YouTube Channel: "The Black Vault Originals"
Video Title: "Luis Elizondo On His E-Mails, DoD/OIG UAP Evaluation, and MUCH MORE"

Luis Elizondo On His E-Mails, DoD/OIG UAP Evaluation, and MUCH MORE
23,463 views  Premiered Jun 1, 2021

Just days ago, The Black Vault released a story that confirmed the e-mails of Luis Elizondo… have all been destroyed by the Department of Defense. This paper trail that is now gone for good would likely not only consist of e-mails, but all attachments, scheduled tasks, calendars, chat transcripts and other communications that spanned nearly a decade.

After months of seeking the proper authorization for the DoD to do this; there was nothing found. When asked, the Pentagon couldn’t cite authorization either, even after two months of asking. In fact, documented protocol proves that this material should likely have been saved until at least October 4, 2024, if not, possibly even being mandated to be saved indefinitely.

With this crucial evidence seemingly destroyed, stepping into the Vault today, is Luis Elizondo himself. Now hear from him on what truly was lost; how he feels about it; and what the next steps may be.

From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRO1c88Euyw

Transcript:

John Greenewald: Just days ago,
the black vault released a story
that confirmed the emails of
Luis Elizondo have all been
destroyed by the Department of
Defense. This paper trail that
is now gone for good would
likely not only consist of
emails, but also all
attachments, scheduled tasks,
calendars, chat transcripts, and
other communications that
spanned nearly a decade. After
months of seeking the proper
authorization for the DOJ to do
this, there was nothing found.
When asked, the Pentagon
couldn't cite authorization
either. Even after nearly two
months of asking, in fact,
documented protocol proves that
this material should likely have
been saved until at least
October 4 2024, if not, possibly
even being mandated to be saved
indefinitely. With this crucial
evidence seemingly destroyed.
Stepping into the vault today is
Luis Elizondo himself. Now hear
from him on what truly was lost,
how he feels about it, and what
the next steps may be. Stay
tuned, you're about to journey
inside the black vault.
That's right, everybody. As
always, thank you so much for
tuning in and making this your
podcast or your live stream of
choice for those subscribers to
this channel. Or if you're brand
new days ago, I posted a video
which was connected to a very
long article which I worked
approximately about three years
on, it took two months just to
verify the lead of the story,
which was simply this the paper
trail that will lead into better
understanding a tip the
Pentagon's UFO story as it is
largely referenced in the media
would consist of Luis Elizondo
his emails. And finally, after
months of pressing, they did
confirm the Pentagon and
Department of Defense confirmed,
it's all gone. Now, although
that may stay at sound like
standard procedure, I, for
months, tried to verify what,
what authorized them to do this,
and I was unable to do it. Now,
that doesn't mean much. But I
was pressing the Pentagon at the
exact same time. And they
couldn't prove it, either. Now,
you've all heard my reaction to
that. But more importantly,
here's the man himself, Luis
Elizondo, Louise, thank you so
much for again, stepping into
the vault and spending some time
with me here.
Luis Elizondo: Yeah, john, my
pleasure. Thank you very much.
And a big thank you to your
audience as well. I know, a lot
of folks have been kind of
following this, this topic for
quite some time. And I look
forward to addressing any
questions you you or your
listeners might have.
John Greenewald: And I
appreciate that. So like I
mentioned, my audience has, has
heard my reaction, a very quick
backstory, so they better
understand it was almost two
months to the day, when I picked
up my cell phone and called you
and said, Okay, this is what
they're pulling, I wanted you to
be be the first to know, you
ended up being essentially the
only one to know, you may have
shared it with others, but but
in the sense I didn't talk about
it at all. I want to start with
those emails and and get your
reaction to this story. Let me
take you back to two months ago.
If I can ask you, were you aware
of that? Or was that new to you
that your emails were destroyed
according to the Department of
Defense?
Luis Elizondo: Well, I it was a
surprise but but not a surprise.
You know, obviously john, I've
had to to the major portfolios I
ran the last 10 years or so in
the Pentagon was the UFO
program. And then one that I
haven't really talked much
about, which is Guantanamo Bay.
And clearly from a from a
perspective of not just
posterity, but from a legal
legal perspective. Anything that
I was engaged in involving the
911 Commission trials is
considered discoverable. in a
court of law, it's considered
evidentiary. And so that must by
law be preserved to for
posterity sake and there is no,
there's no destroyed 25 years,
it stays around forever. So when
you when you had indicated to me
that the Pentagon were good be
grudgingly admitted that my my
correspondence my emails were
destroyed. Obviously I was very
disappointed in that because
frankly, it's it's, it's it's
illegal in some cases,
especially as related to some of
my work I was doing. But also
disappointing and disappointing
because there are several
categories of information that I
was involved with that are
specifically exempt from that
destroy on, you know, let's say
two or five or 10 years. And,
yeah, there you have it. Am I am
I surprised? You know, again,
not really, I am because it's
it's such a bold act for them to
do I mean, at that point, it's,
you know, they say, Well, yeah,
Lou had nothing to do with
eight. Okay, well, where it's
just females, we don't have
them. And so, you know, it's
kind of this weird, you know,
double negative, right. And one
case, you're saying that a tip
wasn't real, and we never
studied UFOs. And I was a part
of it. On the second on that
second accutron sale? Well, we
don't have any any of those
emails. Yeah, you know. So it's
just, it's kind of kind of
bizarre where, where I
John Greenewald: have stated
publicly that this goes to the
heart and core and soul of why I
do what I do. for 25 years. When
I started when I was 15, I
realized that there were two
main aspects that drove me it
was transparency, and
preservation. And with this
particular case, the Department
of Defense showed neither, they
obviously did not want to give
me these emails, I have at least
or had at least eight FOIA
requests with various keywords
going for this material. But
what was amazing to me was that
even away from a tip was that
that office that you directed,
called the National Program,
special management staffer, and
psms. You had mentioned the
gizmo portion of that. Can I ask
you away from a tip UFOs, and
all of that, with that
particular office? Can you
mention anything else that that
office
Luis Elizondo: did? I had to be
very careful because it was
very, very sensitive. It my I
think one of my last emails may
have been, I don't know if it
was released, or someone had a
copy of it. But in there, you
can see that it was it was
definitely nuanced. It was a
program that supported the White
House and the National Security
Council. So obviously, that
information to be just willy
nilly destroyed by the D o t,
when we're talking about
information that's beyond just
title 10. is frankly, silly. And
I'll tell you something to john,
from, from my perspective, look,
we haven't always necessarily
agreed on everything. And we can
agree to disagree. But let me
tell you the one thing that I've
always respected about you, you
are you are one of the most
tenacious and probably one of
the most global experts on the
FOIA process. And what why is
that important? Because FOIA
isn't just a privilege. It's a
right. It's an act. It's a law
that was established by Congress
to make sure that there is
transparency within the
government. Okay. That is, that
is a law that was passed by
Congress. So basically, it's not
a option. It's not at Well, you
can if you want, you know, you
must comply with FOIA. And what
I'm seeing here, besides this,
this obfuscation and the these
these silly games that keep
playing, is that they are taking
a law. And they're making a
mockery of it. They're
interjecting organizations and
people into that calculus that
are that are deliberately not
supposed to be in there. They
are, they are deleting
information, which frankly,
between you and me, I don't
believe they've deleted
anything. I think it's just
extremely damning and
incriminating. So they don't
want it to come out. And it's
it's making a mockery of law. So
at that point, you have to ask
yourself, john, when an
organization in the United
States who is bound to uphold
the law, is now breaking the
law. Okay. Is that organization?
Are those people that are in
those positions? Do they
represent the will of the
government? Do they represent
the will of the people in United
States? And if the answer is no
on both, then are they even
legitimately in charge of
anything? much that's my, that's
my concern here, john, this is
what exercises me so much that
there are people that are
willfully trouncing on on on
might as well be the
constitution because these are
laws of balls of the land.
They're not they're not
flexible. It's not like a rule
that you can bend the rule.
Yeah, law you don't and and You
have all people I'm sure
probably are frustrated by this.
But for me as a as a patriot and
somebody who served his country
in uniform, you know, I fought
against tyranny over in the
battlefields of the desert and
jungles and what not only to
find that same tyranny now
within the halls of the
Pentagon, that that is
problematic that is that is that
that is that is a true threat,
if there was ever a threat, is,
is somebody upstanding with our
freedoms, and and and basically
tearing up whatever rules or
laws have for you that they
think, you know, don't apply to
them? These laws apply to
everybody. Yeah. And especially
if you're in a position of in
the government, you, you know,
John Greenewald: well, I
appreciate those kind words
about my work. And when I say
that it really does go to the
core of of why I do this. It
truly, it truly does. And going
back to the question I asked you
about your office, I know that
you get a lot of flack. And I'm
happy to say it was never flak
for me on this point, that, you
know, you do have those security
oaths, and NDA is and and and
clearances where you can't talk
about it. And that was what was
very evident to me about that
office, because there was very
little to dig up. And trust me,
I've tried since 2000, whatever
it was, that I have no doubt,
john. Yeah. But it was those
Navy court transcripts that came
up and I won't push you on it,
because I know it is sensitive.
And I know it's still ongoing.
But for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
to reference your office in
October of 2017. It's clear that
whatever you were doing within
that office, was in dealing with
special access programs, and
also giving what appeared from
the transcripts, the translator,
for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad,
access to the information for
him to properly translate to the
for the defense, and there was a
problem with the judge because
they had lost their SAP access.
So for me to see that again,
away from the a tip story that
made me realize a couple years
ago, okay, this guy was into,
you know, some some highly
classified material programs,
and obviously, the one that was
spearheading that effort for
others to gain access to those
special access probe.
Luis Elizondo: Well, that's
honestly john, what landed me on
the naughty boy list with with
ISIS and Al Qaeda, that I was
informed that I, I was wound up
being put on the on the kill
list, which was not a very good
day in the Elizondo house, or
they can make an assure you.
But, you know, fortunately, for
me, just, I just wanted up on
being on some sort of kill list
where other people actually, you
know, lost their lives. So I'm
definitely not saying that, that
their line of work was was, you
know, anything more dangerous
than anybody else. But it did
put me in a situation where it,
it, it may, it still is
technically, I'm still, you
know, on that, that naughty
list, if
John Greenewald: you will, which
has not been been easy for my
family, for sure. Sure. And I
totally understand that. And I'm
sorry to hear that. Because I
know, that's obviously not easy
for you, your family and anyone
connected to you. So with that,
though, what I wanted my
audience to understand is the
sensitivity behind this material
that stretches well beyond a
tip. I know, I keep saying that,
but it's like, this has become
such a bigger issue now. And
that, that is why I got so
attached to this a couple months
ago when I realized they were
playing that card. And they were
saying, hey, look, for three
years you fought for these
records. And oh, by the way, we
don't have them. Let me let me
point out one thing that I'm not
sure if I told you this
privately, or maybe you read it
in the in the email, but I want
you to react to the importance
of this before they told me that
essentially, your your documents
were destroyed. And I want to
also be clear, and clarify,
that's not just emails, by the
records retention schedule, what
goes along, missed that with
that would be all of the
attachments, all of the what
they call text communications.
And there was kind of a short
list of things that are it's not
just email like, Hey, you want
to go have lunch today to one of
your colleagues. You know,
you're talking about the
attachments and everything that
goes along with it. When I
started getting these no records
denials, but never did they
mentioned that your stuff was
destroyed. I verified triple
checked that they searched
sipper net nipper net and Jay
wicks to ensure that I would get
everything they wrote back and
said yes, never once indicating
that no account existed, or that
it was destroyed.
Luis Elizondo: Kinjo that's
either one or two things, john
either a They still had the
records back then. And and they
were knowing that you were
interested them said, Yes, we
search through all this stuff.
No records of that specific
request has popped up in that
system. And knowing that they're
going to go ahead and destroy
these files, or the other option
is they were already gone. And
they were just stringing you
along. But either way, if
Something smells fishy, either,
you know, those emails were
there. And then once you won
your appeal, they came back and
said up, nothing to see here.
Yeah, or those files already
were destroyed, which they
shouldn't have been. And they
were just saying, Yeah, yeah,
nothing to see here. Just move
along. You know, we looked
there. We couldn't find anything
knowing full well that they were
already destroyed. But either
way it's it's it's it's no
bueno. It's up someone is, is
been been manipulating the FOIA
process, in my opinion.
John Greenewald: Have you had a
reaction not only from the
social media world because this
pop this article did become very
popular very quickly within that
world. But obviously, you're
dealing with the media, the
mainstream media, like on a
hourly basis. Every time I turn
on the television, and there's a
UFO story, you are right there
on camera. You. I hope we'll
have an upcoming vacation soon.
And get some sleep because me
too. Yeah. Again, there's
there's not 36 hours in a day,
but you seemingly have squeezed
that out. What is the reaction
if any two people that you've
been been talking to in the
mainstream, and those that have
kind of tackled like, for
example, Gotti Schwartz, who
have a lot of respect for with
NBC, he seems to really dig and
he brought out that Harry Reid
endorsement letter of view. And
obviously, Harry Reid has
endorsed you since 2019, I think
was the first time publicly, but
now it's, you know, Harry Reid's
letterhead, and so on and so
forth. And that was Gotti
Schwartz, and with his
investigative journalism, he
just kept pushing, pushing. And
I respect that. Is there a
reaction that you've been
getting from? Yeah,
Luis Elizondo: yeah. You started
a firestorm? JOHN, I mean,
you've had everybody from
Politico to CNN, Fox News, NBC,
they're all looking at things
right now, based upon upon your
your article, you know, you
know, that that's something I
could never publish. You know,
obviously, one of the things I
always want to do is make sure
I, I never come across a self
serving because I don't do it
for me, I do it for a much more
sacred reason. And for me, it's
to to get the truth out to the
American people. With that said,
You You hit on something that
really struck a chord with some
people in the mainstream media,
and that is okay. Are we dealing
yet with another iteration of
the pentagon papers? are we
dealing it with another issue,
like we did with with with
Watergate, where all of a sudden
elements of the government are
running rogue and doing things
that they shouldn't have? And I
think that's given a lot of
people some some concern,
because it's gonna lie about
they're gonna lie about this.
What else are they going to lie
about? Right, you know, and that
is, I think that is that has
struck a chord in certain
elements within the mainstream
media as it should. Yeah.
Because once again, you know,
there is a requirement the
Public Affairs Office, is, is
enjoying to, to, to dialogue
with with the media, okay,
there's that we have open, you
know, first amendment right, for
freedom of speech. And of
course, you have freedom of the
press. These are inalienable
rights that we hold very dear to
us. And when elements in the
government that are supposed to
be fair and transparent, don't
they don't behave that way, then
you've got a problem in the
past, there's been attempts by
by these offices to mislead the
press. And and it's never worked
out well, for for the government
to do that. Ultimately, the
government has to be reminded
that it serves the will of the
people not the other way around.
John Greenewald: And and why I
wanted to ask you that question
kind of segues into the other
thing that I wanted to catch up
with you on was the alleged
investigation by the D o t. Now
what we know publicly is that
they sent out a memo that they
are evaluating that they went
out of their way to not call it
an investigation, but rather an
evaluation of how the DOJ has
handled the UAP topic. Now,
there's a lot of rumors out
there. But why I wanted to ask
about the mainstream media about
this is because part of those
rumors are that and maybe this
is more verified fact now, but I
kind of felt more as a rumor
that this was about how you were
being treated, and essentially
targeted by some of these
pointed statements in the last
couple of years.
Luis Elizondo: Since I have
Well, it's true. It's true that
they weren't targeting me and
still do. Yeah, and
unfortunately, they manipulate
Good news, good people to do it,
which is, which is for me,
probably the most disappointing
piece of this, you know, people
that are truly just trying to
find the facts and the truth,
we're being misled willfully by
it by a small cadre, if you
will, or a group of individuals
at the Pentagon. And by the way,
that does not represent the
whole Pentagon, I just want to
make this clear. There are
wonderful fine men and women
working every day for that
organization, and 99% of it is
is just an exceptional
organization. The problem is, as
you know, it takes one bad apple
to spoil the rest. And, you
know, that that's that's what's
happened in the Pentagon's been
put into a position where it's
made public statements based
upon the input of a couple
individuals. And, and now it's
coming back to bite them. Rather
than then, you know, just be
forthcoming and truthful from
the beginning. They try to be
clever, and unfortunately, it's,
but it's coming out one way or
the other. And guys like you who
are who are experts, eventually
anything that is in the
government's possession
regarding that's unclassified,
special like this, I can ID, you
know, don't think that's not
going to be made public. Yeah,
it has to be made public at some
point. So, so it doesn't do
anybody any good to try to lie
right? Now. That's, that's the
last thing you want to do. And
that's why having this IAG
evaluation, I think it's so
important because it's, it's,
it's a bit of a release valve.
You know, I'm a gearhead, right,
so I'm always looking at in
terms of cars, well, think of a
waste gate on the turbo system,
a waste gate is there to, to, to
allow to disperse any
overpressure in the turbo
system, right. So you don't blow
up, blow up the engine. This, I
think ag evaluation is very much
the same way. It's a waste gate.
It's a it's a way to allow some
of that pressure to be released
in an appropriate way. That that
is the purpose of the Inspector
General is to conduct reviews,
inquiries, investigations, and
then provide those
recommendations and those
findings to the Secretary of
Defense. So they can fix it.
That's what the Inspector
General does. And hopefully,
hopefully, the big evaluation
here will will do the same
thing. I have full faith and
confidence in the ag right now.
I've had a chance to work with
them. The past always found them
very professional. These are
also trained investigators, and
some are auditors. Some are
actual law enforcement
investigators type in the
intelligence community, but
they've got a tough job, you
know, and they're always they're
supposed to be fair and
impartial and objective. And so
far I've that's that's what I've
seen with my experience with
with the DOJ big.
John Greenewald: So when I
reached out to them, I was
trying to fish around as I
usually do. See what kind of
fish I could catch. But I had
asked them, you know, is is the
is part of the angle is the
angle, what is it with this
evaluation? Would that be you
and I got glow marred and for
those who don't know, what
glomar is they? They said we can
neither confirm nor deny any
involvement with Mr. Luis
Elizondo. So where I say the
rumor is I read Brian benders
piece about this made reference
to your ID complaint that you
had submitted. I was surprised
to see all that come out. But
not surprised. I was happy,
because as you noted, a lot of
stuff will come out with that.
So then, can I ask you outright
as the evaluation that was that
was announced? Is that based on
your complaint? Or is that
separate from this eval?
Luis Elizondo: I cannot speak on
behalf of the government. I
think there's two things going
on. I think there's an honest
attempt in evaluation to to
determine what if anything went
wrong over the last three years
in the Pentagon's communication.
Now that you've got this report
due to Congress, there's a lot
of pressure and at some point,
people are going to start asking
some very difficult questions,
right. Doesn't matter what the
report says. At some point,
they're going to come back and
say hey, Pentagon out that you
said there was nothing to see
here or Hey, Pentagon, I think
you said there was something
that's either way there they're
in a corner. And and big is a
good way for for somebody who's
in a position of leadership,
like the Secretary to say, look,
I realized there was some
consistencies and we we
deliberately did this IAG
evaluation to see where things
went wrong. Okay, that's that's
a prudent thing to do that, that
that's something honestly, if I
was in charge, I would do that
as well. I would do a self
initiated ag evaluation now. Are
there elements of an ag?
complaint? We'll call that a
complaint that has been received
by the DI G. Yes, that is also
true. I'm not going to go into
any specifics. Because I want
the government the ability for
the government to do its job
without outside interference.
You know, I don't want to I
don't want to put I don't want
to backup the government anymore
into a corner than they're
already in? Yeah, you know, I'm
trying to offer on their own.
And I'm trying to help them with
a way out, right. I've been for
the last three years seeing
guys, come on. You don't you
don't have to be this way. I'm
not I'm not I'm not trying to
hurt you. I'm trying to help
you. Yeah, I'm the one guy that
your friend in this. But I mean,
it is true that that I spoke
with with the do di g again,
I've been asked Let me tell you
what they do di g told me.
Please do not elaborate on any
of the questions that that we
discussed or the dialogue. So
that is that is what they asked.
And I'm going to respect their
their request on that. Until at
some point, you know, I given
the ability to speak more freely
about it.
John Greenewald: When they sent
the memo out it I read it
anyway. But maybe it was
incorrectly read that they were
going to like kind of have this
wrapped up by June, that it was
a evaluation that they were
doing in May. Do you have any
indication when that eval would
be over?
Luis Elizondo: Brother? I can't
imagine any ag evaluation that's
done in 30 days for maybe 30
months. But I don't know, unless
they already have a preconceived
conclusion of what they want to
say. I don't see how that's
possible. I guess that to me is
that would almost be a worse
indictment on the government,
right? Because you can't do a
first of all COVID has just now
allowed some of these people to
go back to their office. Right.
So they haven't even been
allowed in their offices until
recently. So I'm not sure. You
know, you're going to do an ag
evaluation and 30. I mean, maybe
maybe they drop everything that
they're doing their job, which
is I don't think the case. I
know, that's not the case. But
you know,
John Greenewald: yeah, it just
the way that it the way that it
read, it seemed like they were
going to do this evaluation, and
then again, partly an assumption
on my part. But now we're in
June when this report was going
to come along. So I was
thinking, you know, okay, what
are they trying to? Do you feel
that this is potentially going
to be a delay for this UAP
report? Or do you believe that
those are maybe two separate
issues?
Luis Elizondo: I think they're
two separate issues. I hope that
that the the, I hope that the
UAP report is is too late, I
don't think it will be. And from
my understanding, it's going to
be rather underwhelming, which
is really a shame. My hope is
that there'll be a follow on
report, you know, this,
honestly, 16 pages 17 pages
isn't really enough to to have a
comprehensive report of the
last, you know, 70 8090 years
worth of military sightings and
documentation that exists. But,
you know, I'm not in DC right
now.
John Greenewald: So, not up to
me, now you have said that you
were and helped me with the
correct word, but either
consulting or working with or
communicating with those that
are creating this report or the
task force, or both,
Luis Elizondo: I am doing my
best to facilitate that process
in whatever capacity that I am
useful. without imposing my my
own will, you know, I have been
been quietly doing my best to,
to facilitate it's in
everybody's interest to have
have a fair and comprehensive
import, because not only does
Congress expect it, but that's
what they deserve, and
ultimately serve the American
people. So, you know, Don't
you've already had seven years
to screw this up. Don't screw it
up anymore. Yeah, you know, I
mean, for the love of God, at
this point, here's your chance
to get this monkey off your back
now 800 pound gorilla that's
been sitting on your back. Yeah,
you know, you really want to
carry that around for another
decade or two. Don't do it. This
is this is the time to, to do
it. Right. And, and, you know,
everybody at this point are
we're all adults, we can we can
handle the truth.
John Greenewald: My biggest
fear, not trying to be a
skeptic, but rather looking back
at history and the Condon
report. And, you know, I did
this this article about
essentially comparing how this
is unfolding right now, and how
it has unfolded the last few
years and then how it unfolded
in the 1960s. I eagerly await
this report, but I fear that we
are at what I call a Condon
report 2.0 meaning, you know,
this, this, this material that
leaked out, which I want to ask
you as one of my last questions
here as we wrap up, but this
material that leaked out, I fear
that they put that in there
essentially as fodder for
saying, Oh, well, we know what
these things are. We never, we
never said that they were an
identified which is true. And I
fear that that is playing a role
in this but we haven't seen that
chapter written yet. Do you
believe that's a possibility?
Luis Elizondo: Well, I'll tell
you a look and I'm not Let me
preface this one way, john
because what I'm about to say
some people are gonna look at,
they're gonna say, you know, Who
the hell are you to say that.
But with all due respect the
Condon report didn't have it
didn't have Christopher Mellon,
it didn't have Alex Dietrich, it
didn't have Dave Craver didn't
have gym slate, it didn't have
Ryan graves, it didn't have me.
This is, you know, if they try
to pull something like that this
is I've said this before, then
they're gonna have a real issue
on their hands, because that's
gonna force guys like me who
don't want to do it. But I will
run for Congress. And I will
make sure that if I get in this
seat there, I will make sure
total transparency on
everything, not just uaps all
the other crap that I know that
goes on behind these closed
doors, I will make sure that
that that people come to heal on
that. And that that the will of
the American people will be
represented period, I can assure
you that there are elements in
the Pentagon right now, that
does not want to cat like me
sitting in Congress, I promise
you and sure that sun will rise
tomorrow. Because I'm not a
politician. I never happened. I
don't give a damn about
politics. I care about serving
the will of the American people.
And you damn well better believe
I will do it, I will go in there
and I will, I will do what is
necessary to make sure we are
never in this situation again, I
will hold every single person
accountable. Who's behind this
kind of crap.
John Greenewald: You bring up an
excellent point. Condon didn't
have individuals such as
yourself, but in fairness, they
had others I feel Condon was
essentially an effort to ignore
those important voices then, and
again, just kind of throw throw
the question at you in a
different way. I believe their
intent was to dismiss all of
that to create a narrative that
they wanted. So the Dietrich's,
the flavors, and all of that be
darned, they had an objective
and that objective was Let's
wipe ourselves clean of this.
And the chairman and the Condon
committee, despite the voices
they had had back then even a
guy on the inside Dr. J. Allen
Hynek, who saw firsthand and
went from a skeptic believer
essentially, that that those
voices were just completely
ignored. And they said not no
scientific merit to continue
this, we're done. JOHN,
Luis Elizondo: the only way this
is gonna stop it. Like I said,
Before someone puts a bullet in
my head. If If, if I even
suspect that the government is
not being when I say government
elements and the government are
not being forthcoming with the
American people, I will continue
to pursue this doggedly and
vocally, until the cows come
home, I'm telling you, I feel
the same. Chris is the same way.
We're not giving up. We I know
what I've seen. And same with
those people that that, that I
served, I took an oath, you
know, to represent the will of
the American people to defend
this country from all enemies,
foreign and domestic. Now, that
oath has never changed. And I'll
be damned if I'm going to sit
back and let a bunch of
bureaucrats, you know, abscond
with with that responsibility to
be fair and transparent with it
with the American people. This
is what I've said before the
American government. We do not
work for the American
government, the American
government works for us. And we
must be prepared to tell the
government what we expect of it.
Don't sit back and wait around
and let them tell us, oh, here's
what you can have. Bullshit,
man. That's not the way this
works. who represent us Don't
ever forget that. Because the
day you no longer represent us,
you're gone, you're out. Because
you're no longer legitimate.
Your authority is no longer
legitimate. So so it is
important that we, we we we
gently remind our friends in the
government, those elements that
that forget their oath to the
American people and remind them
of their responsibilities, and
make sure they don't confuse
that responsibility with
privilege, right? Sometimes we
get when we get senior enough we
start getting complaints that we
start thinking we deserve it.
No, you don't deserve it. No,
you're there to serve us the
people. And you know, this is
why I said if I got to it, you
know, I get pissed off enough
man. Last thing I want to do is
is get back into the fray of
things. I need that like a hole
in the head. I just want to be
left alone and retire. There's a
reason why I live in the middle
of nowhere Wyoming. But, you
know, hell, man, if I got to put
my boots back on you know, I
will I'll be willing to do that.
So we can we can get we can
finally get the answers that the
American people deserve. And I'm
not talking about you know,
relinquishing classified
information. I'm not asking I'm
not saying that. What I'm saying
is just be open and honest with
the American people and don't
deceive them. Whatever you do.
The last thing you don't want to
talk about a fine say No
comment. But for the love of
God, don't go up start wanting
to the American people. Because
that's the kind of thing that
that, you know, that's not just
gonna make me angry. That's
gonna make a whole lot of
people. Yeah. The last question
I have for you before we Wrap up
here is something that has
fascinated me in the last month
or so which is these leaked the
leaked material that's coming
out we've got various either
videos. Let me say something I
forgot here, by the way in case
anybody Miss understands
anything I'm saying here at no
time do I ever advocate
violence? Okay, that is that is
not what I'm saying here. So I
don't want people to say yeah,
Lou's gonna go in and you know,
I many cases of speaking
proverbially when I say I'm
going to go in and clean house
that is that is using the
instruments and the policies
that are already available to
people who are in a position of
power. Okay, I don't ever ever I
don't want anybody to
misconstrue, what I'm saying is
that I am trying to advocate for
any type of violent act, because
I am not, that is not at all the
purpose of this a true democracy
is one that is one through
words, and not violence. So just
want to preface that real quick,
just so no, anybody has any in
the back of their mind, you
know, that, um, when I say I'm
going to put my boots on, I
don't mean I'm going to put, you
know, put my boots on and carry
machine know what I mean, to put
my boots on and carry, you know,
a billfold and a pen. Yeah,
that's what I mean,
John Greenewald: I didn't take
it that way. But I appreciate
your your clarification. I think
the restraint you've had in the
last couple of years kind of
speaks for itself. But I
appreciate the clarification.
But so the last question here,
and then I'm gonna I know I have
to let you go. But the leaked
material, the videos, some
briefing slides, and the
swiftness that the Pentagon is
confirming the authenticity
taken by US Navy, utilized by ua
PTF, but will not comment on the
designation. What are your
thoughts about this material
leaking out? And what are we
looking at?
Luis Elizondo: I think we've got
a sincerely we have a very much
of a schizophrenic approach
right now by by elements within
within the Pentagon, I think
they've been beat up so bad, on
their contradictory statements
that now they're almost over
eager to answer whatever they
can, what's considered an easy
pitch by the media. If there's a
video that comes out rather than
delay, delay, delay and look
foolish. Yeah, that was one of
ours. Yep. We're not going to
talk about it. But that was one
of ours. It's almost reflexive,
you know, imagine sitting there
at a at a batting cage, right?
And you're in the 100 miles an
hour pitch, batting cage. But
instead of one ball, you've got
about 10 of these machines,
watching balls at you
constantly. And I think that's
what's happening now that the
media has has snow proverbial
blood and realizes the
inconsistent nature of some of
the Pentagon's responses. You
know, they're they're not,
they're not letting up. And I
mean, your proof proof in the
pudding man, you I mean, every
time someone utters anything in
the Pentagon, you're you're
proof, you're falling voice,
man, you want everything you
know, and I'm sure that scares
the hell out of them. And I know
that that last thing you want to
do is is be caught flat footed
again. So I think they're
probably just swinging the bat
at anything that comes to them
right at this point is probably
almost reflexive, just just hit
it. Hopefully you hit it. Who
cares if it's a first base,
second base, home run, or a fall
ball just just hit the ball?
John Greenewald: Yeah. And just
a quick follow up to that. We
know the FLIR gimbaled and go
fast videos when they came out.
It took a little bit of time,
but they eventually had given
the designation of unidentified
or UAP. We know then by that
that designation is not in and
of itself a classified
designation, but they won't do
it with these. Do you feel? And
then I promise, I'll let you go.
Do you feel that these this
leaked material is truly, in
your opinion, a designated UAP?
And if so, why won't the
government say it?
Luis Elizondo: I have to be
careful because the I've been
privy to information. It's my
security clearance. And so I
don't want to compromise.
Anything that could be
considered sensitive. So I'm not
going to comment on on the
specific videos that you're
referring to the recent ones
that came out. I know that the
government has already stated
their position that they are
real. And I can tell you that
they're real. I can tell you
that now because government has
said that. But I really can't go
into any more context. Now, is
it possible that there is
somebody trying to throw a bunch
of we call it cat litter, you
know, if you have a cat, you
have a pet cat that your cat
will sometimes get a little
boisterous in their sandbox and
start throwing cat litter all
over the place? I have. So you
know, it's just an attempt for
the Pentagon to throw little cat
litter and, you know, try to
throw people off off the scent
so to speak. It's possible I
don't think so. I don't think
they're quite Forgive me for
saying this. I don't think
they're that sophisticated. I
think they're too much in react
mode right now. And I think what
you're seeing is a disjointed
approach to this topic. There
are some people saying, Yeah, we
need to be forthcoming. There's
other people saying no, don't be
forthcoming or be forthcoming
about that, but not about this.
I suspect that maybe maybe what
what's going on again, I don't
want to comment specifically on
the last video simply because I,
you know, I'm not at liberty to
discuss discusses. Once the
government has acknowledged
further, more details, then I
will be able to as well. But
until that happens, I simply
can't do that.
John Greenewald: Sure, fair
enough. And I know that you
probably have a light scheduled
day of 8700 interviews ahead of
you. So I, I'm at the end of my
slot, but listen, I mean, it
thank you for your reaction to
the email story. I'm eager to
see how this plays out. Because
I think of anything and
everything that I've written
about a tip UFOs yourself, I'll
be at some not so popular. But
this I believe, is the most
important and I truly, truly,
truly feel that there is much
more to this story to come. And
I have this gut feeling that you
and I will probably have some
more things to talk about.
Hopefully, you'll give me some
more time when it allows. But
thank you
Luis Elizondo: so much. I'm
going to share something with
you short, quick observation
which this is coming from some
some colleagues and friends of
mine in the Pentagon. You are
one of the few people that is
truly feared within within
public affairs office. I'm not
kidding. I've had people call me
say you're not going to believe
what just came across my desk. I
am not getting so it's you're
making a difference. It's it's
resonating. You are every bit as
as part of this equation for
disclosure as anybody else. And
then you kind of make a
distinction distinction between
mainstream media and you but I'm
not sure I think that line is
blurred a lot. I think a lot of
their stories and what they have
is based upon your work. And all
I can say is, you know, keep it
up, man. It's it's making a
difference. I'm hearing, I'm
hearing a lot of good things in
the Pentagon because of the
pressure you're putting on
people. Well,
John Greenewald: that's awesome
and motivating. So thanks for
letting me know that and, and
again, thanks for your time.
We'll definitely talk soon. So
you take care of yourself, you
family as well be safe out
there. And have a great time
with those 8700 interviews
today. You've got to john, thank
you so much. Thank you and thank
you all for listening and
watching. This is John
Greenewald Jr signing off. And
we'll see you next time.