YouTube Channel: "det pekande fingret"
Video Title: "Interview: Luis Elizondo on the Pentagon UFO report"

Interview: Luis Elizondo on the Pentagon UFO report
46,363 views  Jul 14, 2021

Luis Elizondo, former chief of Pentagon's UFO-unit AATIP, discusses the recently released Pentagon report on unidentified aerial phenomenon: "Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena". This is an excerpt of the English speaking part from the danish podcast "Flying Saucers" (Flyvende tallerken), from 2021-07-12, with Frederik Dirks Gottlieb, and co-host Anja C. Andersen, astrophysicist from Niels Bohr Institute, (full show is recommended for fellow Scandinavians).

From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKvnerq3DMs

Transcript:

[Music]
hi lou
can you hear us hi sir i can hear you
hold on
yes i can hear you loud and clear can
you hear me we hear you're loud and
clear
and we even see you that's great well
unfortunately i can't
uh i can't help the image um i certainly
know brad pitt or tom cruise so
what you see is what you get you have a
very uh charismatic look
and you have a great background oh thank
you actually part of my my little office
here yeah yeah
thank you so much for the opportunity
lou first question
has it gotten any easier to speak about
this
topic well first of all uh
i'm john frederick thank you very much
for having me on your show it is truly
my honor and privilege to be here
speaking with you today uh and and i
sincerely appreciate your
your time and your patience with me as
far as
uh your question whether or not this is
easier now than it was before
i think in certain terms yes but also in
certain terms no
and if i may allow me to elaborate a
little bit on that
we are now at a point where in my
country
most people can have the conversation
about this topic without whispering
we are at a point where our elected
officials are are
publicly stating for the record that
this topic is a real topic
and and may potentially concern u.s
national security we are at a point
where our
senior officials in our executive branch
department heads and secretary level
are having an open discussion or making
decisions to actually
further look into and explore this
incredible enigma
we are at a point where our media our
mainstream media is looking into this
topic and they are not afraid to report
about this topic
and this is a truly non-partisan issue
so we are seeing both the liberal and
conservative sides of our media
both reporting and dedicating equal
amount of time to this topic um and last
but not least we see
internationally outreach from some of
our closest allies wanting to
to collaborate with our country with the
united states on this topic so
so i think in the last three years it
has become much more acceptable
to have this conversation now is it
easier
well the problem is we still don't know
a lot of things involving this topic
and there's a lot of unknowns and that
doesn't that's not
easy conversation to have furthermore
there still is a lot of stigma
and taboo that is associated with this
topic
that still stifles a lot of conversation
which is a shame
this is a topic that i have said affects
all of us equally and yet differently
it depends upon someone's personal
theological and philosophical
and sociological belief systems and so
therefore
how you interpret this information may
be different than let's say the way anja
interprets or it
interprets its information which may be
different than members of your audience
which may be different from me
and so therefore it is there is still
some
some some challenges associated with
this because
when you have a topic like this it is
going to automatically and necessarily
challenge some people's preconceived
narratives
narratives in which they have
established through the course of a
lifetime of experience
and now you are asking them to
reconsider some of those conclusions um
that is that is a very difficult task as
a species we don't like to do that we
we tend to to own our narrative and
when faced with the decision to change
our narrative based upon new facts more
times than not we rather conform the
facts to comport to our
our own opinions and preconceived
narratives and that's human nature
that's that's nothing it's not
necessarily good or bad
it's just kind of it's kind of the way
we are as a species and so
it takes time and and so therefore i
think um
to to answer a rather long-windedly the
question that you're asking
uh it is both it is easier and more
difficult uh because now that we realize
this this is a valid topic
a valid discussion topic now now the
hard questions start
exactly yeah exactly and um well good
we we may as well get into that but
first i wanted to i wanted to hear you
because
you're always um very professional
you're a
former employee at the the government
um but and yet now you're using your own
sort of image and and personality to get
this message across
is it is it getting personal because
there's
also been some people you know gunning
for your head because
if if you can debunk lou you can debunk
a lot of
other stuff so they're coming a little
bit for you more than maybe they did
back in 2017. yeah it seems that some of
the debate is going
you know for for you as a person and not
staying on the topic right and it's it's
it's not a good good debate where people
are not
discussing the issue yeah anja and
frederick i don't disagree with you
um but it is something that is as old as
mankind
uh himself or herself we have been when
people don't like a particular narrative
uh and they can't attack the issues they
attack those who deliver the message
and it's something that that uh i've
been
i've been victim to for the last three
years
let's not forget that there's a lot of
people
that have these narratives and in some
cases you have
on one hand the believers that no matter
what they're always going to believe the
conspiracies and this is
and on the other hand you have the
opposite extreme which are the debunkers
but in reality they're one and the same
they're just on opposite ends of the
spectrum
both are so married to their narrative
they're not they are unwilling
to to approach this objectively
and as a result they whatever i say if
it doesn't comport to their preconceived
narrative or worse
it challenges a perhaps a little cottage
industry that they have established for
themselves selling a narrative for money
then then i'm going to be perceived as
the enemy and they will do everything
they can to preserve
their equity and that includes attacking
me um
i'm okay with that i think people are
smarter they see through that
uh in one case recently uh there was a
a video of an amateur uh production that
was put out by somebody who doesn't like
me very much
and they very cleverly took my
attorney's words and the
way they edited the interview it came
across as if myself and one of my
colleagues chris mellon
uh believed in a certain thing when in
reality they
they edited the video and the actual
discussion was involving uh
the military industrial base but the way
it was added it was edited very cleverly
to
for for the audience to think that this
is this is a discussion that chris
mellon and i had when we did not
so these are the these are the games
that come with the territory
um fortunately the people that that make
these small productions
don't really have any real influence
anywhere uh most people i think
look at that and realize there there are
charlatans out there there are people
out there that
that are trying to take advantage of a
situation um
i'm the first one to tell you that we
don't have all the answers
and and that's that's uncomfortable for
some people because
people expect if you ran a program for
10 years or
eight years that that i'm expected to
have answers and well i i do have some
answers but
but we have more questions and answers
and i'm okay with that i think this is a
conversation that involves all of us
the personal attacks have been very
difficult on my family and myself
that that is true um but if the cost
of this conversation and and and getting
humanity involved are
are our continued personal attacks on me
then i'm willing to accept that um
our species uh has never really treated
well those who try to
to rush history and that's just the the
that's just the way it goes and so i
recognize that
i wish that wasn't the case but yeah but
it is
[Music]
but i'm super curious what did you think
of the report because personally
i was i was positively surprised because
i had my hopes
very far down i must say and i expected
to get like 200 pages of words words
words you know academic
not so much content and actually what we
got was something very short
relatively terse but more clear than i
had expected and what i was most
exciting about was the fact that the way
i interpret it is
there is now an opening up for actually
getting data and recording data and
systematically collecting data and i
think that's what we need we need more
information in order to answer some of
all the the questions that we have
that's and yeah i wanted i wanted all
the sci-fi stuff i wanted the pictures
and the videos
well andrea i agree with you the report
was historic and not only the report but
what followed the report which was
within hours
a memorandum coming down from the deputy
secretary of defense
establishing a new strategic plan to
tackle this topic so
it was historic but people forget it
that this was an unclassified
report based upon a much more
comprehensive
classified report about 10 times in
in in length and uh let's let's let's
let's do a little bit of uh
scientific dissection shall we of this
report
uh this was a report that was roughly
eight or so pages
the very very first words within i think
number word number two or number three
on the very first paragraph in the very
first sentence says
this is a preliminary report so what
does that mean well
this is the first of many reports to
follow so we have now established a
precedence
for the first time secondly when you
look at the report it said well
this report only looked at at incidents
beginning in 2004
but when you read it a little more
carefully you realize it was only one
incident in 2004 which was the
well-known uss nimitz incident
in reality we only began when you read
that probably the third page we started
collecting information
most of these of the incidents
for the last year and a half since 2019
and mostly from the navy
right so you now have 144 incidents only
one only one was able to have a
an answer or a solution and all these
incidents occurred
in the last year and a half alone only
involving navy equities
and furthermore it says in there that
the majority of reports go
on unreported because of stigma and
taboo
so if we were to make a just a rough
assessment let's say
only 10 which i think is very optimistic
only 10
of the reports were actually reported in
this
report well if you do the math that's
over a
thousand almost 1500 incidents
in the last year and a half alone only
involving the navy
not the army not the air force not nasa
i noticed i mean i was so surprised yeah
not
not the faa not our international
friends and colleagues not
nato so i i think it's it's very easy to
be dismissive of the report but i look
at things with my background being a
former intelligence officer
to me words are very important words are
very deliberate
and if that is in the unclassified
report
imagine the reality of what the
classified report says furthermore
i know through my experience there are
very very very compelling incidents
um some that the report and the task
force never even
even were able to to
um have access to um i'm not going to go
into details how i know that but
the bottom line is that there's a lot of
data that is occurring and it's
occurring routinely and
regularly i think your audience would be
absolutely
blown away if they knew how recent some
of these incidents are occurring and
they were not even
included into the report and they are
extremely compelling so
um that's that's what i have to say
about the report it's historic
it's significant and and words mean
something we
we had uh we did a complete breakdown of
the report with the
former fighter pilot uh sean sanchez and
uh
the head of air warfare center at the
at the the royal danish defense college
cast
mao commander cast map and
they were also very compelled by by the
report and they've actually been very
public about it here in denmark
um and cast mob he
he kind of asks in the same vein here um
that from a number of other interviews
it appears you have knowledge of uaps
moving in ways that are unpredict
predictable
and quite frankly very different from
any known technology i.e rapid descent
from very high altitudes abrupt flight
patterns and sudden change of direction
do you know if any of these incidents
are documented by two or more sensor
sensors at the same time ruling out
systems
failures absolutely 100
that is correct we have we have
information that substantiates validates
and verifies the information collected
by another
another sensor unit that is correct yeah
so i i i think for him it's just to be
completely clear about that because for
a guy like that that is the
that's the main uh the main issue sure
yeah because another thing we were
discussing is that the instrument that
the navy has they're somehow designed to
pick up certain things right because you
have an idea what you want to measure
you want to measure the russians or the
chinese or
whoever you think your enemy is so so
we're thinking
if also if you have completely
unpredicted movement
the instruments might actually in many
occasions not pick it up just because
they assume
that it's actually not real because
they're programmed to only
see what we expect to see so so i'm
thinking if
if they're going to start measuring
they're going to put up more instruments
and they're actually prepared to measure
my expectation is they'll measure things
that we haven't seen yet that
because the instruments were designed
for certain things and then you only see
what what they were designed for
that's correct there is legacy data that
exists that remains
uh hidden because for example a radar
system is designed
to look at a a very narrow
uh boundary of performance also within a
very narrow boundary of the sky
and so it uses electromagnetic radiation
and the reflection of that
back to a point and then you can you can
tell what something is
there is radar data out there that if
something is moving too fast
it automatically presumes it's a glitch
in the system and so
it ignores the data and so you could
have multiple radar arrays
all picking up the same object that is
traversing the sky
but because it's moving too fast or it's
performing in a way
that is not acceptable by our definition
of aerodynamics
the radar is trained to ignore the data
and so the radar operators may not even
be aware of that data right and so
now the key is how do we go back to that
archived information
pull that data that exists that is
resident on some of these systems
and then begin to you know look at this
and say oh actually you know what
there was an object there uh and that
object was picked up by
five different radars across two
different states uh
in rapid succession but because each
radar wasn't talking to the other
it just it just uh it rejected the data
another question that the carsten has
is the interesting paragraph that's a
lot but
there is one that caught his attention
it's the
uap apparently being able to change
their signature
whatever that sort of means is that
something that you
can elaborate on well
sure um look signature data is
is very important you can learn a lot of
things
by not necessarily observing the object
directly but its effects on the
environment
a signature is very much like a
fingerprint and and a fingerprint
is very specific to all human beings
well
signatures are the same way there are
very key subtleties with even for
example
ships at sea that if you have the right
equipment
because of a particular signature from a
particular type
boat you can actually track that boat
around the world
that very boat because there's a
specific fingerprint
associated with that boat maybe it's an
acoustic signature maybe it's a visual
signature maybe it's electromagnetic
signatures
so so signatures are very important and
when you have an
object that is there are no let me give
you an example so here's an aircraft and
anja i'm sure you can appreciate this
um if this is an aircraft flying in the
sky the faster i go
the more the friction coefficient
becomes something uh that i have to
contend with
so you have you have recognized
signatures
first one might be heat ablation and
friction off the nose and off the
leading edges of the aircraft
another one might be um atmospheric
ionization the stripping of the
electrons
from the atmosphere uh and you can you
can measure that another one might be an
acoustic signature such as a sonic boom
as you're you're breaking the
sound barrier and then another signature
maybe a contrail a visual contrail
coming out of the back
as the superheated air begins to
condense and form a cloud right that's
really what a contrail is
um so you can tell it's something if you
see two contrails in the sky
chances are that aircraft has two
engines right chances are if you hear a
sonic boom
that aircraft is now breaking the sound
barrier so the things that you can
deduce by signature and i gotta be
careful what i say because i can't
get too sensitive here because countries
invest a lot of money
into signature collection um but what i
can say at the unclassified level
is that a lot of these things we're
seeing don't have the normal signatures
that we would typically associate with
technology
that is something that we would build i
want to be
very very careful not to discuss uh the
business of the us government
um it's it's important because um
they need as i've said before they need
the latitude to to perform their duties
without
outside interference um i i don't want
to
do anything that can compromise uh their
current efforts so i'm gonna politely
sidestep that question
um you know at some time in the future
maybe i i can
i can be a little bit more forthcoming
feel free to sidestep
all you want it's uh completely
understandable so can i ask you another
question you
can probably sidestep
you've seen the classified report
i'm going to politely sights
[Laughter]
[Music]
i've said this before but i think it's
important we have as a species
five fundamental ways in which we judge
the universe and if we can't touch it
taste it hear it smell it
feel it it doesn't exist and yet we
realize that right now we're having this
conversation i have wi-fi signals going
through my body
cellular signals am fm signals i have
cosmic radiation coming in through the
cosmos i have
neutrinos coming in from the sun
bombarding and coursing through my body
and yet i can't interact with it so i
don't see it in fact if i look at a
night sky with a radio telescope
i may see with my naked eye some
beautiful stars but if i look at that
same spot
with the radio telescope and i look look
in the infrared and the ultraviolet now
i see nebula now i see things
that that are very real and right in
front of me but i can't perceive it
and so by that definition 99 of the
universe is beyond my reach i'll never
be able to see it
without the aid of something technical
and furthermore if you look at just the
scale of the universe
if i if i look in that direction 13.9
billion light years and look in that
direction 13.9 billion light years
that's 27 billion light years and in
fact the universe
anja you probably have i've i've been
told now is
by scientists as reputable like you that
the visible
known universe is about 90 something
billion light years
uh from end to end yeah um and we are
this infinitesimally small speck
in the known universe and however if you
were to look at the scale the extreme
scale of the universe
and then look at the human being by
scale there is that level of size in
each and every one of us if you look at
a mole
one one atom one times ten to the minus
twenty six
that is in relative the same level of
scale of the unit we are the universe to
that atom and so therefore
we sit at this very middle part if you
will scale of the universe
and we can only perceive things one
order of magnitude either above or below
us
otherwise we we have no idea it's there
no and so
by that by that understanding again
99.9999
of the universe will never be able to
interact with and so for us to think
that
all of what there is known in the
universe fits neatly within this very
narrow band of our five senses which we
know isn't real
there's a lot more out there uh isn't
reality and of course
the size in which we live in i think
it's foolhardy for science to
presume it it has it has all the answers
that's
i come from a scientific background as a
microbiologist immunologist and
parasitologist
and i would never presume to to have to
have
have those answers you've been talking
about the five observables of course
i've been hearing talk about a sixth
observable
that it's something with to do with the
with the with the mental with the
actually physically with the brain
uh to be able to kind of
see stuff that other people may not see
it may sound a little
spacey um i understand yeah so there is
a sixth observable but we call it
biological effects what you are
referring to
is is the what some people have
speculated the
human consciousness yeah and i think we
need to understand
before we uh so the real six observable
is biological effects whether it's a
blade of grass or
a cow or a human being if you get next
to something
uh technologically advanced and you
don't know how it works
you could inadvertently and be hurt by
it
okay um and by the way there's a
difference between a threat
and intentional harm
there's you know if i go to an airport
and i get on an airplane there's no
threat but if i get to that same
airplane
i'm on the runway or the tarmac and i
stand behind the jet engine
there's a biological consequence i'm
probably going to lose hearing i'm going
to get burned
it's the jet engine isn't trying to hurt
me it's just a consequence of the
technology being used
um so there lies the question about
biological effects what you're referring
to frederick
is the the observation by some that
human consciousness
or as you say telepathy or psychic
whatever
has some sort of role in this and my
answer to that
is look if you want to talk about human
consciousness let's let's all first
agree what it means
i think we all agree that human
consciousness if we take the
the esoteric out of it and we look at it
scientifically
a lot of neural scientists now propose
that human consciousness is really a
quantum process occurring in the brain
probably related to some sort of quantum
entanglement perhaps but
there are quantum processes occurring in
every one of the biological brains and
and that
that may be what what consciousness is
and if that is the case
then then uh human consciousness
is is part of every decision we make as
a species when i want to go to the
grocery store and buy some vegetables
i am making a deliberate decision there
is a quantum process occurring in my
brain
that says i want to do something and
therefore controls my body i get into my
automobile i drive down the road and
every
moment every second of every every
minute
there is a quantum process that is that
is
telling me my body what to do that's
human consciousness
um so you know i i i think we have to be
careful because i think a lot of people
think they know what consciousness is
when in reality very few people really
have a good understanding of it in fact
none of us may have an understanding of
it
science is still trying to figure out
what consciousness even is
let alone what it means um so
you know i think there therein lies the
challenge
because if you ask anybody on the street
what consciousness is
most people can't really tell you or
explain it very well and those that can
will probably that definition will will
be a little bit different than than
somebody else's definition so
um it's it's it's a little bit like
trying to explain what god is
everybody's going to have a little bit
different explanation to what that means
so i i anyways i i don't want to
i'm not trying to avoid your question
it's just i'm not sure if i have a good
enough basis
of an understanding of consciousness to
even
even speculate if that makes sense
well first of all i think healthy
skepticism is important i think it is
part of the scientific process and i'm
okay with that
i think dialogue needs to be be
open and we need to be truthful and we
need to
be honest of the data that we don't know
and it's okay not to have answers
i am for one in support of public
hearings here in my country
through congress uh let the american
people know what they paid for they paid
22 million dollars to have answers
you know we have answers we have some
answers we have some observations why
not let
why not provide that to the people
ultimately here
it is incumbent upon our government in
this country to serve the people not the
other way around
and if that is truly the ethos by which
we live here in the united states then
then we we need to live by that and we
need to to
to force our government to be open and
honest and have the courage to
to pursue this topic because we now know
you're right there's no putting the
genie back in the bottle we know it's
real yeah
it is there whatever it is so maybe we
should have the conversation
i do think i do think we have reached a
precipice i think we have reached
a threshold to which there is no going
back
the question is how fast will we move
forward
but i don't think we're going to go
backwards but but i do think you know
the speed in which we move forward that
is yet to be determined
if you if you had complete control uh
over this situation
would you how would you go about it
would you tell the people everything
that you know
would you dose it would you keep it back
and what would happen
well first of all i would never want to
be
completely in charge of this because it
would undermine
everything that i'm trying to achieve um
i don't think anybody should control the
narrative
that's that's my concern uh that
includes me i'm i'm very
cautious to ever uh put myself in a
situation where
where i'm controlling the narrative
that's been the problem for the last 70
years in my country there's been people
controlling the narrative
so that's why we're in this situation to
begin with
what i would do though if i had an
ability to help influence this
would be to have uh open and honest
dialogue with
with the american people and the world i
would i would open up the aperture i
would remove this
topic away from just national defense
and intelligence
and bring in our best and brightest
academics and scientific scientific
community
i would go with the national science
foundation nsf i would
bring this to whole of government
approach i would bring in our friends
and our allies
who may have their own observations
that's what i would do and then i would
have
our elected officials briefed on this
information so they can go ahead then
and inform their constituency
on what this topic means and and what
it's about
um i i would approach this a little bit
differently than we've been approaching
it before but what i would not do is
ever assume
nor would i accept unilateral decision
authority
to to to do it quote unquote my way or
lose weight because
because that's precisely the problem
that we we have today is that we have
we have allowed people to dictate the
narrative for us
even if whether it was good intentions
or not uh and
i i think this is a this is a topic that
involves all of humanity
and i would want you as part of that
conversation i would want skeptics as
part of that conversation i want
everybody that we can get and fit into
the boat
to be in the boat and have this
conversation because i think that's the
only way we're going to really
start to have answers are these nation
talking
do you know anything um we have the of
course we had the the french report
back in the day the comedia report and
um i know in denmark we've been
collecting data for
a lot of years as well i'm not sure it's
as streamlined as
atip or comeda or whatever um
is there any sharing of information
well you know historically there was
historically there
there was uh frederick and and japan has
recently
come online and expressed a desire to to
enter into a bilateral information
sharing arrangement with the united
states on this topic
there are other countries i would
certainly never want to speak on behalf
of those countries
i am aware of some countries reaching
out but it's really not
my place to say to speak on behalf of
those countries i
i it's very important that we allow
those processes internal to those
countries we respect
those uh those countries to to handle
this topic the way that they want to
handle it
so i'm not going to provide any specific
details as to specific countries just
because
i don't think it's my place to share
that information
just like denmark i wouldn't want to i
wouldn't want to speak for the
government of denmark that's not that's
not my place to do so
it's it's a government of denmark's
responsibility to speak for the
government of denmark not not luis
elizondo
yeah and and hopefully we can talk to
some
people higher up in the system at some
point but uh
we haven't been contacted yet even
though we talked to a lot of
scientific people um i know you have
some somewhere to be right now right lou
yeah you had a yeah you said you had a
hot deadline so i i think we reached
your heart deadline
yeah so i was wondering is there
anything that you wish we had asked you
and that you think is important to share
with us
you know i i it would be my honor and
privilege and i'm sure that of my wife
if we we come out to see you folks have
uh spend some time and get some coffee
together i would love a chance to meet
you in person
it would be it would be an honor great
honor yeah we and uh
i will i will clean this the schedule on
the calendar if if you ever do arrive
and uh
let us know beforehand and we'll make
sure to to show you around
yeah that would be awesome we would love
that yeah oh yeah we got a date
a double date you got it yeah yeah
whatever you call it i can show you the
nils boy institute and i can show you
nilspor's office and uh
and uh because it's still standing the
way that it was it's uh yeah
yeah i mean such a privilege it doesn't
get any better than than and yeah so
so if you wanna show you the office uh i
mean i'll come along
great anya and frederick thank you so
much again wonderful to to
see you again uh anytime you want you
know you know how to get in contact with
me happy to help any way again
sure and thank you for everything you do
thank you it's so gracious of you and uh
yeah
take care lou absolutely take care guys
thank you so much bye
you