [49:37] releasing UFO files when you're the [49:39] president? Right? That is that is a very [49:41] significant statement. That is what [49:43] needs to be fixed. If the president [49:45] himself can't get or herself can't get a [49:47] briefing, [49:49] who in the hell has the authority to [49:50] make that decision? Nobody. [49:53] What is that fifth resistance that [49:54] Trump's talking about? [49:56] I don't know. You'd have to ask Trump. [49:57] What do you think it is? [50:00] Uh I think there is a huge amount of [50:02] influence by the military-industrial [50:04] complex. [50:05] And they they it it is a enormous [50:08] business. Always has been. [50:10] Um [50:12] It's it's it's it's huge. [50:14] It is probably the world's largest [50:16] business [50:17] globally. [50:18] And why wouldn't the military-industrial [50:20] complex want those files to be released? [50:22] Well, because they'd have to admit that [50:24] they're part of the part of the [50:25] programs. [50:26] Some of these folks, you know, have had [50:28] been [50:29] a lot of their successes [50:31] is being able to work super secret [50:32] programs for the US government. And [50:34] maybe there's technology that they don't [50:36] want released. [50:37] Maybe there's capabilities that we had [50:38] that we don't want to tell our [50:39] adversaries. And there's a lot of [50:40] reasons for it, which are understand. [50:42] Some of them are actually legitimate. I [50:43] can understand. I don't agree with, but [50:45] I can understand. [50:46] How much do you think the average person [50:47] on the street knows about what goes on [50:49] in [50:51] the Pentagon and behind the scenes of [50:52] the government? [50:53] Rather [50:55] It's [50:55] Forget the government and Pentagon. How [50:57] many parents [50:58] they can tell you who's a quarterback of [51:00] their favorite football team, and they [51:02] can tell you their stats, but how many [51:03] parents know who their kid sits sits [51:05] next to during lunch [51:07] or in second period math class? [51:10] The government is I mean, that's [51:13] basic facts, man. [51:15] We [51:15] As humans, most of us we suck. We don't [51:18] know anything, and we're so used to [51:20] being force-fed information by whatever [51:22] outlet du jour we want to tune into, you [51:24] know? [51:25] If I'm a liberal, I watch this. If I'm a [51:27] conservative, I watch that. I'll I'll [51:28] I'll go straight to my echo chamber, [51:30] and, you know, just hear what I want to [51:32] hear, and have people tell me not only [51:34] information that I that they think I [51:36] need to know, but even my opinion of [51:37] what what it should be about. [51:39] Th- This is a much, much bigger issue [51:42] than just UFOs and UAP. [51:46] We as as as people have become extremely [51:49] lazy. [51:50] And we we no longer are [51:53] willing to ask the hard questions. We're [51:55] not. [51:57] You were part of one program, but you [51:58] also referenced a second program called [52:00] the legacy program. [52:01] Mhm. [52:02] What is the legacy program? [52:03] It is the traditional long-held effort [52:07] by the US government to study UAP. [52:09] People think AATIP was the only program [52:11] and ASAP. Before that there was there [52:13] was Blue Book and before that there [52:16] The legacy program [52:18] is the collaborative effort of [52:20] individuals over the course of several [52:21] decades that have been looking into this [52:23] topic for the US government and by the [52:25] US government. [52:27] And okay, so it's doing similar things [52:29] to what AATIP did. [52:31] Yes, and and more robust and much more [52:33] well-funded. [52:35] I wonder why they don't fund it as well [52:37] these days. [52:39] Uh [52:40] there's a reason for that too that I I I [52:42] I [52:43] I would need permission to talk about. [52:46] Um there were some distractions in the [52:49] early 2000s that [52:51] lifted and shifted resources away from [52:53] from efforts to something else. [52:55] Um [52:57] and I probably can figure out what this [52:59] what that was. But um there was an [53:01] enormous resource drain and refocusing [53:04] um [53:05] in the early 2000s to focus on something [53:07] else. And so [53:09] I I heard you talk as one about these [53:12] one of different types of [53:14] aliens per se. Cuz when we think of [53:16] aliens we think we reflect on movies [53:17] that we've seen and they have like the [53:18] big heads and [53:20] things like that and maybe they're like [53:22] like white, tall, skinny with like the [53:24] big arms and the big like legs and stuff [53:26] like that. Is that what people at in the [53:29] Pentagon consider aliens to be? What we [53:31] see in movies. [53:32] Uh I can't speak on behalf of other [53:34] people. I can only speak on behalf of [53:35] me. Um I've been very very careful not [53:38] to [53:40] to stereotype anybody or anything. I [53:43] think it's important we have to [53:44] keep an open mind because when you say [53:46] the word aliens, you are automatically [53:48] presuming that these things are from [53:50] outer space. [53:50] Mhm. [53:51] They might not be. There's lots of [53:52] different options. It doesn't have to be [53:54] from outer space. [53:55] What do you believe? Do you believe [53:57] they're amongst us? [53:58] Well, [53:59] let's [54:00] Can I Can I explore this with you? This [54:02] question? Okay, so it's it's not a [54:03] either or. [54:06] So, in the beginning of our conversation [54:08] I told you I went to the University of [54:09] Miami and I studied microbiology, [54:11] immunology, and I studied parasites. [54:13] Now, if you go to some anthropologists, [54:15] they will suggest to you that modern [54:17] human beings, Homo sapiens sapiens, has [54:18] been around roughly between 100 to [54:20] possibly 200,000 years. [54:22] So, on a 24-hour clock, right? It's It's [54:25] only the last 2,000 years [54:28] and it was the Greeks that proposed [54:30] there were two fundamental life forms on [54:31] this planet. And you were either a plant [54:34] or you were an animal. And human beings [54:35] were [54:36] an animal. [54:38] And so, the 24-hour clock, you're [54:40] probably talking maybe [54:42] I don't know, 10 minutes ago before [54:43] midnight. [54:44] Well, it was 300 years ago during the [54:46] Renaissance or the days of [54:48] enlightenment, [54:50] uh that [54:51] we discovered an entire new life form on [54:54] this planet that's been here all along. [54:56] And that And that was that it was [54:57] neither plant nor animal. It was the [54:59] world of fungus. [55:00] And we patted ourselves on the shoulder [55:01] and said, "Hey, we found a new life [55:03] form." [55:04] In this 24-hour clock, it's been [55:06] probably the last maybe 10 seconds, last [55:08] 120 years only, [55:11] that [55:13] we discovered for the first time the [55:15] true dominant [55:16] alpha life form on this planet. And in [55:18] fact, if you take all the biomass of [55:20] every plant [55:21] and all the biomass of every animal and [55:24] all the biomass of every fungus and [55:25] added it all up together, it still will [55:27] not equal the biomass of this hidden, [55:31] yet dominant life form that's been on [55:33] this planet all along. [55:35] And it wasn't until we could have the [55:36] technology to curve glass and look [55:38] through a little tube and famously shout [55:40] the words "Little beasties, little [55:42] beasties." [55:43] Did we discover the world of [55:45] microorganisms? Okay? The true dominant [55:48] life form on this planet that's been [55:50] here all along. In fact, it's inside of [55:52] us. It makes us up. It's pervasive [55:55] everywhere. [55:56] And we just discovered it. So, what I [55:59] say to people, you know, but people say, [56:00] "Oh, do you think they're from outer [56:01] space?" [56:02] They can be from outer space, inner [56:04] space, or frankly, the space in between. [56:05] These things could be just as natural to [56:07] our environment as we are. Maybe we're [56:09] at the point now where technologically [56:10] we can start interacting. Maybe they're [56:12] from under the ocean. Look, less than [56:14] 10% of the ocean floor has been mapped. [56:17] We know more about the surface of the [56:18] moon than we do of our own oceans. Is it [56:21] possible these things are just as [56:23] natural to this planet as we are? [56:25] Possibly. Or is it possible these things [56:27] are from somewhere else? Yes, that's [56:29] possible, too. So, we have to keep all [56:32] options on the table until they're no [56:34] longer on the table. Well, we live in an [56:35] infinitely, infinitely complex universe. [56:42] Let's see if I can And I've I've often [56:44] used this before to try to help people [56:46] wrap their heads around around this. [56:49] We perceive life through five [56:51] fundamental [56:52] five fundamental senses. And if we can't [56:54] touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, [56:56] etc., we can't interact with it. We have [56:58] no idea it's there. [57:00] Where I live out in Wyoming, we have [57:01] these beautiful night skies, unclouded [57:03] night skies, and you can see all the [57:05] heavens, beautiful Milky Way in front of [57:07] you. [57:08] If you were to look through that at that [57:10] same night sky through a radio [57:11] telescope, you would see something [57:13] different. You would see nebula, you [57:14] would see things that you can't normally [57:16] perceive in the ultraviolet and infrared [57:18] spectrums and x-ray, right? It's there, [57:21] you just can't perceive it. It's just [57:23] like if you had cell phone vision, all [57:25] of a sudden now you can see in Wi-Fi and [57:27] 5G, you would see an entirely different [57:29] reality around you. [57:31] So, we perceive light we perceive life [57:33] through a very narrow spectrum of [57:35] visible light the visible light spectrum [57:37] when reality is [57:38] most everything else [57:40] kind of lies beyond that. [57:42] And then you have a scale issue. You [57:44] have a scalability issue. What do I mean [57:45] by scalability? [57:47] We are a human being you and I are [57:49] having a lovely conversation here [57:51] somewhere in some some place [57:53] uh on this planet uh revolving around an [57:56] obscure star in an obscure part of the [57:58] Milky Way galaxy amongst the super [58:00] cluster of other galaxies. [58:02] The visible horizon from any direction [58:04] we look at of light of the size of the [58:06] universe has been estimated to be [58:08] between 13.6 to 13.9 billion [58:12] light-years. B billion. [58:14] What is a light-year? [58:15] A light-year is the distance that a [58:17] photon of light can travel in the course [58:19] of a year. And how fast is that? Well, [58:22] light travels at roughly 186,000 mi per [58:24] second or 7 and 1/2 times around our [58:27] planet in 1 second, right? Really fast. [58:30] Imagine how far that goes in a year. [58:32] And now imagine how far that goes 13.9 [58:35] billion years, right? So, we're in the [58:37] middle of the universe here. Our [58:38] universal horizon in any direction is [58:40] 13.9 billion light-years. [58:43] And in that direction another 13.9 so [58:45] you roughly 27 billion light-years [58:47] across and we're in the middle. Now, [58:49] scientists are estimating that's that's [58:51] less than 10% of the actual size of the [58:53] universe. The universe is actually much [58:55] much bigger than that. This is just the [58:57] universal horizon because the expansion [58:59] of the universe light this far will [59:01] never reach Earth. [59:03] So, [59:03] now you're talking about a size 100 [59:06] billion light-years and as small as we [59:07] are right in the middle this [59:08] infinitesimally small speck keep in mind [59:11] in our visible universe alone, visible. [59:13] There are more stars than there are [59:15] grains of sand in all the beaches in all [59:18] the world. Think about that [59:20] incomprehensible number. And as small as [59:22] we are [59:24] now [59:25] humor me with this. [59:27] Take one [59:29] atom, one hydrogen atom, Avogadro's [59:31] number 1 * 10 to the -23, [59:34] okay? [59:35] That's roughly the same order of [59:36] magnitude [59:38] as we are to the universe. [59:41] So, we have this entire huge universe [59:44] outside and this entire little universe [59:46] inside every single human being, and we [59:48] as a human beings can only interact with [59:50] one or two orders of magnitude up or [59:52] down. Otherwise, the universe is simply [59:54] too big or too small. We just will never [59:57] be able to know. [59:58] And that is reality. That's where most [60:00] of everything lies. That's where most of [60:02] reality is. It's either up there or [60:04] inside or everything in between. [60:07] So, I guess my point is [60:09] every time when people say, "Well, you [60:11] know, [60:12] aliens." [60:13] What does that mean? [60:15] What does that mean? Because most people [60:17] say aliens in Hollywood and little [60:18] eggheads running around. [60:20] There's so much more to it. It doesn't [60:23] This is This is us imposing [60:26] a Hollywood idea of what an alien should [60:29] look like. And by the way, let's not [60:30] forget their anthropomorphic morphic [60:31] values, right? They They They look like [60:33] us, have arms like us, and heads like [60:35] us, and eyes like us. Um because we view [60:38] everything through anthropomorphic eyes. [60:40] It's the reason why we we call our dogs [60:42] human names and we treat them like [60:43] humans. [60:44] Because we treat everything as if they [60:46] have human values, human motivation, [60:48] human intent when we may be dealing with [60:50] something completely different. This [60:51] could be like artificial intelligence. [60:53] It's just binary. Input in, input out. [60:56] We don't know. And so [60:58] these are some of the questions we have [61:00] to, you know, really as we were [61:02] moving down this this pathway. This is [61:04] why I always tell people, "Look, all [61:06] options have to be on the table until [61:08] they're no longer on the table." Cuz we [61:09] simply don't know. [61:11] We also don't know what their intentions [61:12] are and why they might be here. [61:14] That's right. [61:14] Why they might be visiting here. [61:16] That's right. [61:16] Do you have a any theories as to what [61:18] their intentions might be? [61:20] Rather, there's a whole range of [61:21] theories. I mean, it could be simply as [61:23] like when we're on the African Serengeti [61:25] and we see the wildebeest and we're in a [61:26] helicopter and you know, not to make fun [61:28] of it, but you sit there and say, "Oh, [61:29] that one." We dart it. Boom. What do we [61:31] do? We land the helicopter. We come out. [61:32] We draw blood. We do tests. We want to [61:34] see its diet and its migratory patterns, [61:37] its health. And then what happens? The [61:39] wildebeest wakes up, kind of groggy, [61:41] disoriented, stumbles over to the [61:43] watering hole and he's like, "Hey Bill, [61:44] you're not going to believe this, man. [61:45] This thing came out of the sky. All [61:47] sorts of weird stuff happened. I was [61:48] being touched. I woke up and I'm like, [61:49] 'What hurts?'" Right? It could be [61:51] something as simple as that. [61:52] Do you believe any of those reports? Cuz [61:53] people do say that they were abducted by [61:55] aliens. [61:56] Well, this is my point, right? So, so [61:57] that's that's one option. The other [61:58] option could be simply to monitor us. [62:02] Um it could be that we are getting very [62:04] close to being able to replicate what [62:06] they can do. [62:07] Um and if that's the case, you know, [62:09] maybe technologically we're only 100, [62:11] 200 years behind. And if that's the [62:12] case, now all of a sudden we're going to [62:14] be new neighbors, right? And that could [62:17] be problematic because our species is [62:19] very violent. We do a lot of bad things [62:21] to each other. Are we really ready to go [62:22] out and meet our potential friends from [62:24] out of town? I don't know. I mean, we're [62:27] pretty horrible to each other. So, maybe [62:29] not. Certainly if I was them and we were [62:31] I knew we were getting close, [62:33] I would probably be pretty interested in [62:34] what we're doing, too. Um as far as the [62:36] abductions, [62:38] you know, [62:39] I don't know what to tell you because [62:41] I've never been abducted. Um I've had [62:44] some some [62:45] people that swear by it, but you know, [62:48] you can't have a conversation about [62:49] abduction and then say, "Oh, they're [62:50] here for peaceful reasons." Doesn't work [62:52] that way. [62:53] them, the people that swear by it? [62:54] I believe that I believe that they are [62:56] being truthful that they that experience [62:58] they feel is real. I don't think they're [63:00] lying. Um but the question is, you know, [63:04] Did it happen is the question. [63:05] Yeah, I and I I and I I can't say cuz I [63:07] wasn't there. But I can tell you that we [63:09] definitely have people that have had [63:10] experiences where they are now on US [63:12] government full medical disability in [63:15] writing because they got too close to a [63:17] UAP. Now, was it deliberate that they [63:19] got injured or was it just a a byproduct [63:21] of the technology? They got too close to [63:23] it. [63:23] What does that mean they got too close [63:24] to it? And you mentioned that there's [63:26] some people that are on US disability [63:28] allowance, so they're being paid by the [63:29] US government. [63:30] in writing because of the they had a UAP [63:33] enc- they were they were involved in a [63:34] UAP encounter. [63:34] And what does that mean UAP encounter in [63:36] that definition? [63:37] Well, so let's look at it this way. Um [63:40] Now, here's a better one. You go to the [63:42] airport, right? And I'm going to hop on [63:44] a 737 and go fly to Fort Lauderdale. [63:47] There's no real threat there. I'm [63:48] getting on a plane, it's safe, sit on [63:49] the seat, have a cocktail, [63:51] you know, watch a movie, read a [63:53] magazine. [63:54] Now, if I were to walk out onto the [63:56] tarmac, onto the runway of that same [63:58] where that same airplane is, and that [63:59] airplane decides to spool up its jet [64:01] engine, [64:03] chances are I'm going to be injured. I'm [64:04] going to get burnt, I'm going to lose my [64:05] hearing, and possibly a lot worse, [64:07] right? [64:09] There are individuals, US government [64:11] servicemen and women, and there's also [64:13] intelligence officials who have been [64:16] injured by getting too close to a UAP, [64:19] whether incidentally or or it was [64:21] deliberate or not. [64:23] The question is [64:24] was that injury sustained because it was [64:26] deliberate or was that injury sustained [64:28] because it was just a matter of being [64:31] too close to the technology. For [64:32] example, let's say [64:34] putting your head near a microwave oven [64:35] when it's on. [64:36] It's probably not very good for you, [64:38] right? [64:38] And have those people spoken out? [64:40] Absolutely. [64:42] What's like a good example? [64:44] Um [64:45] There's an individual right now named [64:47] John Burroughs [64:48] who uh who had his medical files um [64:51] classified and the US government, [64:53] thankfully because of Senator late [64:55] Senator John McCain from Arizona, [64:58] forced the Air Force to release his [64:59] files. And as a result, he was able to [65:02] get full medical disability because of [65:03] an incident that involved uh him and [65:06] another individual in the UK [65:08] uh known as Rendlesham Forest incident [65:11] or Bentwaters incident where there was a [65:13] US joint US [65:15] and UK base [65:17] and there was a UFO incident where this [65:19] thing had landed in the in the forest [65:21] and they went out to go see this thing [65:23] and [65:24] they were injured. [65:25] And they were in the military at the [65:26] time? [65:26] Mhm, yeah. Air Force special police or [65:28] police officers. [65:31] They were injured? [65:33] They were injured and that's not all. [65:34] There's a lot of people that have been [65:36] injured right now that are under medical [65:38] care by government doctors. [65:41] That is a fact. [65:45] When they give their account of what [65:46] happened, what do they say? [65:47] That's a fair question to you ask. I [65:49] mean, there's some consistency with that [65:50] within some of the stories and then [65:52] there's some divergence. You know, it's [65:54] like somebody who says they've been in a [65:56] car accident depending what kind of car [65:57] you're in and was it a multiple car pile [65:59] up and where were you sitting in the car [66:01] you're going to have a slightly [66:01] different experience. So, it's not one [66:03] size fits all. [66:04] You talk about how they there's been a [66:05] lot of UAP sightings at nuclear [66:08] technology facilities. [66:10] Yes. [66:11] That is and that is why [66:13] this is a national security issue [66:14] because [66:16] they seem to be able to disable our [66:17] nuclear capabilities. Now, people say, [66:19] "Oh, well, that's like, you know, taking [66:21] matches out of a kid's hands and it's, [66:23] you know, [66:24] well, maybe but in Russia there's [66:25] information to suggest they actually [66:27] turned them on. [66:28] So, you know, we have to be really [66:30] careful with that. [66:31] Our nuclear triad capability is really [66:34] the crown jewels of the US government [66:36] and so if a country or an adversary has [66:38] the ability to interfere with the [66:40] nuclear response, that's significant. [66:42] Is there evidence to suggest that they [66:43] turned on the nuclear facilities in [66:45] Russia? [66:45] Yes. [66:46] What is that evidence? [66:48] And when was that? [66:49] There's there's evidence that there's [66:50] actually a KGB report um that suggested [66:54] that the uh one of their their places [66:56] was actually turned on. In fact, [66:58] there's a lot Let me be careful what I [66:59] say here cuz um [67:01] So, after the Berlin Wall fell, [67:04] there was this brief honeymoon period [67:05] between the Soviet Union and the US [67:08] where [67:09] ex-KGB officers were sharing information [67:11] with us and our government. Um [67:15] I think that's about all I could [67:16] probably say about that. But there was [67:19] some very interesting um [67:21] information that we were able to [67:24] to see. [67:26] I was reading about this really [67:27] interesting incident called the Colares [67:29] incident. [67:29] Colares in Brazil, yeah. [67:30] I can't I can't pronounce that. Say that [67:32] How do you say it again? Colares. [67:33] Colares. [67:35] Which was in 1977 to 1978. [67:39] Um and it sounded like a UAP incident [67:42] that was witnessed by [67:45] hundreds, thousands of people. [67:47] It was investigated officially by the [67:50] Brazilian military under the command and [67:52] control of a four-star general named [67:54] General Uchôa. [67:56] Uh and um he had explained before he [67:59] passed away that even his own military [68:01] personnel had been been attacked. [68:05] By [68:06] By UAP. [68:08] And what did they say? What was the What [68:10] did they document say? [68:11] Oh my goodness. Uh a whole litany of [68:12] things. A lot of the locals uh recall [68:15] being terrified by these things, being [68:16] pursued by them, almost being like like [68:18] a laser blast, if you can imagine that, [68:20] or directed energy type injury. Um [68:24] very provocative. Um some of the [68:26] military personnel were injured as well. [68:28] Um a lot of medical doctors came in [68:30] afterwards to look at the locals and the [68:31] military personnel. [68:33] That validating the presumption that [68:36] there was some sort of directed energy [68:37] type [68:39] damage, tissue damage, uh to some of [68:41] these people. Um and of course then the [68:43] fear kind of escalated into some of the [68:47] other, you know, local lore of some [68:49] other things. Um but it was very well [68:51] established by the Brazilian military [68:53] who also witnessed these encounters. So [68:56] it's not like just some people in a [68:57] remote village. Um these were Brazilian [69:00] military officers who also vouched for. [69:03] And I I spoken to dozens and dozens of [69:04] military officers all throughout Latin [69:06] America and Chile and Peru and Uruguay. [69:10] And you know, they all reporting in some [69:13] cases some very very similar encounters. [69:15] Not necessarily with Colares, but [69:17] instance amongst themselves, people who [69:19] don't even know each other separated by [69:20] different countries are telling me their [69:22] same encounter. It and the same [69:24] morphology of craft and how they would [69:27] in some cases even try to engage in a [69:29] dogfight and use cannons, conventional [69:31] guns, um to no avail, of course. Um [69:34] and there's reports of that in Tehran [69:36] incident, I believe it's 1978, the [69:37] Tehran incident with an F-14 Tomcat [69:40] uh where the pilot [69:42] um his aircraft was disabled every time [69:45] he tried to engage the target. And then, [69:47] you know, I superimpose that with [69:49] here in Huntsville, Alabama, we had some [69:51] helicopters uh that we were testing and [69:54] uh something like eight out of the eight [69:55] test pilots all reported UAP uh coming [69:58] around their their [69:59] their helicopters while they were [70:01] testing them. And one even reported that [70:03] uh he believed his his um [70:07] his helicopter was disabled. And he went [70:08] into a an emergency uh situation. I [70:11] think it was an emergency auto rotation [70:13] situation. And as soon as the UAP left, [70:16] uh he was able to regain control of his [70:18] helicopter. [70:19] Should we be worried about this? [70:22] No, I don't think worried. I think we [70:23] should be concerned [70:25] because look, from a from a governmental [70:27] perspective, [70:29] to determine if something That's why I [70:30] always say this is a national security [70:31] issue, but not a national national [70:33] security threat. And and there's a [70:34] reason why. So, [70:37] there's a very simple calculus to [70:39] determine if something is a threat. [70:42] It's capabilities versus intent. [70:45] We have seen some of the capabilities. [70:47] We have no idea the intent. No clue. So, [70:49] we don't know if it's if it's a threat. [70:51] And let me give you a little analogy [70:52] here that might help kind of put this I [70:54] I I I this analogy a lot to help [70:56] illustrate what do I mean. [70:58] Um [71:00] I'm sure you live in a lovely home. Let [71:01] me ask you the question, do you lock [71:03] your front door before you go to bed? [71:04] Yes. [71:05] Okay. And you know what? I do, too. And [71:06] I think most people, we don't expect [71:08] anything bad to happen, but [71:10] just out of precaution, right? And some [71:12] folks may go the extra mile and decide, [71:13] you know, I'm going to just make sure [71:14] the windows are locked once in a while. [71:16] And you know what? I might even turn the [71:17] alarm on at night because I can. [71:19] Let's say you wake up one Sunday morning [71:22] to have yourself a nice hot cup of tea [71:24] or coffee. And you walk downstairs and [71:25] all of a sudden as you come downstairs [71:27] one bright morning, [71:29] you notice [71:30] size 12 muddy boot prints on your living [71:32] room carpet [71:33] that were not there the night before. [71:35] Now, no one's been hurt, nothing's out [71:36] of place, but despite you locking the [71:39] front door and checking the windows and [71:41] turning on the alarm, there are now boot [71:42] prints in your living room floor that [71:44] were not there the night before. My [71:46] question to you is, is that a threat? [71:48] My response is, it could be if it wanted [71:50] to be, so we should probably figure out [71:52] how it's getting into the house. This is [71:53] kind of the same analogy I use. These [71:55] things that can come in unimpeded, [71:56] unchallenged into controlled US [71:57] airspace, over sensitive military [71:59] installations, potentially interfere [72:01] with our nuclear equities and [72:02] capabilities, [72:04] we should probably figure out what these [72:05] things are. [72:08] With everything that you know in mind [72:09] and everything you've witnessed and [72:11] seen, [72:13] if you had to argue against yourself, if [72:16] you had to argue the case against [72:17] everything that you believe to make the [72:18] case that UAPs don't exist, what exactly [72:21] would you say? [72:22] Well, you can't say they don't exist. [72:23] We've already [72:24] we're beyond that they they're real, [72:25] whatever they are. But I could make the [72:27] argument that it's foreign adversarial [72:28] technology. It's Russia, it's China, [72:30] right? Uh they have leapfrogged us [72:32] technologically and have been able to [72:34] execute this this plan wonderfully. Uh [72:37] and then the other option is that's all [72:38] a grand hallucination. So, let's go down [72:40] each argument. [72:42] Let's go down the fact that maybe this [72:43] is [72:45] I don't know, Chinese technology, [72:46] Russian technology. After all, the [72:47] Chinese did send balloons over our [72:50] northern continental United States, spy [72:51] balloons and you know, for who knows how [72:53] long and we never did anything about it [72:55] and tracked it. [72:56] Um that means [72:58] that for the last 70 years [73:01] some country has been able to create a [73:03] technology in secret [73:06] that's so far advanced of anything we [73:07] have and by the way deploy it over the [73:10] continental United States [73:12] for 70 years completely not attributed. [73:16] Now, where were we 70 years ago? [73:20] Well, we are on the heels of World War [73:23] we had just broken the sound barrier and [73:25] we hadn't made it into space yet. Where [73:28] was China in the middle of a famine? [73:30] Where was Russia? [73:31] No better than we were. [73:33] So, if this was Chinese technology or [73:35] Russian technology back then cuz we have [73:38] the data to show it goes all the way [73:39] back. [73:40] This would be the greatest intelligence [73:42] failure this country has ever faced [73:43] eclipsing that of even 9/11 because [73:45] despite the billions of dollars and the [73:46] 17 intelligence organizations [73:49] over 70 years, there's not a trace [73:52] that these countries were able to [73:53] develop this and and and fly over our [73:56] country and do what what we're seeing. [73:58] So, that's option one. [74:00] Also, temporally speaking [74:03] that type of technology didn't exist [74:06] back in 1950 1948. We not by us anyway. [74:10] So, that would be like going into King [74:12] Tut's tomb for the very first time [74:15] in the 1920s and looking in there and [74:18] all of a sudden discovering a fully [74:20] assembled and functioning 747. [74:23] Doesn't make sense. [74:25] Egyptians didn't have the technology [74:26] back then, right? [74:29] So, let's go to the other option. So, [74:30] that's that's that would be the huge [74:32] biggest intelligence failure that this [74:34] country's ever experienced and that's [74:35] not a good option and very very [74:37] unlikely. [74:38] So, the other option is this is you know [74:40] what? It's a mass hallucination. [74:42] Everybody's crazy. [74:44] So, let's go down that rabbit a for a [74:45] second. [74:47] So, some of the best and brightest in [74:48] our intelligence community and our [74:49] Department of Defense, our top gun [74:51] trained pilots who are who are trusted [74:54] to fly live munitions over cities, [74:57] populated cities, fight and win wars on [74:58] our behalf. [75:00] Men and women who have their finger [75:01] literally on the nuclear button. [75:03] They're all crazy. [75:05] They're all absolutely certifiably [75:07] insane. [75:10] We've got a bigger problem on our hands [75:11] than UAP. [75:13] What percentage of them have made [75:15] reports of UAP? [75:18] Um you know, it's hard to say percentage [75:20] because you don't know because the ones [75:22] that don't report, there's no way to [75:23] measure, right? You only know the ones [75:24] that do report. So, there's no way now [75:27] we can tell you that people more more [75:28] reporting cuz they feel that it's safe [75:30] that they can report, but we don't have [75:32] any metric right now that tells us who's [75:34] not reporting cuz they're not reporting. [75:36] When you when we think about this [75:37] hallucination rationale, [75:39] um [75:39] I remember many years ago, you know, [75:41] when I think it was in relation to [75:44] uh physical or hallucination, there were [75:46] ghosts and things like that. Yeah, it [75:47] was relating to ghosts. Someone said to [75:49] me, they said, "If really extremely [75:52] improbable things never happened, then [75:55] that would be [75:57] a miracle." [75:58] Because just like the nature of [75:59] probability means that most sort of [76:01] predictable things happen most of the [76:02] time, and then as you get down [76:04] probability, there's this [76:06] one side of it which is highly [76:07] improbable. [76:08] curve. [76:08] Yeah, exactly. So, like on the the bell [76:09] shape curve, this side of it is [76:11] extremely improbable things. You know, I [76:14] uh what's the thing extremely improbable [76:15] example? We start talking about [76:18] Andrew Huberman, [76:20] and then my phone rings and it's Andrew [76:21] Huberman, and we go, "Oh my god. [76:24] What are the odds of that being Andrew [76:25] Huberman? We were just talking about [76:26] him." And the issue there is we've [76:28] spoken about many people, and the phone [76:30] never rang. But on the one time it does, [76:32] we go we connect the dots in hindsight, [76:34] and we go, "That is a miracle." And we [76:36] attribute meaning to that. [76:38] Is it not possible that, you know, if [76:40] there's thousands and thousands of these [76:41] sightings, there's also [76:44] billions of non-sightings. [76:47] So, on that bell curve of probability, [76:49] there's this is these are just the [76:51] the unexplainable, highly improbable [76:55] thousand incidents of, you know, maybe [76:57] there was something on the camera, maybe [76:59] there was some [76:59] ball lightning, atmospheric anomaly, but [77:02] the problem is you we're going back to [77:03] the [77:05] to the the idea that there are multiple [77:07] sensor systems collecting the same [77:09] information at the same time under the [77:10] same circumstances, right? This isn't [77:12] just one person like your car. Oh my [77:14] gosh, I don't believe the guy calls. [77:16] You've got multiple platforms reporting [77:19] the information at the same time [77:21] simultaneously, right? So, it's not just [77:24] Oh, well, I saw an atmospheric [77:25] aberration. [77:26] The radar's picking it up. The gun [77:28] camera's picking it up. The FLIR's [77:29] picking it up. And another radar [77:31] system's picking it up. And another [77:32] radar And by the way, other [77:33] capabilities, which I can't discuss [77:34] here, are also picking it up. So, it's a [77:36] real thing. Now, could it be [77:40] a Russian rocket on reentry that [77:43] happened to [77:45] use up all its hydrazine and now the [77:46] booster rocket is burning up? Yeah, but [77:48] then you don't have these 90° turns. You [77:50] don't have 180° turns. You don't have [77:52] something coming in, sitting at 80,000 [77:54] ft, then dropping up right above the [77:56] surface of the water, hovering 50 ft, [77:58] then popping right back up again [78:00] that you can measure. It's quantifiable [78:02] and qualifiable data. [78:03] Is Is that referring to the what they [78:05] call the Tic Tac incident? Is that Is [78:07] that what that is as well? [78:08] That So, the Tic Tac incident is That's [78:10] not the video from the Tic Tac, but [78:11] yeah. The Tic Tac incident are these [78:13] objects that were detected [78:15] at one point one of the operators said [78:16] it was raining UFOs. So, the Spy-1 radar [78:19] can can detect a a baseball-sized object [78:23] at 80,000 ft. Okay? It's a very, very [78:25] capable. [78:27] You had [78:28] E-2 Hawkeye. [78:29] What's that? [78:30] Uh it's a air platform. It's an [78:31] aircraft. It's a flying radar system uh [78:34] that we use to provide combat support, [78:36] air support, and and combat control for [78:38] aircraft. So, you have the [78:41] Aegis class [78:42] uh [78:43] destroyers. Basically, like a um a ship [78:46] Ticonderoga class, I think. Uh you have [78:48] the the USS Princeton with the spy-1 [78:51] radar, one of the world's most pre- [78:52] premier at the time [78:54] radar systems on the planet. You have [78:56] the E-2 Hawkeye also picking it up on [78:58] radar. Then, you have the aircraft that [79:00] could pick it up on radar. Then, you [79:02] have the eyewitnesses picking it up on [79:03] radar. Then, you have the also the [79:04] footage of the flare footage picking [79:06] these things up as well [79:07] electro-optically. So, [79:10] you're talking about something that is [79:12] at 80,000 ft, then within a blink of an [79:14] eye has the ability to drop down to 50 [79:16] ft and then go right back up again [79:18] instantly. [79:19] Um and it's all being verified by [79:21] various different sensor systems. Now, [79:23] in this particular case, I'm convoluting [79:25] a little bit because [79:27] the pilot's incident confirmed the Tic [79:29] Tac, but they didn't see it dropping out [79:31] of 80,000 ft. I'm so I'm kind of putting [79:33] it all together to make it a little [79:34] easier for people to consume. But, the [79:36] the Tic Tac incident wasn't really an [79:38] incident. It was incidents over over a [79:41] project protracted period of time in in [79:43] the early November timeframe. So, it [79:45] wasn't just one incident. There are [79:47] multiple incidents, but it's referred to [79:49] as the Tic Tac incident because the [79:51] pilot actually reported seeing this [79:53] white flying what's been described as a [79:55] lozenge, what's been described [79:57] historically as a white flying butane [79:59] tank. In this particular case, it was [80:01] described as a white flying Tic Tac, [80:03] like the breath mint Tic Tac. [80:05] And they saw they saw it go up, down on [80:07] radars and systems like that. [80:09] Oh, yeah. Yeah, they saw it up and down [80:10] on radar systems, and then the pilots [80:12] actually saw it zip away and bang, [80:14] disappear over the horizon, only later [80:16] on within a few moments to be picked up [80:18] on radar again 60 mi away at their cap [80:21] point, where they're supposed to [80:22] rendezvous next. [80:24] Um so, you're talking incredible speeds, [80:26] incredible accelerate, hypersonic [80:27] velocity, instantaneous acceleration, [80:30] low observability, all the anti-gravity, [80:33] all the the observables. [80:36] And that's just one that's just one [80:37] that's publicly known. There's a lot [80:38] more of these things that have been have [80:39] been happening. [80:41] How long were you with this [80:43] working on that project at the Pentagon, [80:44] A A tip? [80:45] Uh [80:46] eight years. [80:47] Eight years. [80:49] I'm an old guy. This is gray, not [80:51] blonde. [80:52] Let's talk about our sponsor week [80:53] quickly. We're now on the home stretch [80:55] of Sober October and this is where I [80:57] would normally share my key takeaways. [80:59] But as I haven't been drinking for over [81:00] a year now, I thought you might prefer [81:01] to hear from a listener who's given up [81:03] alcohol for the first time through this [81:05] Whoop Sober October challenge. Earlier [81:07] this week, Charlie from Manchester sent [81:09] me this message. The last few weeks have [81:11] been so transformative. While I haven't [81:13] given up drinking for good, Whoop Sober [81:14] October challenge has shown me just how [81:17] much my body needs time away from [81:18] drinking, especially during periods when [81:20] I really need to perform. I've slept [81:22] better and I've felt more mental clarity [81:24] and control each day. Sober October is [81:27] almost over, but your chance to learn [81:28] more about your body is not. If you're [81:30] not yet a Whoop member, go to [81:32] join.whoop.com/ceo [81:34] to start your free trial today. [81:36] Quick one. I want to tell you about a [81:37] new health product {slash} gadget that's [81:39] had a big impact on my life, but also my [81:41] partner's life. They are a sponsor of [81:43] this podcast and me and my partner are [81:44] both quite obsessed with it now. It is [81:46] the Bon Charge infrared sauna blanket. [81:49] Have you ever heard of an infrared sauna [81:51] blanket before? Infrared sauna blankets [81:53] are designed to give you the exact same [81:54] benefits of infrared saunas that you [81:56] find at gyms and spas and health clubs, [81:58] but they're portable. You can use them [82:00] at home, you can use them when you [82:01] travel, and anywhere in between. It [82:02] heats the body directly rather than the [82:04] air around you. And for me, when I use [82:06] the Bon Charge infrared sauna blanket [82:08] before I sleep, my sleep scores go up. [82:10] I'm better recovered the next day when I [82:12] go to the gym because it helps with [82:13] circulation and stiffness and muscle [82:15] soreness. But also, infrared is [82:17] associated with really improving your [82:18] skin. They are a sponsor of this podcast [82:20] and because of that, they've offered all [82:22] of you listeners a 25% discount when you [82:26] try Bon Charge's infrared sauna blankets [82:28] today. To get that discount, use the [82:30] code diary at checkout and you'll also [82:31] get free shipping and a year-long [82:33] warranty. Head to boncharge.com/diary [82:36] and get started on your infrared sauna [82:38] journey today. [82:39] What was like What's like a day in the [82:41] life of someone working in a project [82:43] that deals with UFOs at the Pentagon? [82:45] Like, you come in in the morning, you [82:47] get your coffee. [82:49] I had the two worst portfolios anybody [82:51] could ever ask for at the Pentagon. [82:54] Um [82:54] I was I was I was I was like a pariah. I [82:57] had the two most unpopular portfolios. I [83:00] was on one hand [83:02] I was working the UAP [83:04] issue, UFO issue. On the other hand, I [83:05] was also working uh Guantanamo Bay [83:09] issues. Um [83:12] very politically charged, [83:14] very untenable situation. [83:17] Um but that was my job. So, I had both [83:19] those portfolios. And so, every day was [83:22] um [83:24] It was like riding a tiger to work. [83:27] And every day that tiger just wanted to [83:28] rip you off and shred you into pieces [83:30] and you just had to hold on for dear [83:32] life. [83:33] Yeah, it was um it was stressful. In [83:35] 2014, [83:37] uh I was informed that I was put on the [83:39] ISIS Al-Qaeda kill list [83:41] for my work at uh involving Guantanamo [83:44] Bay. [83:45] Um [83:47] And of course, [83:48] uh we had the UAP issue. It was It was [83:50] uncomfortable. It was uncomfortable [83:52] times. It was It was uncomfortable time [83:53] for for me um professionally. I I [83:57] wouldn't have wished it on anyone [83:58] anybody. [83:58] Did you enjoy it? [83:59] I enjoyed the people. [84:01] I enjoyed them the the the the mission [84:03] and and [84:05] doing what I thought and what I think is [84:07] right for our nation. [84:09] Um but no, I mean, if if there was an [84:12] easier job I could have had, I probably [84:13] would have done it. But most of my jobs [84:15] I tended to be handpicked to do the jobs [84:17] I had done. [84:19] I guess someone somewhere thought I was [84:21] doing a good job with other stuff and [84:22] they'd be kind of always would bump me [84:24] to new stuff. [84:25] Um [84:26] How does your work with UFOs and your [84:30] belief in these other [84:33] I was going to say life forms, but just [84:35] these other forms of I don't know [84:38] activity that we can't explain cuz I [84:39] hesitated on the word life forms because [84:41] again [84:41] Yeah, let me say it's not a belief in [84:43] life, it's a belief in possibilities. [84:45] Okay, right. [84:46] I don't know to I can't tell you [84:48] definitively [84:49] that oh, I I believe in you know [84:52] life and then looks like this in other [84:54] parts of the galaxy. I don't know. I [84:56] don't know that. I've I'm [84:57] I haven't been to space. I I couldn't [84:58] tell you. [84:59] But we have to remain open to the [85:01] possibilities and look at the data. Let [85:03] a lot of data speak for itself and then [85:04] draw conclusions based upon the data. [85:06] Did this understanding make your life [85:08] more fulfilling or [85:10] feel more insignificant? Cuz I sometimes [85:12] think of when I spend time watching [85:14] space movies and documentaries and I see [85:15] them flying and then to Mars and then [85:17] through these black holes and stuff. It [85:19] reminds me how big and vast the universe [85:21] really is and all of that then makes me [85:24] feel a few things. Two things is in at [85:26] the same time. One of them is like [85:28] totally [85:29] insignificant in the grand scheme of [85:31] what's out there and the technologies [85:33] you've described and the way you've [85:34] described them in part makes me feel [85:36] quite insignificant cuz I'm like I'm [85:38] just this tiny little grain of sand in [85:40] this never-ending beach and I really [85:43] don't matter in the grand scheme of [85:44] this. And then the second thing, which [85:46] is a positive consequence of that [85:48] feeling is [85:50] you kind of alleviates your anxiety, I [85:51] guess. Like nothing really matters. [85:53] Nothing There's nothing to worry about. [85:55] That's very insightful. Can I can I ask [85:57] you a favor? [85:58] Mhm. [85:59] So, you have the little iPad in front of [86:00] you. Type in the words pale blue dot [86:03] under Google images and I want you to [86:05] tell me what you see. [86:08] Okay, I'll type in [86:11] pale blue dot. [86:13] Do you know what that is? Take a look at [86:14] that. Blow it up. [86:15] Zoom in. What do you see? [86:18] It's a tiny little dot of light. [86:21] Um [86:22] tiny little There's this massive I mean, [86:24] it looks like kind of like the night sky [86:26] almost. [86:27] And there's this tiny little dot of [86:29] light. [86:29] You know what that is? [86:31] What is that? [86:32] That's the planet you live on. That's [86:34] Earth. [86:34] Oh, that's Earth. Okay. [86:35] Every [86:37] memory [86:38] every piece of history [86:40] occurred on that tiny little [86:42] insignificant ball [86:44] hurtling through the vastness and vacuum [86:46] of space. And that ray of light is [86:48] actually from the sun. [86:50] And that was taken by one of our probes [86:53] as it was heading out towards the solar [86:55] system and it was told to turn back and [86:56] take a picture. That's our home. [86:59] How does that picture make you feel? [87:03] Totally insignificant. [87:05] Irrelevant. Um [87:07] like I just don't matter. [87:09] But how But how about this? Yes, it will [87:11] make you feel insignificant, but do you [87:12] know what else it can do? [87:13] Make you realize just how special we [87:16] really are. [87:18] That little blue dot [87:20] the little engine that could, that's [87:22] where we live. That's our home. [87:24] And that is real and that is special. [87:29] So, to answer your question, how does it [87:31] make me feel? [87:33] You can feel insignificant and still [87:35] feel special at the same time. [87:38] And that's why I wanted you to see that [87:40] picture. [87:41] Because you're illustrating for me [87:42] exactly the question you're asking me. [87:45] And so, in order to rather than just [87:46] give you an answer, I wanted you to [87:48] experience my answer and that is my [87:50] answer. [87:52] What do your kids think of What What you [87:54] do these days? [87:56] I don't know what I do. My children are [87:58] the greatest accomplishment of my life. [87:59] There'll be nothing in my life that will [88:00] ever come close to the achievement of [88:02] being a father. Period. Full stop. So, [88:04] there's nothing I will ever do [88:06] that will come close to that. So, it [88:07] doesn't really matter [88:09] uh [88:09] what I do else in life because that's [88:12] the most important. Now, what do they [88:13] think about what I do? You probably have [88:14] to ask them. [88:16] Do they believe in UAP? [88:17] It's not belief. They They believe in [88:19] data. [88:20] I never told them to believe in UAP. [88:21] But do they believe that that we are [88:23] alone in the universe? [88:24] Ah, that's a different question. [88:26] Um [88:27] let's Well, you'd have to ask them for [88:29] that, but but let me let's let's break [88:31] that down again because it's important [88:33] that we we we love going into these [88:34] binary things, either or, okay? [88:37] Does life exist in the universe? Yes. [88:39] This is just living proof, this planet, [88:41] okay? In fact, life is abundant. Life is [88:43] everywhere on this planet. Even the [88:45] place that we think would never have [88:46] possibly exist, it is there and it [88:48] thrives. [88:49] Um [88:50] my my daughters are very open-minded, [88:52] but they're also independent thinkers. I [88:55] taught them, don't be like mom and dad [88:57] if you don't want to be like mom and [88:58] dad. If we do something stupid, don't do [89:00] it. Learn a lesson. [89:02] Um so, we've never prescribed our [89:04] children what to think or what to [89:05] believe, ever. It's been up to them. [89:08] Um they are incredibly intelligent. [89:11] Uh they both have very successful [89:13] careers. [89:14] Uh and they think on their own. [89:17] And what they think is sacred, and I [89:18] don't ever want to interfere with that. [89:20] And I have always told them, you don't [89:21] not asking you to believe anything. [89:23] Do you believe we're alone in the [89:24] universe? [89:25] We are absolutely not alone in the [89:26] universe. [89:31] We just better hope [89:32] the other life [89:34] is [89:35] kind, I guess. [89:37] Ah, see, but there we go again. Is that [89:38] me, too? But but what is kind? [89:41] Let's just hope they don't hurt us. [89:42] Ah, that's different. You're right. [89:44] Let's hope they don't eradicate us. [89:45] Right. Let's hope they're they're [89:47] they're not malevolent. I would agree [89:48] with that. Let's hope they're not uh you [89:51] know, here for their own interests and [89:52] not ours. [89:53] Why did you call the book Eminence? [89:56] Open the first Open the first page. [89:59] There uh when you get to the first [90:00] written actual words, [90:02] it's before the forward. [90:04] It's What's it say? [90:06] It says, "You may be wondering why I [90:07] titled this book Eminent. The word [90:08] itself sometimes is associated with [90:10] another word, threat. Although at first [90:13] glance, it may appear that this book [90:14] focuses on the potential threat of [90:16] unidentified anomalous phenomena, UAP or [90:19] UFOs in the vernacular, [90:21] that is not my intent. According to some [90:23] of the common definitions of the word [90:24] eminent, it usually means something is [90:26] about to happen or impending or [90:28] inevitable. This is precisely why I [90:30] chose the this title." [90:33] The invasion is an imminent threat. [90:35] That's kind of what I'm trying to check. [90:36] I know. [90:37] I know, [90:38] but that's not my intent. [90:39] We have a closing tradition on this [90:40] podcast where the last guest leaves a [90:41] question for the next guest not knowing [90:43] who they're going to be leaving it for. [90:45] And the question that's been left for [90:47] you is, [90:48] what is something you were once deeply [90:51] afraid of [90:53] that now you are no longer afraid of? [90:59] Fear. [91:04] Fear. [91:06] I'm not afraid of it anymore. [91:08] I used to be afraid of everything, [91:09] afraid of [91:11] of combat, afraid of death, afraid of [91:12] war, afraid of the health care issues, [91:14] afraid of of other people, not for me, [91:17] but for other people. [91:20] It's a little bit liberating [91:22] to not [91:24] be afraid. [91:26] It's like the old saying, the only thing [91:27] we have to fear is fear itself, right? [91:31] Um [91:32] I mean, clearly I'm still concerned. [91:34] There's concern, but actual fear, [91:37] man, I'm over 50 years old, brother. [91:39] There's nothing anybody can do to me [91:41] that at this point I've lived a full [91:42] life and I've had more than my fair [91:44] share. [91:45] Whatever, dude. You know, if I spend the [91:46] rest of my life [91:49] it doesn't matter, cuz I've lived such [91:50] an incredible life and I have an [91:52] incredible family. [91:53] So, it doesn't really matter. [91:56] Louie, thank you. Thank you for your [91:57] time and thank you for writing a book [91:59] which gives us a very, very rare view [92:02] into what happens inside the Pentagon as [92:04] it relates to the subject of UAPs/UFOs. [92:07] Um it's called Inside the Pentagon's [92:09] Hunt for UFOs, Imminent. And I highly [92:11] recommend anybody that's interested in [92:13] these subjects to read this book. I'll [92:14] link it in the description below because [92:16] it's fascinating. You know, I I'm [92:18] certainly someone that believes we're [92:19] not alone in the universe. I have no [92:21] idea what that means or what that looks [92:23] like and I think to really have a strong [92:25] view either way um [92:28] to think that we're not alone or to [92:29] think that you can perfectly articulate [92:32] who is here with us is probably some [92:34] form of naivety and ignorance. And [92:36] probably, you know, [92:37] Well, they're one in the same, right? [92:38] The true believers and the true [92:39] skeptics, they're just on opposite ends [92:41] of the spectrum because no matter what [92:43] information you give them, they're never [92:44] going to change their narrative. So, I I [92:46] I think you're right. [92:47] And I think generally, I think a better [92:48] position to take on all these subjects [92:50] is to remain open-minded. And that's why [92:52] I was keen to have this conversation [92:54] because I'm just I like to remain [92:55] open-minded to information and um [92:58] there's so many times in history that we [92:59] thought we had it figured out and we [93:00] didn't. So, to think we have it figured [93:02] out now is is is stupidity, frankly, so. [93:05] Exactly. [93:06] Lou, thank you. [93:07] My honor, privilege. Thank you. Thank [93:09] you. Thank you. [93:14] Isn't this cool? Every single [93:16] conversation I have here on The Diary of [93:18] a CEO, at the very end of it, you'll [93:19] know I ask the guest to leave a question [93:23] in The Diary of a CEO. And what we've [93:26] done is we turned every single question [93:28] written in The Diary of a CEO into these [93:30] conversation cards that you can play at [93:33] home. So, you've got every guest we've [93:35] ever had, their question, and on the [93:38] back of it, if you scan that QR code, [93:41] you get to watch the person who answered [93:44] that question. We're finally revealing [93:47] all of the questions and the people that [93:50] answered the question. The brand new [93:53] version two updated conversation cards [93:55] are out right now at the [93:57] conversationcards.com. [93:59] They sold out twice instantaneously. So, [94:01] if you are interested in getting hold of [94:03] some limited edition conversation cards, [94:05] I really, really recommend acting [94:07] quickly.