YouTube Channel: "Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal"
Video Title: "Pentagon's UFO Investigator Breaks 2 Year Silence"

Pentagon's UFO Investigator Breaks 2 Year Silence
1,300,214 views  Premiered Sep 4, 2024 

Luis (Lue) Elizondo is a former high-ranking U.S. intelligence officer. Luis is now a prominent figure in UAP disclosure efforts, advocating for greater transparency on the subject. Lue's new book 'Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs' is out now.

From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh7umwJln38

Transcript:

I wouldn't wish this on anybody. What does that 
disclosure look like? I've always believed that  
America can handle the truth, and not just 
us, I think the world does. Lue Elizondo. The  
most difficult letter that you had to write was 
addressed to the office of the Undersecretary of  
Defense, if I'm not mistaken. And it ends with, I 
quote, I encourage you to ask the hard questions.  
Who else knows? What are their capabilities? And 
why aren't we seeing more time and effort on this  
issue? So Lue, I'd love to know. It's been seven 
years since then, almost to the date, actually.  
What answers to those three questions do you have 
now that is different than what you had back then?  
Wow. So first of all, excellent, excellent 
question. I've never been asked that before.  
To two points of clarity, if I may. My resignation 
memo was written to the Secretary of Defense, not  
the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. It 
was actually addressed directly to the Secretary  
of Defense. I mean, it's a technicality to some 
people, but it's a little bit different position.  
And that was because of my previous relationship 
to him. And then also, as being the most difficult  
letter I've ever had to write, it is the most 
difficult professional letter I ever had to write.  
But truth be told, it is not the most difficult 
letter I've ever had to write because I've written  
many letters to my wife and to my children when I 
was deployed during times of war. And those were  
by far the most difficult because I wasn't sure 
if I was going to be coming home. And so those  
were definitely the most difficult letters I ever 
had to write. But from a professional perspective,  
yes. What my resignation memo in 2017 was one 
of the most difficult, in fact, I'll go further,  
one of the most difficult professional decisions 
and personal decisions I've ever had to make. Now  
to answer your question, did we satisfy, did we 
answer the last line? Yes and no. Yes and no. Let  
me start with yes. We have now since that letter 
has been written, and let me also caveat here,  
I cannot take full credit for where we are 
today at all. In fact, I'm a small piece in  
a much bigger cog and wheels and gears. I had a 
piece, I did not have every piece of this. We are  
here only today because of the work of people like 
you, the work of your audience that's interested  
in this topic and mainstream media, the people 
in Congress, the people in the executive branch,  
people like Chris Mellon, who have worked 
tirelessly for years behind the scenes,  
getting Congress to encourage them and motivate 
them to write some of this historic and landmark  
legislation that we now see. It's also the 
congressional staff that actually had the courage  
to take this up and bring this forward to their 
representatives. It's also the representatives.  
It's also look, where are we now? We have a 
former director of national intelligence, a former  
director of the CIA and a former president of the 
United States all saying for the record, yeah,  
this stuff is real. There's something to this that 
we need to look at. You have the establishment of  
an official UAP office within the executive 
branch, which by the way, when we started  
retuning our radars, guess what? We started seeing 
Chinese surveillance balloons over our country,  
just wafting over. After we said, no, we have 
complete air domain awareness. We know what's in  
our skies. Oh, you know what? We don't. We've come 
a long way in trying to posture ourselves to begin  
to answer some of the questions, my call to action 
in my resignation memo. That's what we have done  
collectively and everybody deserves credit for 
that. What we haven't done yet is been truthful  
with ourselves and fix the underlying problem. 
That is the problem that the bureaucracy itself  
has been responsible for keeping this topic in the 
shadows for so very long. There is a way that our  
government here in the United States is supposed 
to work where you have checks and balances and  
you have people in Congress that are supposed to 
be notified and you have people in the executive  
branch that are supposed to make decisions. That 
didn't occur. This program, this program and the  
programs preceding it had been kept in the closet 
for so long that there were even presidents who  
were not briefed into this topic. There were 
organizations that were not informing Congress  
about how money was being spent. And so that 
means, that means Curt, somewhere along the  
chain of command, made a unilateral decision 
to not report this information through the  
various channels and oversight channels that it 
was supposed to go to. And that's problematic  
because that means the system is broken. And you 
can't have a democracy and say you're a democracy  
when somewhere along the chain, someone's making 
a unilateral decision to circumvent law and the  
Constitution. So it's a two part answer. In some 
cases, yes, I think we've come a long, long way  
in this topic and this discussion. But on the 
other hand, we haven't come far enough where we've  
actually fixed the problem. We're now starting to 
address the problem. We haven't fixed the problem,  
if that makes sense. I'm from Toronto, so we 
don't have a Constitutional Republic here. But  
on Joe Rogan, you mentioned something, you said 
something akin to, I want to be careful that I  
don't disclose anything inappropriate, because you 
still consult with the government, you still have  
a security clearance. So does that mean you're 
still on good terms with different parts of the  
government? Is it a branch of the government that 
you're not a fan of? Is it a program within it? Is  
it a department within it? Where's the breakdown? 
Is it somebody in the government hijacking? I'm  
going to, if I can digress here for a minute and 
share a story with you. I've shared it a few times  
already, only recently. And what you may or may 
not know is my father recently passed away. He had  
cancer, like my mother. And my father, however, 
he was an old soldier, man. He never told me he  
was sick. I knew he was sick because I could see 
him starting to fail, but he never told me. And  
so I was very fortunate about a month before he 
passed away, I was fortunate enough to go on a  
road trip with him. We were driving from my home 
in Wyoming, down to South Florida, where he lived,  
and he was staying with his sister. And 
we're driving and, you know, we got three  
days to catch up on conversations. And I asked 
my dad, and probably a bit flippantly. I said,  
Dad, what is the greatest? What is the greatest 
threat to humanity? And I was thinking to myself,  
maybe it's some sort of pandemic or disease, or 
maybe it's, you know, who knows what terrorism,  
right? And my father looked at me, and he thought 
for a second, and he said, corruption, corruption,  
like, financial corruption. He said, No, son, 
corruption. Corruption is the act of when you  
give up or trade one's own values in exchange 
for something else, right? That corruption,  
whether it's moral corruption, religious 
corruption, governmental corruption, corruption,  
means you it's a trade, you're trading your own 
values, in exchange for something else. And when  
you do that, and you're in the government, that 
begins to erode the very pillar of what democracy  
is. And my father said to me, and he was right, 
he said, son, it's a very slippery slope. From  
that, from the moment you start chiseling away at 
the pillar of democracy, to totalitarianism, and  
tyranny. And it happens very quick. And my father 
would know because he was a revolutionary in Cuba,  
my father was in the Bay of Pigs. He fought 
along with Castro initially, when Castro fought  
against Batista. But then when Castro turned 
communist, my father joined the now famous CIA,  
Brigade 2506. In fact, if you type in my name, 
and type in Bay of Pigs, you'll see my father's  
prisoner number that he was assigned. And he lived 
through that tyranny. And he came to this country,  
and this country gave us opportunities that no 
other country would or could offer. And so my  
father was very loyal to this country. And 
he taught me at a very early age, you know,  
what what freedom actually means, and what someone 
has to do to preserve it. And the problem is,  
our country here is so great. And it's so rich, 
that people can get away with being corrupt,  
in some cases, because it's just the system can 
absorb it. The problem is you reach a critical  
mass where someone begins to, for example, the 
UAP topic, let's get specific here. When someone  
in our government decides to unilaterally make 
decisions, and not inform our Congress and not  
inform our president of efforts and expenditures, 
that they are entitled to know, that person is now  
making a decision that actually, that actually 
corrupts the entire system. It circumvents our  
Constitution. And at the end of the day, 
our Constitution either means something  
or it doesn't. And part of my my, if you will, 
my, my quest is to ensure greater transparency  
and accountability for the American people on 
this topic and any other topic to by the way,  
that the government has hidden for so long from 
the American people. I don't want to be confused  
with trying to say, Well, we should tell the world 
about all our national secrets. I'm not saying  
that. I never have said that. In fact, if I ever 
had to choose national security over disclosure,  
I would choose national security. I am a patriot. 
I love my country. I love my government. What I  
don't want are people making unilateral decisions 
that short circuit the legal process. Because that  
puts everybody at risk. That puts everybody at 
jeopardy. Because then people don't have faith  
and confidence in their government anymore. So 
this is what drove me to do what I did. Again,  
I know this is kind of a long winded explanation. 
But you asked me, asked me a few things in there.  
And I wanted to try to tie them together. What 
specifically I'm looking for, as you mentioned,  
you still consult with the government. And so 
the government is quite large. So what's meant  
by that? Also, consultation is quite a general 
term. So what's meant by that? Okay. Yeah. So  
I still maintain my security clearance with 
the United States government. And when asked,  
I have consulted and will continue to consult 
on an as needed basis on a variety of issues,  
whether they're, let's say, counterterrorism, or 
UAP related, they matter. I'm, I'm here to serve.  
As far as what capacity that it is, mostly, it's a 
consultant. So within the consultant arena within  
US government, you really have three types of 
government people, you've got military personnel,  
men and women in uniform, then you have military, 
I'm sorry, you have government contractors that  
do a lot of the work for for the military, and 
then you have civilian service. And so civilian  
service and military service are pretty co equals. 
And then the contractors are there to provide  
those the support to both government, civilians 
and government military personnel, in various  
branches of the government, it doesn't have to 
just be executive branch, we legislative branch,  
judicial branch. That's kind of how it works. As 
for me, my consultation has primarily been in the  
executive branch, when asked, and I will continue 
to to advise the government when asked to do it.  
I don't actively look to do it. But if they need 
my help, I will do it. And I have done it. As a  
consultant, it is a contractor. So in the capacity 
of a consultant, you're coming in usually as a  
contractor. So it means you've got a task, you're 
the government boss, you say, Lue, I need your  
thoughts, what's the best way to write a national 
level strategy on the counterproliferation of  
nuclear weapons? Okay, well, I happen to have a 
background in the counterproliferation of nuclear  
weapons and chemical biological weapons. Let me 
see what I can do. And that would go ahead and  
you let's say this is this is not a real scenario. 
I'm just giving you an example of a scenario where  
consultants can help. And then they come in, and 
they put some ideas together and say, understand,  
these are the areas, the highlights that you're 
going to want to hit. These are the organizations,  
you're going to want to bring involved under 
the tent to create the strategy. You know,  
this should be the scope of the strategy, this 
should be, you know, the policies that that come  
as a result of the strategies. So that's, that's 
how a consultant works. You're, you're consulting,  
you're providing advice and assistance to the 
government. Christopher Mellon in the foreword  
to your book imminent said something akin to 
when I first met Lue, we faced a prevailing  
establishment mindset that associated the UAP 
issue with irrational beliefs in subjects such  
as poltergeists and astrology. That to me implies 
that subjects like poltergeists and astrology are  
not to be associated with the UAP issue. And 
many people do do this. Do you see them as  
being distinguished? And what else is ordinarily 
associated with the UAP issue that you think is  
irrationally so? Great question. Wow. Well, first 
of all, if you want to expound on that piece,  
you'd probably want to talk to Chris Mellon. 
But when you read that forward, if you read it  
carefully, he's not necessarily saying he agrees 
with that irrationality. He's just simply saying  
people make that comparison. But I don't think 
Chris, if you read that sentence again, Chris,  
I don't think is diminishing it at all. He's just 
simply saying, people wrap the UAP topic in other  
areas that consider irrational, like poltergeist 
and things like that. But I don't think you're  
hearing him actually say that they're irrational. 
What he's doing is just making a comparison to the  
topics that most people look at one topic and 
wrap that with everything else and say it's,  
you know, it's pseudoscience or whatever. Look, I 
can't tell my focus was more on the nuts and bolts  
aspect of the UAP phenomenon. Now, that doesn't 
mean much because in my book, I talk about these  
green diffuse orbs. We're going to talk about 
that. Okay. So, you know, could those be natural  
phenomenon? Sure. Absolutely. It was just weird 
that it was happening at the same time. Myself  
and even other folks in a tipper were looking 
into it. But, you know, I look, Curt, this is  
a huge and vast universe. And a lot of things that 
we have considered para actually, I do a briefing,  
you know, and I'll just go through it real quick 
with you right now. I have a briefing, where I,  
I start the briefing by defining the word para. 
And in Latin, it means above or beside. And so  
when you say the word parachute, what do you think 
of? And then I have a picture of a parachute and,  
you know, person, you know, coming down slowly and 
hopefully hitting the ground with a thud and not a  
thump, right? And then I say the word, and I show 
the word paramedic. What does that mean to you?  
And usually means a first responder. And I show a 
picture of an ambulance and, you know, some people  
there smiling and, you know, a lifesaver. And then 
I say the word, and I show the word paranormal.  
And I paused for a moment. And you can see around 
the group, when I give this briefing, they kind  
of look at you like this, and they might snicker 
a little bit. So what do you mean paranormal? I  
just said paranormal. And the reason why people 
have that reaction is because we have been,  
we have been socially engineered, we have been 
conditioned to think that the word paranormal  
is weird. And it's occult, occult related to the 
occult. In a reality, by definition, everything  
in science as a scientist, everything in science 
is paranormal until it becomes normal, right? This  
cell phone, 50 years ago, absolutely paranormal, 
right? Now, it's routine and mundane. In fact,  
there are many examples where, for example, the 
tribes in the rainforest in South America, took a  
picture, and they thought you were stealing their 
soul. And they'd get very, very upset by that,  
right? That was paranormal for them seeing a 
photograph that was paranormal. Even as when  
I was a young guy in microbiology and immunology, 
even at the university level, we were taught that  
acupuncture is is nonsense. It's Eastern medicine. 
And it's, you know, it's a waste of time and could  
be considered paranormal. Now, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs actually prescribes acupuncture  
for some of our wounded veterans, right? It's no 
longer in the realm of paranormal, it's actually  
therapeutic. So we have to understand that when 
we say things like poltergeists, or whatever label  
de jure we want to put on something, it's just a 
word we use to try to explain something we don't  
yet have a full explanation for, right? Keep in 
mind, one of the famous quotes that, you know,  
technology in 20 years from now would look like 
magic to us today, right? It's just technology.  
So I'm always very careful to, to, you know, try 
to say people, well, that's that other stuff is  
nonsense. This is what we need to focus on. I 
don't believe that. Is there a relationship?  
There could be. I mean, everything is related 
when you're a human being. I mean, you can relate  
anything, literally, you can, you can relate a 
light bulb and a fish if you wanted to. Yeah. So,  
you know, I, I'm very careful not to not to jump 
to any preconceived conclusion. That was in the  
Simpsons, by the way, light bulb and the fish. 
Was it? And then it became Homer's face. And then,  
oh, why is it that his face is on this Japanese 
cleaning detergent? And it turns out, they just  
took a fish and put it with a light bulb. Oh, how 
interesting. So just to push back respectfully  
with the etymology of paranormal. So just because 
we have a prefix and it works in some cases,  
it would be a category error to say that when we 
apply it in other cases, if it doesn't work there,  
then there's a contradiction. Not necessarily 
because a parachute or a paramedic is still  
within the class of whatever normal is. And 
then paranormal is another class. But what's,  
what's your definition of normal? That's, 
that's really what my root question here. What,  
what is your definition of normal? Because I can 
show it, cite multiple examples throughout history  
where we saw, we, we saw things that we thought 
were not normal. Turns out they're extremely  
normal, right? Let me give you a case in point. 
There was a discussion some time ago, just going  
to adjust this a little bit, uh, that, um, it was 
impossible for things to, um, but the earth, there  
was a cover over the earth and that, uh, it was 
impossible to break the speed of sound. And yet  
there were meteorites coming into our atmosphere 
regularly, routinely that were not from earth. Uh,  
we're obviously penetrating whatever cover 
somebody thought was there and we're coming in  
beyond the speed of sound that we're breaking the 
sound barrier. Right. And it was right there in  
front of us. So when we say things that something 
is not normal, um, I think we have to challenge  
ourselves because most of life isn't normal. 
Most of life is, you know, it's nonlinear. It's,  
it's, it's not to digress here, but sorry 
to interrupt Lue. I just want to be clear.  
The difference is not abnormal equals paranormal. 
And then also that paranormal is a word that was  
invented in the early 1900s. So we can't look 
back at how tribes, firstly, tribes don't have  
that word paranormal. No, but, and some people 
would associate God, which with the supernatural,  
but Christians would say God is actually the most 
natural. So let's go back to paranormal. When that  
term was created, was it intended to describe 
things with a negative context or was it simply  
a word that was created to try to explain the, 
at the time, the unexplainable. Because don't  
look now, that's a case, that's religion. No 
difference. And I, you know, all due respect,  
I'm, I'm, I'm a deeply religious person. So I'm 
not, I'm not making a connection that religion  
is paranormal. What I'm simply saying is that 
both are involved with, with the. Supernatural,  
supernatural, just like paranormal. It's just 
beyond natural. Right? So I, I'm not sure I  
see a comparison. I mean, with all due respect, I 
may be not understanding the question very well,  
but I, I, I don't see the negative connotation 
with paranormal other than what we've given  
attributes saying it's negative. I, I reject that 
notion just like I do with supernatural, because  
by definition, all religions are supernatural. 
Doesn't make them wrong. It just makes them beyond  
our current understanding. And I don't, I don't, 
yeah, I don't, I don't see the issue with. Oh,  
okay. So all of the examples given of beyond 
our current understanding with the cell phone  
or with a ship, and there was some tribe and they 
couldn't understand what that was. Those examples  
are technological. So the implication here is 
that whatever is paranormal today, whatever is  
the magic of today is a technology of the future. 
Yes, absolutely. But the issue is that who knows,  
who knows if it's a technology. Right. We're 
calling it a technology. We don't know. We don't  
know. But, but understand from the, we're all 
individuals and we all look at things through the  
various lenses of our upbringing, whether it's, 
you know, Sunday school or someone was raised  
this way or that way, or what mom and dad told 
you about the dinner table. So by definition,  
we are biased. Every single person has a bias. You 
can pretend that you don't, but we all do, whether  
it's flavor ice cream or what type of book you 
like to read. So we all have a level of bias. So  
when we look at something, especially as it deals, 
I think in the spiritual world there are things  
that we will consider normal. And there are things 
that were considered not normal. Right. And I,  
you know, I don't think everything technological 
is everything is based technologically speaking. I  
think there's a lot of about human psychology, 
human sociology that probably, you know,  
could be considered a little bit abstract, maybe 
a little bit abnormal. And yet it's a very real,  
real part of our life. Let me give you a 
case in point. Very, just super simple. Um,  
Curt, do you have a family? I don't need to know 
specifically. Do you have a family? Do you love  
your family? My wife saves my life on a daily 
basis. Let's say that. So let me ask you this. Um,  
do you love your wife? I hope I do. And I think 
I do. Yeah. Prove it. How, how do I know? How do  
I know the way you feel love? It's the same way 
that I feel love and how do you, and how, if you  
can't tangibly touch it, I can't see the love you 
have for her. You can express it in certain ways,  
but I can't see it. I can't feel it. I can't 
smell it. Right. It's an emotion and yet it's  
very real. And so this kind of goes to the, to the 
discussion of a universal truth versus a personal  
truth. There are two types of truths in this 
world. There are universal truths like gravity,  
right? That's all of us, whether we like it or 
not. Then there's a personal truth that can be as  
real as a universal truth, whether it's religion 
or political affiliations, where this is the way  
you feel, and this is the way the universe should 
be. But that truth is not shared universally.  
Right. And so this kind of gets that discussion as 
far as, you know, when we go into the esoteric of  
what it means to be human and paranormal, and you 
know, some would say love itself is an expression  
that doesn't make sense. It's not logical. And 
yet there it is. Everybody can recognize it,  
but we all have a little bit different explanation 
for it. Right. It's very elusive. Tolstoy was once  
critiquing his socialist friend. His friend was 
saying, look, I love society and blah, blah, blah,  
whatever it may be. And Tolstoy said, look, you 
claim to love society. You don't know society,  
you know, John and you know, Peter, and you 
know, I was going to say another biblical name.  
You know, Clarence. So, you know, these people, 
you don't know society and you claim to not like  
corporations. You don't know corporations, you 
know, Kellogg's and so on. It wasn't back then,  
but you get the idea. Then the friend of Tolstoy 
said, okay, so what you're saying is that we  
shouldn't be abstracting and we should look at 
the specific instantiations, but you, Tolstoy,  
claim to know God. Isn't God the most abstract? 
And then they were walking and Tolstoy stopped  
and turned to him and said, put his hand on his 
chest, on the other guy's chest and said, you have  
it backward. God isn't the most abstract. God is 
what's the most intimate to you. God is that love  
that you feel. What we think of as making sense, 
makes sense because of love. The reason I'm saying  
this now is that there was the statement embedded 
in there that look, love escapes understanding. I  
don't know if that's the case or love is something 
that is illogical. I don't know if that's the  
case. I don't know if logic is embedded in love 
and I don't know what that means. I can feel it at  
times, but I don't know how to make that explicit. 
I concur, right? It's there. We all can know it's  
there. We feel it. We express it. A mother is 
willing to be run over by a car or a train to  
protect her child. That maternal love and instinct 
is there. It's real. We all feel it. And yet it's  
so elusive because none of us have an appropriate 
definition for it. And all of us will explain  
it slightly differently and maybe even feel it a 
little bit differently. And so my point being is,  
how do you prove something that we know is 
there but lies beyond explanation, right?  
We'll put a pin in this because I don't want to 
harp on this, but what I was getting at is that  
the whole argument that what's paranormal seemed 
to be associated with what's outside the normal,  
but that's not necessarily the case. And then 
the examples that were given were technological.  
And to me, that sounds like it's based in 
physicalism. It's based in like technology,  
something physical. So anytime we see something 
we don't know how to explain, well, ghosts are  
an advanced civilization's technology. And so 
I don't think that's the right inference or the  
right example. Well, acupuncture is not technical. 
Acupuncture is medical and it's physiological.  
So the others are technical advancements, 
technological advancements. Acupuncture is not.  
Remember, I use acupuncture specifically as one 
of the examples. That's a physiological thing, not  
a technological thing. It depends on what we mean 
by technology. We can think of a leaf that aspirin  
was derived from as a technology. And also in the 
case of acupuncture, it's my understanding that if  
you do sham acupuncture, that the effects nullify. 
It's you thinking you have acupuncture done on you  
that works. Well, some people would disagree. Some 
people would say there's actually a physiological  
effect where you can actually short circuit. 
You stop the neural pathways from firing. You  
stop the synaptic responses between neurons from 
connecting. You're basically short circuiting the  
system. And you don't feel pain. Now, I don't know 
that to be true. I never had acupuncture. I'm just  
telling you what some people say. Again, I'm just 
giving you a counter-argument to that. It's not a  
hill I die on anyhow. Right. Me neither. So let's 
talk about one of the most fascinating chapters in  
your book. The one about orbs. Why don't you give 
the story about the orbs? Why don't you bring the  
audience up to speed, please? And by the way, 
this is in the book named Imminent. Yeah. So  
let me first preface. My family and I, to include 
a couple neighbors, experienced something very odd  
over the course of a period of time while I was 
associated with the AETA program. And there were  
these diffuse, green, luminous balls of light with 
no hard edge. Think of like a neon sign, how it  
kind of glows. This was the size anywhere between 
the size of a volleyball to the size of a little  
baseball. And they were seen not only by me, and 
I wouldn't have said anything if I wasn't one to  
see that, but my wife and my children saw these 
luminous balls float down the hallway in some  
cases of our home and pass right through a wall or 
through a door. Now, the only congruency I can say  
definitively is that when we had experienced these 
balls of light, whatever they were, it was during  
a time that I was involved in the AETA program. 
And it turns out other individuals who were also  
involved in that program also experienced similar 
encounters. That's their story to tell, not mine.  
But definitively, we had that encounter since 
going back to like 2010, very early on. Now, let  
me preface this. Could have been ball lightning. 
Sure. Could there be an electrical glitch in the  
wiring problem in my house that was creating 
some sort of St. Elmo's fire effect? Sure.  
Could it have been some sort of plasma energy 
because there was a storm 20 miles away that did  
something with the atmosphere? And now because of 
the electrical conduit in my house, ball lightning  
was experienced and static charge. I don't know. 
It is possible. Absolutely. I can only relate to  
you what actually occurred and whether or not 
there was a connection between that and the UAP  
phenomenon. Some people say yes. Some people say 
definitively, yes, there's a connection there. We  
don't know what they are. Maybe they're drones. 
Maybe there's some sort of unmanned vehicle,  
surveillance vehicle, ISR type capability to 
monitor things. I couldn't tell you. I just know  
it did not seem to be technological. And then when 
you talk to other people like indigenous people,  
they ascribe that to being spirits. It has nothing 
to do with UAP. It actually has to do with spirits  
and ancestors coming to visit you. And then you 
talk to some other folks that have a different  
explanation for it. You talk to scientists. They 
say, well, it's just ball lightning. But it was  
very strange. And so I decided to put it in the 
book because I don't know what it means. But  
I wanted to be transparent and share that with 
the reader. And when you say your wife and your  
children also saw it, you saw it at the same time 
or they also reported it, but at different times?  
Both. Sometimes we all saw it together. We were in 
the living room watching TV and from the kitchen  
right down the hallway, it just kind of floats by. 
And it actually to the point where it illuminates,  
I don't know if you can see behind me the wall 
here, but kind of like the ambient light here is  
illuminating the wall behind me. It would actually 
illuminate the surrounding sheetrock, the drywall.  
It was luminous, but you couldn't see anything 
in the middle. Okay. So it was emitting light.  
It was emitting light. Did you feel anything when 
it would come by other than the, maybe the fear  
or anxiety associated with something unknown? Did 
you feel something like? Nothing. No. Some people  
report feeling like a static charge or something, 
nothing at all. But to be truthful with you,  
I wasn't necessarily going to go up and touch it 
either. Oh, how about psychologically? Like dread?  
No, no, no fear. I think a wonderment, curiosity 
from my wife and my kids. My kids had a lot  
easier time. They sometimes giggle about it when 
they were young. My wife was more curious as in,  
you know, what, what is that? And did you all 
see that? Yeah, we're sitting right here. We  
all saw it too. No, no fear. And I don't, you 
know, if you'd have to ask my wife, I don't, I  
don't think she had a sense of fear at all. Which 
looking back, maybe it's kind of bizarre. I think,  
you know, if I were to tell you, hey, you're gonna 
have a green orb of light in your house today,  
or tonight, people might, there might be some 
element of fear. But if you're just sitting down,  
watching TV, not expecting it, boom, it just goes 
by. I'm not sure there's even time to have fears  
kind of just as Oh, how quick was it then? Slow, 
maybe? Gosh. Let's say this, this phone fuel rod  
is a voice. Huh? Like that all the way down the 
hall. I mean, enough where like walking speed,  
sometimes like a fast walking speed, like kind of 
a brisk walking speed. It never so interesting,  
never hung around. It didn't loiter or didn't come 
up to your face. It didn't scan anything. He was  
just in the house. And it would go right through 
a wall or right through a door without making a  
sound without disturbing anything. Like, like it 
was cotton just right through really weird. And  
was there any correlation between time of day? 
No. Well, no, that's not true. It happened in  
the mostly in the evenings, early evenings, 
late evenings, we were mostly asleep. So I  
couldn't tell you if it did happen. Of course, 
we're sleeping, but anywhere between five to  
eight o'clock at night, and it would happen 
randomly different parts of the house. It was,  
you know, some people laugh because, oh, well, 
you got a cemetery nearby, which we didn't get  
a cemetery nearby the house, probably about 
half a block away. But I don't think the two  
are related at all. I don't think it was. I mean, 
some people said there, I mean, some Aboriginal  
people say there's a connection between, you know, 
these luminous balls and potentially, I guess,  
ancestors and spirits, but I, I never came to 
that conclusion. Did they zigzag? Or was it a  
smooth motion? Very smooth. No, very smooth, very 
straight. There was no erratic. It was literally  
like taking a balloon and letting it just kind 
of float down the hallway. It wouldn't zigzag,  
it wasn't trying to evade anything. It would just 
kind of float right on through. If you saw one  
in a day, you would not see it. Correct. It was 
usually just one a day. They didn't come in pairs.  
They didn't, they didn't seem to be coordinating. 
They would just, it would just appear and just,  
or sometimes would go a little slower, sometimes 
a little faster in the kitchen, in the hallway,  
in the living room. Yeah, very, very perplexing. 
My phrasing was quite ambiguous. When I said one  
per day, I didn't mean every day you saw it. I 
meant, if you saw it, you would not see a second  
one in the same day. Correct. So how frequent 
would you see it? Was it once per week on average,  
once a month? No, no, once every couple of weeks. 
Once every two, two, three weeks. From 2010? Oh,  
all the way through. Oh, no, all the way till 
probably 2015, 2016. So it's only really, it  
would kind of, there'd be moments where you'd have 
increased frequency and then maybe for a month  
or two, you wouldn't see it. And then all of a 
sudden, four days in a row, you'd see it. And then  
it just would be gone. Was it blinding to look 
at? Not at all. No, not at all. It was, you know,  
like when you look at the sun, your eyes hurt and 
you see spots, not at all. This is, this was like,  
like looking at your TV, you know? I'm looking 
at this monitor right now. It's bright,  
but it doesn't hurt my eyes. It's like a passive 
illumination. It wasn't like a, it was glowing.  
It wasn't like an active spotlight in your eyes. 
It was just a diffuse green ball. And as you got  
closer to it, it got, it seemed to get thicker 
and thicker in the middle. Were you able to see  
the interior of it? There was no interior that I 
could see. It literally looked like a neon light  
where it was more brilliant in the center and it 
just became more diffuse. There was no hard edges.  
There did not seem to be any technology behind it. 
There wasn't a device, if you will, inside. It was  
like, you know what, probably best way, like a 
plasma ball, but not as intense, not as violent,  
if that makes sense. Did you ever set up cameras? 
So no, we had, we didn't have cameras inside the  
house. We had cell phones, but back in 2010, 
I was using a BlackBerry, a government-issued  
BlackBerry, where we did not have cameras, the 
cameras were disabled. So I did never, and also  
we didn't, we couldn't predict the frequency. 
It wasn't like I had a camera next to me all  
the time. It's like when you're sitting down and 
watching a TV show with a family, all of a sudden,  
whoop, there it goes. I just mean home set up 
camera, like cameras in the corner monitoring a  
room or the outside. No, no, we did not. We didn't 
even have cameras externally. We had an alarm  
system, but we did not have cameras set up in the 
house. So many people may say, look, if there's a  
burglar that taps, a suspected burglar that taps 
on my window, perhaps I'm paranoid, but I would  
set up, in the next day, 10 cameras all around my 
house, inside, outside. Sure, I would too, if it's  
a burglar. Now, that may be an overreaction, 
but. Well, let me ask you this. When there's  
a thunderstorm near your neighborhood, do you 
set up cameras to look at the lightning? No,  
it's interesting, but most people just look at, 
say, oh, that's curiosity, right? That's, wow,  
interesting. It was the same thing with us. There 
wasn't necessarily a desire to set up a bunch of  
cameras, because you never knew where it was gonna 
appear. I could put 10 cameras in the hallway. Go  
ahead. It didn't occur to you to set up cameras, 
and then you said no. It just never occurred to  
you, the thought? Because it wasn't alarming to 
us. It was curious. We were curious about it, but  
you didn't know where it was gonna appear, right? 
Sometime in a hallway, sometimes in the kitchen. I  
mean, I can't put 1,000 cameras around the house 
and hope that I'm gonna have every single one of  
them on all the time to hope to capture something. 
It wasn't that big of a deal to us. It was just,  
well, it's curious. Why do you think they no 
longer appear, unless they do? I have no idea. No,  
they don't, and I don't know why, and I couldn't 
tell you why. And it was episodic. Again,  
it's bizarre, but it could have a completely 
natural explanation. That's why I'm very careful  
not to assume or presume anything. What I can tell 
you is that it was witnessed by a lot of people,  
and it wasn't just us. There were other 
people that were involved in AATIP at the  
time that also experienced similar things. And 
again, I don't know the relationship. Could it  
be coincidental? Doubtful, but it could 
be, I guess. In chapter four of Imminent,  
you reference something called the hitchhiker 
effect. So for those who don't know, what is the  
hitchhiker effect, and how has it affected you? 
Sure, that was a term coined by Jay Stratton,  
I believe. He was the first one to coin that 
description, that people that were involved  
in this portfolio, and I was warned earlier on by 
Jim Lekoski. He said, this is a sticky portfolio.  
A sticky portfolio? Yeah, sticky portfolio. 
And I don't understand, what does that mean,  
sticky portfolio? And only realizing later, they 
were referring to this hitchhiker effect, that a  
lot of people that were involved in this effort 
with the government would experience strange,  
weird things and phenomena, encounters. As for me, 
I can't explain it, so I don't really expound on  
it very much, because I don't know what it means, 
frankly. Why don't you talk about, what have you  
been up to in the past couple years? Why does 
it seem like you've gone dark, quote unquote? I  
did go dark. I didn't seem like it, I did. It was 
self-imposed. There was a lot of work that needed  
to be done. As most people know, I don't like the 
public attention. For people who really know me,  
they'll tell you the truth, and I've always 
been very honest about it. I'm introverted,  
very introverted. When guys are going out to the 
sports bar, I'm in my basement writing patents.  
That's the reason why I live in nowhere Wyoming, 
in the middle of nowhere. I enjoy my privacy,  
I enjoy my solitude. There's a difference between 
being alone and being lonely. I like being alone,  
I'm not lonely. And that's just my character. 
Most people who know me very well will say the  
same thing. I'm similar. I think the proof of God, 
by the way, is that there exists excuses in life.  
So when someone says, hey, can you meet up and I 
have to go to the airport? I'm like, oh, thank God  
that I can, thank God, literally, that I have to 
go to the airport and I have a legitimate excuse.  
I'm the same way, I'm the same way. So being in 
the public eye for me is not enjoyable. A lot of  
people love it, they thrive off of it. They love 
the attention, they love that adrenaline. To me,  
I find it exhausting. The sooner I could just fade 
off into the sunset, the better. So when I have  
nothing to say and I'm working on something behind 
the scenes, I don't say it, I'm just very quiet  
about it. So from my perspective, I was writing 
this book, took me three years. It took almost a  
year review process through the Pentagon. I wanted 
it to go through the proper process so then when  
it got approved, I could talk about it. And people 
say, well, why'd you write a book? Very simple,  
when you write something down, those words are 
indelible, right? I can have a conversation all  
day long on mainstream media and it gets converted 
to ones and zeros and digital and people forget  
about it. It's a reason why the ancient 
Egyptians wrote the book of. The Dead on  
papyrus. It's the reason why the Magna Carta 
was written on parchment. It's the reason why  
our constitution was written down because written 
word is indelible. It lives forever. And so when  
I was able to write this book, I was able to put 
my own experiences down that I knew nobody would  
ever be able to take away. This was my experience 
for the record. And more importantly, I knew that  
it had to go through the Pentagon for a security 
review. And that's important because remember,  
I do have a security clearance. I'm not out to 
violate my security oath. But I knew that when  
it came back from the Pentagon, I would actually 
be able to talk about it without fear of going to  
jail because that is also a very real fear that 
I've had. That if I step over, I know there's  
people watching every day, every word I say. 
Still have them. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. If  
I say something that I'm not supposed to, I will 
be in big trouble. So I'm very, very conscious  
about what I can and can't say. Probably almost 
paranoid about it because I am very conscientious  
about that. And also, I don't want to compromise 
national security. That's never been my intent.  
But my point being is that once it comes back 
from the Pentagon, not only these my words and  
my experiences, but now it's an endorsement by the 
government to say I can actually talk about it.  
Now, did they still redact information? They did. 
They were even though I made every effort to try  
to make this book completely unclassified. There 
were still sections that the government found was  
too sensitive, and they redacted. But I left those 
redactions so that people, anybody reading the  
book can see, there are sections there. They're 
just black lines that the government has written.  
So you know, that the government doesn't want 
you to know that. It's just fine. I respect  
that. That's the question I had when I was reading 
it. I noticed the black lines. And I was thinking,  
look, if an editor told me you have to remove 
this section or this word, for whatever reason,  
I would just remove it. I would reword around. No, 
that's a Pentagon. It was as if you were signaling  
to the reader. Absolutely. Because I want the 
reader to know, look, there's still portions of  
the story that the government doesn't want you to 
know about. And I'm not going to put it in there.  
But you can see exactly the length and the part 
of the conversation where things got a little bit  
too sensitive for the government's liking. Yeah, 
I did that. I made that deliberate decision on  
purpose. Was there ever a time where someone 
from the government said you're not supposed  
to talk about X, but X was unclassified. And so 
you continue to talk about it, you didn't get  
in trouble. narrative that some of the government 
have already perpetuated. So by having this email  
come out the way it is, it shows an opposite of 
what some people in the government have said for  
the record. So they want they they remove certain 
portions of it. And you can see it, you know,  
it's, there's, there's, it's pretty blatant that 
the government is still uncomfortable with me  
having conversations about certain things. Does 
the government believe that they, I have to be  
careful, because I don't want to hope that you and 
people know what I mean, when I say they, as vague  
as that term is, does the government believe that 
they have been around for longer than centuries?  
So great question. There is no day. Okay, 
the government is comprised of people. And  
the government is, is really a, it's a, it's 
a quilt patchwork of different fiefdoms. Okay,  
so you have the intelligence community of the 
national security community, you have the folks  
that are working international politics and state 
affairs. There are these little kingdoms under the  
bigger umbrella of the US government. And they 
don't always share information with one another.  
And they don't always agree. It's a reason why 
911 happened, you have pockets of information  
by the FBI, being withheld from pockets of 
the CIA, which were withholding information  
from the DoD. And that's why we had the 911 
commissions occur after 911. Because we had  
enough information potentially to thwart that 911 
terrorist attack. The problem is, elements in the  
government weren't sharing information. So when 
we say they trying to keep this quiet, the they  
is not a single organization, there's just 
pockets of, of interests, whether it's the  
military industrial complex, or it's elements 
within the intelligence community that have  
chosen not to share information with one another, 
more importantly, not to share information with  
the US government, i.e. those who need to know in 
our Congress, and in our executive branch. And so  
there lies part of the problem. When they are 
uncomfortable with me talking, they isn't just  
a single group of people. It's there's, there's a 
lot of interest in this. Now, there's also people  
that want me to have this conversation. There are 
people that are okay. It's the reason why I still  
have a security clearance and why I'm still on 
good terms with a lot of people in the government,  
because they want this conversation to happen. 
They believe that we've kept this under wraps  
for way too long. And it's now actually 
working against our national interests,  
because other countries have stepped up to the 
plate, and they're investigating UAP openly.  
And they have no problem with it. So whereas 
before in 2017, when I first became public,  
I think the vast majority of the government did 
not want me having this conversation. you know,  
people in Congress involved, where it's now a 
little easier to have this conversation, you  
don't have to whisper the word UFO in the halls 
of the Pentagon, you can now just talk about UAP,  
the Pentagon freely without worrying about losing 
your security clearance or, you know, having a  
forced psychological evaluation. You know, so I 
think it's getting easier. I have a lot of support  
when I go to the Pentagon now, people before who 
would never even want to look at me. Wouldn't want  
to associate with me people are coming up and 
shaking my hand in some cases and saying, Hey,  
thank you for having this conversation. It's 
very important. You know, it's important that  
we remove the stigma and taboo. So I do see there 
are other elements that are becoming increasingly  
forthcoming with their interest in this topic 
within the US government. So that's I think the  
tide is changing. There's still elements that let 
me just make this clear. There's still elements  
that don't like me. I mean, if they haven't, if 
I get into a car accident tomorrow, they're not  
gonna, they're not gonna shed a tear. They're 
not coming to my funeral. That is very true. I  
still deal with with that. Now, let me be clear. 
There's a quote from you that says disclosure.  
That's the realization that UAPs are real. So 
what's meant by UAPs are real. And that's the they  
that I was referring to. Have they, the UAPs are 
real been around for centuries. Gotcha. Gotcha.  
Okay. Forgive me. I thought you meant my mistake. 
So UAP are real. The government has already said  
it officially, what they are, where they're 
from, what the intentions are. That hasn't come  
out yet. But they have already said, yes, they're 
real, whatever these are, there are things in our  
skies that are not our technology, we're pretty 
sure it's not foreign adversarial technology. But  
they're there, they're real. So that's what that 
means when people say UAPs are real. Correct. And  
then there is another layer of that, where there's 
some individuals in the government who have been  
exposed to previous efforts, UAP efforts that the 
government was involved in, who go beyond that,  
and have informed certain members of Congress. 
And this is why it's so important with this new  
legislation that's being drafted. It's really 
important that it passes, because it provides  
additional layers of protection. People saw what 
happened to the last whistleblowers, right? They  
came out, we've got this whistleblower protection 
law out there. People started coming out. And what  
did AARO do, the former director? Start poo-pooing 
every one of them. Oh, they're a bunch of crazies,  
a bunch of whack jobs. Well, what whistleblower 
is going to want to come out? And they said, oh,  
but we'll still listen to you. No one in their 
right mind is going to talk to AARO, because they  
don't trust AARO. So this new legislation that is 
being proposed provides extra sense of security  
and protection to these people, where they can 
have a conversation with a member of Congress or  
somebody who's in the need to know, without 
fear of retribution. Look, I'll give you an  
example. Here's a perfect example. I had a DoD, I 
had an IG complaint with the Director of National  
Intelligence and one with the DoD. The DoD told 
me, come on in, we want to talk to you, it's gonna  
be all confidential, right? And this is what we 
call protected communications. What happens, they  
release my entire transcript out to the public of 
this supposed protected conversation. Now, didn't  
hurt me any, because I've always stood by my word. 
The problem is, that was a very clear signal to  
any other whistleblower that wanted to come out 
that, oh, we're gonna, we're gonna release all  
your stuff. So you can come talk to us, but people 
will find out because we're going to let people  
know. Now, that's a complete contradiction of what 
the DoD IG is supposed to do. They're not supposed  
to release your transcripts and your information 
publicly. But that's exactly what they did,  
because they're trying to send a signal to other 
people. We don't want to hear this. We don't want  
to hear your story. Keep it to yourself, keep it 
quiet. And if you do try to make an issue of it,  
we're going to go ahead and publicly release 
it. Now, think about that for a minute. Think  
about who is making that decision to do that 
in violation of their own policies. By the way,  
if this is any other organization in DoD, it is 
IG's job to go ahead and investigate that and  
basically make a recommendation to the Secretary 
of Defense how to punish them. And yet they're the  
ones guilty of doing it. So... So have they been 
here for centuries or millennia? There's a lot  
of information to suggest they've been here for a 
very long time. I've had conversations with chief  
academics in the Vatican. I've had conversations 
with other individuals associated with other  
religions -- I won't say which ones right now 
-- that have a long history with UAP reports.  
The problem is they didn't have the context to 
understand what they were seeing in the vernacular  
of the time, they would explain these things. So 
there's an example of a communication between a  
Roman soldier and a general, where they describe 
what they call eclipses. Think of eclipse, right?  
It's a Latin word for like the sun. That was the 
shape of the Roman shields. And so they described  
these flaming Roman shields that were following 
them from battle space to battle space. You have,  
of course, in Germany, in Nuremberg, in the 
1500s, the famous incident where the entire  
village witnessed what appeared to be, some 
describe it as a dogfight. Now, is it really that,  
between UAP? Now, is it really that hard to 
grasp? Well, look, the Vatican, I always joke,  
is the oldest CIA in the world. It's the oldest 
intelligence collection capability in the world.  
Because for 2000 years, they have people reporting 
to priests about experiences that they've had.  
And some of those were described as miracles. 
And that information gets funneled up to the  
Vatican and archived. So there's a huge history of 
information regarding UAP in the Judeo-Christian  
religions of modern day and continue, because 
some of that was reported as a miracle in the  
sky and visions, right? So there is some anecdotal 
information to suggest that this has been reported  
for a very long time. And now the question is, are 
we seeing an increase in frequency? Are we seeing  
an uptick? Or do we just happen to have more 
technology and populations are bigger, so we're  
seeing them more, right? So the metric we don't 
know yet. What we do know is that there seems to  
be a connection, a definitive connection between 
our nuclear capabilities or nuclear equities,  
and also our military capabilities and even 
to some degree, water. And so that is probably  
as close as we can get right now to identifying 
real trends as it relates to UAP. Now, the problem  
that I see with the whole Roman shields examples, 
and some people have phantom ships and dogfights  
in the sky, is that one would need to conduct a 
thorough textual analysis on a document examining  
all terms and ideas and descriptions. 100%. Out 
of place or nonsensical. Absolutely. And if only a  
small fraction of them can be linked to UAPs, then 
it suggests that it's possible. We are imposing a  
modern interpretation onto ancient reports, like 
seeing patterns on a Rorschach test. 100%. We have  
to be careful of that. We have to be cognizant of 
that. You're absolutely correct. I could not agree  
with you more. So let's assume that they have 
been here for thousands, even tens of thousands  
of years. Why, all of a sudden, is it a matter 
of national security? Well, it might not be,  
depending what hat you wear, right? So right 
now, let's say I'm wearing a hat for my national  
security. So I'm going to, Curt, I'm going 
to go over a, for your new listeners here,  
an analogy I like to use a lot. Now, I know 
you've heard it before, but just bear with  
me for a second while we go through it. Sure. So 
Curt, you live in Toronto, and I'm sure you live  
in a wonderfully safe neighborhood. Do you lock 
the front door when you go to bed at night? Yeah.  
Yeah, I do too. And I don't expect anything bad 
to happen, but just a matter of good measure, I'll  
lock the front door. And some days I might even 
go a step further, and I'll just make sure the  
windows are locked and turn on the alarm system 
before I go to bed. Let's say one Sunday morning,  
you wake up, come downstairs and have a nice hot 
cup of coffee or tea. And as you come downstairs,  
you see size 11 muddy blueprints on your living 
room carpet. Now, nothing's been taken. Nothing's  
out of place. No one's been hurt. But despite you 
locking the doors the night before and the windows  
and turning on the alarm, there are now muddy 
blueprints in your living room carpet that were  
not there the night before. My question to you 
is, is that a threat? And my response to that is,  
well, it could be if it wanted to be. So we 
should probably figure out how it's getting  
into the house. It's the same analogy with this 
conversation. If you have something that can come  
into controlled US airspace and over sensitive 
military installations and interfere with our  
nuclear capabilities and is interested in our 
military equities, wearing my national security  
hat, I have to say, even if there's only a 5%, 
hell, even if there's only a 1% chance this thing  
could be here for bad reasons, that's 1% chance I 
can't afford to take. So it is my job. In fact, it  
is my responsibility to investigate this to make 
sure it is not a threat. Now, what is a threat?  
Well, from a national security perspective, the 
calculus is super simple. It's capabilities versus  
intent. But we've seen some of the capabilities, 
we have no idea the intent. So we don't know if  
these things are a threat. We do know that they're 
interested in our nuclear equities. Now, taking  
off my national security hat and putting on my 
Lue Elizondo hat, no, I'm not sure there is enough  
information to suggest that these things are a 
real threat. Now, when you talk to people in what  
they call the experiencer community, some who have 
claimed they've been, quote unquote, abducted,  
well, now I got to put my national security hat 
back on because as a former special agent and  
a special agent in charge, if you told me that 
you've been taken somewhere against your will,  
well, guess what? That's kidnapping. Okay, that's 
a felony offense. And by the way, God forbid you  
were touched, you know, without your permission. 
Well, that's assault. Okay, so we can start  
racking up the felony charges here, right? That's 
not a good thing. So to go back to your question,  
is this a threat or is it not a threat? The fact 
that we don't know, that means we need to find  
out. And in order to find out, we have to treat it 
as a potential threat until we know that it's not,  
if that makes sense. If they have been around for 
tens of thousands of years, maybe even longer,  
why doesn't that factor into their safety? So 
for instance, Richard Dawkins is known for the  
parasite theory of religion that it's a mind 
virus, but he becomes more and more incorrect  
the longer timescale that a particular religion 
has been around, because if it's been around for  
millennia, then there's something mutual about 
it. If there's a virus and it kills your host,  
it's not good for the virus. So if these beings 
or whatever powers these crafts or whatever is  
behind them, if they've been here longer than 
predates the written word, like let's say  
longer than 4,000 BCE, then why can't a similar 
argument of symbiosis be made? It can be made. No,  
it can be. This could be a symbiotic relationship, 
or it could be a non-parasitic relationship. It  
doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship. 
It could be, look, we fly over the Serengeti  
all the time in a helicopter, and we track our 
herd of wildebeest. We dart one. And once it's  
tranquilized, we take some blood and we test its 
O2 levels and its migration patterns. And then  
what do we do? We get back in the helicopter, 
fly away. The wildebeest wakes up and wanders  
over to the watering hole, and goes to his friend 
and says, Bill, you're not going to believe this,  
man. I was there. And all of a sudden, this thing 
came down in the sky, and I'm lying down. People  
are touching me. And I wake up, and now my butt 
hurts. So I don't mean to make a joke out of it,  
but in reality, we don't really talk to 
the wildebeest. We don't negotiate with the  
wildebeest because the wildebeest doesn't have the 
capacity to really understand what we're trying to  
achieve. Could this be the same thing? Sure, 
absolutely. Absolutely, it could be. This is  
part of my argument, Curt, when it comes to this 
conversation. I don't want my government, as much  
of a patriot and loyalist I am, I don't want my 
government, from a national security perspective,  
involved in certain aspects of this conversation. 
Because this conversation involves us not just  
from a national security perspective, but it 
involves us from a psychological perspective,  
a philosophical perspective, a theological 
perspective, a sociological perspective,  
that frankly, I don't want some three-star general 
telling me how I should feel about this. Maybe  
this is a conversation for your priest or your 
rabbi or your imam or maybe your friends around  
the dinner table. Maybe this is a conversation 
to have with academics and scientists. And so  
from that perspective, this is why people like 
you are so valuable in this space, because you  
can open up the aperture, right? And now you're 
bringing this conversation to the street. You're  
bringing this conversation to the people, which 
ultimately is where this conversation belongs.  
Not with some decision maker at the Pentagon 
saying, the people aren't ready to have this  
conversation. They don't get a vote. That's not 
their decision to make. So this is why I think  
having this type of conversation is so important 
and why people like you and in your position  
play such a vital role, because your audience, 
ultimately your audience and your listeners,  
those are the ones who need to make the decision. 
Not even me or you. It needs to be everybody.  
This has to be a collective conversation. And 
this is why I think we're finally making some  
headway here, because we're not relying on a few 
talking heads to think for us. I don't want the  
government to think for us. I want the people to 
think for us. Does this weigh heavy on you? Oh,  
my God. Dude, I mean, kid me. I mean, 
yeah, man, it's ruined my life, man. It's,  
yeah, I've ruined my family's life. It's been 
terrible. I'm not going to cry on your shoulder,  
but I wouldn't wish this on anybody. No way. 
Would I do it again? Absolutely. I wouldn't want  
to. It's been terrible. You know, it's, yeah, it's 
awful. You know, you, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna  
even sob story. But it's, it's, let's just say 
there's easier things. I'd rather have birthed  
an elephant than have to experience what I 
experienced. And there's multiple reasons  
for that. But the fight's not over yet. And I 
don't have time to sit down and feel sorry for  
myself or anything like that. So, you know, put my 
boots on, tighten my belt and go in every day and  
do what I got to do. If you knew what you knew 
now, would you still have had kids? Oh, damn,  
Curt. You know, I love my, my children are the 
greatest achievement and accomplishment of my  
life. There will never be anything I will ever 
come close to than that achievement and that  
accomplishment. But my love is so strong for them. 
I also want to protect them and insulate them from  
some of the badness of this world. So do 
you make the decision and not allow someone  
to exist? Because you love them so much, and 
you're trying to protect them? Or do you bring  
them into existence, knowing that they're going 
to be exposed to a lot of pain. But then again,  
they have a chance to explore and experience the 
beauty and the love that this world has to offer.  
I think I would choose to always bring them into 
existence. Because I think it's important. I think  
it's important that people have an opportunity to 
learn and maybe, you know, Curt, maybe one day,  
we'll stop killing each other. Maybe we'll 
stop gossiping about each other. Maybe we'll  
stop trying to tear each other down and, and work 
together to build each other up. You know, I spent  
a good portion of my career destroying other human 
beings. And that's called warfare, right? And you  
do it one way or another. I'd like to spend the 
rest of my life helping put people back together.  
You know, that's a really, that's probably one of 
the best questions, and most difficult questions  
I've ever been asked. Now, I would choose to 
bring them into this world. Because I think they  
have a lot to offer. And I think they're very good 
people, and they can help balance out some of the  
inequity and some of the badness in this world. 
At some point, we are going to talk about beauty  
and love. But you also mentioned badness and pain. 
What pain and badness are you referring to, other  
than the archetypal pain and badness of life? 
Curt, that's another three-hour conversation,  
brother. And honestly, I don't think your audience 
really cares or wants to hear that. And, you know,  
nobody wants to hear a sob story. So, you know, 
I'd rather focus on the positives. You know,  
with anything worth doing, there's always 
sacrifice. That's just the bottom line. And,  
you know, I chose to do this, because I believe 
and still believe it's the right thing to do. And  
I'm not asking anybody for pain and badness. 
It's just the right thing to do. And I'm not  
asking anybody for pity or mercy or anything like 
that. You know, I do what I do, because what I do,  
and I'm going to continue doing it till the job's 
done. Disclosure is a process, not an event.  
Explain what that means. And how does that cohere 
with you're going to continue what you're doing  
until the job is done? Because that sounds 
like an event. I think when I first came out,  
a lot of people were waiting for the government 
insider to say, yes, not only are you UAP real,  
but the government's been investigating 
that. Well, they had that. Then they said,  
well, it's not really disclosure until somebody 
senior, like in the government, says it. So you  
have a former director of national intelligence, 
a former director of CIA, and a former president  
all saying it. And yet people say, yeah, but it's 
still not the same. And so the bar keeps moving.  
And I've told people that this is a marathon, not 
a sprint. Disclosure isn't an event. It's not you  
wake up one morning, aha, here it is. No, it's a 
conversation. It's a lengthy conversation. It's a  
process. And like anything else that's serious, 
there's a process to it. And there's, it takes  
time. And it takes sensitization. You know, 
you have a choice, you can jump into the pool,  
and a cold pool and risk shock if you don't know 
what temperature the pool is, or you can dip your  
TOE in first and say, okay, that temperature 
is pretty good. It's not too hot, not too cold.  
And you put your foot in and you put your knee 
in. And it's a slow, gradual process. And you  
do that to avoid a shock to the system, a shock 
to the body. If you jump into an ice cold pool,  
or something that's really hot, your body doesn't 
have a chance to adjust to it. You know, it's,  
it's more difficult on the on the system. And so 
I think we've come a long way. As far as when my  
job is done. I don't know what that looks like. I 
pray every day that it's soon. But now it's time  
for other people to take the torch. I am not you 
know, I was very at a really good purpose and use  
early on. But the longer I wait, the more I worry 
that we can start losing traction. Because look,  
I'm just one person. I'm just a human. And I make 
mistakes all the time. And I forget to brush my  
teeth and normal, right? Probably drink too much 
coffee. There are people out there that are far  
more qualified than me. Far better than me more 
effective than me to have this conversation. I'm  
just a blue collar guy, man, just was in the 
army for a little bit and went to college and,  
you know, serve my country, but doesn't make me 
special. You know, people say, Oh, Lue, you're a  
hero. No, I'm not a hero. I know what a hero looks 
like, because I served with a lot of them. So  
some of them didn't come back. You know, those are 
heroes. I'm not I'm just doing. Doing what anybody  
in my position who took the same allegiance and 
oath that I did, we do the same thing. I'm not  
special. And I'm not, I'm not even particularly 
good at it, to be honest with you. I'm just trying  
my best. So yeah, I don't know what the end looks 
like. You know, I would love it if one day someone  
came to me and knocked on my door and said, 
Hey, Lue, we'll take it from here. Hallelujah.  
Thank you. I can change my name and get weird and 
disappear. You know, I don't know. But until that,  
I think we'll know. I think we're getting there. I 
think more people are coming out of the shadows. I  
think we could get some real good whistleblowers 
coming forward this year will definitely help  
that process. You know, hopefully I become I 
become completely obsolete. When people stop  
asking me for interviews. I know my job is done. 
Because, because they don't care. I'm now boring,  
right? So that's, that's, that would be a great 
indicator. So, so any of you out there, sorry, any  
of you out there that want to interview with me, 
stop calling. We'll be we'll be done. I'll try  
not to take that personally. It's not I'm just 
having fun with you, Curt. But you know, that's  
it's the sooner we can get more people out in the 
open, I think the better. So I think what people  
the vast majority of people who even people who 
are on the believing and whatever that means of  
the UAP spectrum, I think what they mean, when 
they say I would like disclosure, is that sure,  
disclosure is a process, everything's a process 
events, then you transform, and that's a process  
to another event, but some events are more 
critical than others are more significant.  
It doesn't matter how many whistleblowers come 
out, it could be 3000 whistleblowers, what people  
want is some tangible, verifiable evidence, 
especially given to the scientific community in  
the open. So, at what point in this a respectful 
question, respect, I mean, this respectfully, at  
what point does the UAP playlist on this channel, 
the theories of everything channel, how can people  
distinguish that playlist from another playlist 
with the same videos, but titled cool story, bro?  
Well, first of all, the fact that 
you have people of the caliber you  
do listening to this conversation right now 
is different than check out this cool video,  
bro. I think your audiences is a little more 
sophisticated than that. Right? Let me be blunt,  
a lot more sophisticated than that. That's why 
they listen to your show. They are interested  
in your approach, you your approach is 
intellectual curiosity. It's, you know,  
be mindful of the clickbait that's out there 
because world full of it, right? Likes and click  
this and, you know, you, you seem to have a very 
honest debate about this topic and other topics.  
And that's, that's the discourse that needs to 
occur. You know, people listen to theories of  
everything, because they're not interested in, 
hey, check out this UFO video, bro. You know,  
because that's not, that's not how you have 
disclosure. You have disclosure by having an  
intellectual, honest conversation about this. And 
as we just started, do you remember how we started  
our conversation? Do you remember that? So we 
started talking philosophically wasn't even about  
UFOs. Right? We're having just a philosophical 
conversation, that intellectual curiosity,  
people that that involve themselves in that 
look, there's, let me, I've told you this before,  
but I'll reiterate it again. The old saying small 
minds talk about people, strong minds talk about  
things and great minds talk about ideas. Okay. 
That is your audience that you, you have your,  
those are the intellectually curious people out 
there that want answers. And, you know, they  
want to think for themselves. You know, you, you 
ask the questions you do, because half the time,  
whether you have the answer or not, you're trying 
to provoke thought, and you're trying to provoke  
people to begin to interact with one another in 
a way that maybe they wouldn't have considered  
interacting before. And you're achieving that. And 
that is not, hey, click out, check out this UFO  
video, bro. That's, that's, that's a completely 
different audience. And I'm not interested in  
that audience, either. Not that we don't need 
them on board, we do we want them part of the  
conversation. But this conversation that we're 
having, and with your audience right now, and I,  
you know, your, your audience is very important 
to this conversation as well, as long as we can  
have a respectful and collegial conversation. 
Look, you and I do not agree on everything. And  
that's okay. And I don't take it personally. 
And I'm sure you don't either. And we can,  
we can have a friendly debate on your program, 
without having feelings hurt, because both of us  
are, I think, confident in our own intellectual 
abilities. But more importantly, we also respect  
each other's intellectual abilities, right? I 
know there are, there are things that you can  
do that I can't. There's knowledge that you have, 
there's intellectual capability that you have,  
that I don't have. And just like an experience, 
I have experiences in the government that maybe  
you don't have, right? So we're coming at it 
from different perspectives. Maybe. Maybe. So,  
you know, I think, I think that's what works. And 
that's the difference between a show like yours  
and a show like, you know, some other folks. 
Again, I'm not, I'm not hitting on those other  
shows that do that. But I think we get further 
in the conversation with shows like you have. And  
what does that disclosure look like? I don't 
know if you're ever going to be able to sit  
there and have a government source video of a UFO 
landing on the White House lawn. But then again,  
maybe that's not what's needed. You know, the fact 
that we have already acknowledged the existence  
of something there, that's not our technology, 
and probably not adversarial technology, well,  
that's a pretty big step in the right direction. 
And maybe that's all it takes. And now we allow  
the people to come up with what we do next about 
it. Maybe the government in a way is waiting to  
get a cue from the population and see, okay, now 
that you guys aren't freaking out and rioting and,  
you know, abandoning religion, still paying your 
mortgages, you know, maybe the past assessments  
we've had were wrong. You know what, I've always 
believed that America can handle the truth. I  
believe America deserves the truth. And not just 
us, I think the world does. And I think we can  
have that conversation. And we're having that 
conversation. Don't look now, but we're having  
it. And, you know, people are quitting their 
jobs and running to the hills and, you know,  
burying themselves in silos, waiting for the world 
to end. I'm not sure if it's about the truth,  
because the truth would just be a statement 
that would be critiqued and met with skepticism  
anyhow. It would have to be something that's 
tangible, verifiable, and placed into the hands  
of the scientific community. And I'll give you an 
example, because this dictum of it's not a sprint,  
it's a marathon is personal to me in my bailiwick 
of theoretical physics, because string theorists  
have been saying that for decades. They'll hold 
your horses. String theory is not a sprint,  
it's a marathon. How can you expect us to come 
up with the theory of everything or humanity's  
answers in this case in such a short amount 
of time? It was always this five to 10 years,  
something large is going to happen. It becomes 
a shepherd's tone. Do you know what a shepherd's  
tone is? I am aware of the concept, but no, 
I'm not an expert in the term shepherd's tone.  
In the TV scene, there's the promise of progress 
constantly, and a shepherd's tone is an auditory  
illusion. I'll play it for the audience. It will 
be edited in. Where you take a superposition  
of sine waves and you separate them by octaves 
and you give the impression of upward movement.  
And it's terribly interesting for the first few 
seconds, but then it becomes deeply unsatisfying  
the longer you listen and you can't quite put 
your finger on why. So you get these droughts  
interspersed with the dribbles of the promise 
of some oasis in the shimmering horizon in this  
scene. That's what I mean by, even if there's the 
truth that is revealed, it can't be a proclamation  
from someone else. Otherwise that's the Catholic 
church saying the Bible means this and this.  
And then Martin Luther's like, I want to 
investigate myself and figure it out. I  
need you to give me the Bible so I can read it 
myself. Let me, that's a really interesting point,  
Curt. Let me ask you a question since you do 
have a good background in physics. When was the  
notion of the Higgs boson first proposed? The God 
particle? Do you know that? I think it was 1964,  
if I'm not mistaken. Do you know when we 
first actually proved its existence? 2012,  
if I'm not mistaken there as well. Right. Okay. 
40 years. What did it take to discover the Higgs  
boson? What did we have to create? At least 
funding and a collider. All for the purposes  
of trying to find this elusive particle that 
only existed theoretically. The enormous amount  
of investment, and this was all done in the open, 
right? And countries, entire countries invested  
into it and it still took 40 years. And if you ask 
most people right now, what's the significance of  
the Higgs boson, the God particle, they can't tell 
you, well, no, it's a subatomic particle. Well no,  
it's a lot more, it's much more significant 
than that, right? How about the idea of a  
black hole? When was that first proposed? Do you 
remember? You weren't alive, but I wasn't either,  
but do you remember when that first idea was 
proposed? Well, there were two. One was from,  
I believe Pascal, and then another was from 
a solution to Einstein's equations. So that  
would be in the 1900s. Correct. Correct. Really 
1930s is when the idea was really first proposed  
of a supermassive, you know, infinite mass, no 
volume space where gravity was so intense that  
it literally ripped away space and time to a 
nonsensical state, right? But Einstein said,  
there's nothing in the universe that could 
actually do that, right? So it's just theoretical,  
but it doesn't exist. When was the first time 
we were actually able to prove the existence,  
not just through observation, the existence of a 
black hole and the fact that gravitational waves,  
that space and time itself, the ripple of space 
and time can be measured and that all that  
was absolutely true. Do you remember when that 
occurred? So that was through the LIGOS experiment  
and the LIGOS was a laser infrarometer where you 
had two of these sensors separated by quite a  
bit of a distance and they detected the first 
gravitational waves of two supermassive black  
holes colliding. Now that was almost a 100 year 
effort. It almost took us a hundred years to prove  
that. So let's put these ideas in the backdrop 
that we've only really been at this disclosure  
thing really, maybe the last little bit of a 
decade that a lot of people wanted disclosure and  
some people that came out and had conversations, 
but the government wasn't really actively doing  
it. We didn't have a UAP investigative body like 
Arrow. We did not have Congress being informed  
and passing laws. That's all relatively recent. 
So I would just encourage you to know that it's  
actually, I think we're moving at a breakneck 
speed. I think even though it's a marathon,  
I think we're pretty much sprinting this marathon. 
We've come a long way in six or seven years. In  
fact, perhaps even more, and I don't want to upset 
anybody, but we may have come more further in this  
conversation in the last seven years than we have 
in the last 70 years. So I understand people are  
chomping at the bit. I understand people are 
impatient, but this goes back to what I said  
before many times, that there's a difference 
between doing things right and doing things  
right now. And I think, I think we have one 
shot at doing this right. And I think, I think  
we're doing it. I think collectively, all of us, 
we're, we're, we're working towards that goal.  
Respectfully, Lue, you sound like a string 
theorist. So the string theorists would  
always say, well, look at the predictions of the 
singularity, when did that, or the black hole,  
when did that happen, or, or the Higgs boson, 
or whatever it may be. And then decades later,  
it came to fruition. And then they'd point to some 
of what they think is progress in the past amount  
of years, and they'll show that there's some 
acceleration of that. Like they'll say, well,  
we had a gravitational anomaly in 1983 with 
supergravity, and we found a mechanism around  
that. Okay, but you still have 10 dimensions. 
Yeah, but you can compactify these dimensions.  
Okay, but you introduce scalars, massless scalars 
in four dimensions when you do that. Okay, well,  
we can introduce background fluxes. We figured 
that part out. And yeah, but then you still have  
a vast amount of ways to compactify, okay, 
swampland, okay, weak gravity conjectures,  
et cetera. So even in string theory, they 
could say and have said almost verbatim,  
what you're saying. And I mean that respectfully. 
So no, no, no, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, no. I take  
it respectfully, but I wouldn't consider myself 
a string theorist. I consider myself a realist,  
meaning things take time. And to change the human 
psyche takes time. It does not occur fast. Very  
few things in nature really occur quickly. But I 
can understand your point. As for string theory  
or any other theory, you know, things take 
time. It's not just string theorists. I think  
a lot of things in science take time to really 
understand, you know, through some of it through  
direct observation, some of it through indirect 
observation and measurements. I don't know when, I  
think if you ask any person, they're going to have 
a different understanding of when they think that  
disclosure has been met. What you're expecting 
may be different than someone in your audience.  
Someone in your audience may say, we're already 
there. Someone say, we're not going to be there  
for another hundred years. It's very good. It's 
a valid point. I think, I think you're right.  
And by the way, I do not take offense at all by, 
you know, paralleling what I'm saying to. I keep  
prefacing that because there are some people, not 
you, but I'm just used to some people that hear  
a question that sounds like pushback in this 
scene. In physics, this is ordinary. In fact,  
it's far worse. You put up objections, but 
in this scene, there are some sensitive  
personalities. And so I don't want to step on 
your TOEs. Not at all. Not at all. In fact,  
I didn't have any TOEs. You know, I'm at the age 
now that if, you know, I'm not even sure if I  
have TOEs anymore. I haven't seen TOEs in about 
10 years. I got to get back to the gym. Do you  
meditate? Oh my gosh. You know, I've had someone 
ask me that, Curt. I don't know how to meditate,  
brother. I got too much going on up here. I wish 
I could. People say, oh man, you got to meditate.  
You know, when I'm not drinking coffee and I'm not 
running a million miles an hour, I'm sleeping. Or,  
you know, I do hit the gym, obviously. I do work 
out quite a bit. That's kind of my thing. Maybe  
that's meditation for the body. But no, I don't. 
How about remote viewing? Do you still engage in  
remote viewing? I will just simply say yes, and 
I don't want to expound upon that. It's a topic  
that some people have trouble digesting, and I 
get it, and it's very controversial. But that's  
for another conversation. And fortunately, it 
looks like our time is up. Well, I'm just jokingly  
chained, man. Okay, geez, geez, Louisa. It's just 
me and you here, Lue, and maybe one million other  
people. Yeah. So what can you say about it 
without violating any NDA or what have you?  
Yeah. So let me... I rarely do this. Let me give 
you the perspective as it was explained to me,  
because a lot of it seems like pseudoscience 
and mumbo jumbo. And the reality is that...  
Let's start with an analogy here. Sorry, because 
it's the way I talk. I'm Latino, and I kind of  
use analogies to explain myself. Okay. So I have 
five fundamental senses to judge the universe in  
which I live. And if I can't touch it, taste it, 
hear it, smell it, et cetera, I can't perceive it.  
And yet we know if I had the ability to have, 
let's say, cell phone vision, and I could see  
in GPS, I could see in 5G, I could see in AM 
and FM, I would perceive an entirely different  
reality around me. I'd be seeing in infrared and 
ultraviolet spectrums, microwave. So what does  
that actually mean? It says, well, I live in 
Wyoming where we have beautiful night skies,  
and I can look at the stars and say how gorgeous 
they are. But if I look at that same part of the  
sky through a radio telescope, I'll see an 
entirely different reality. I'll see nebula,  
I'll see things beyond the spectrum that 
I can normally see. And so therefore,  
I see more of the universe. So I only perceive 
through the electro-optical spectrum a very, very,  
very narrow sliver of what really is out there. 
And then you have the scalability of the universe,  
which I won't get into here, but the universe 
is enormous. And I don't think most people  
really appreciate just how big the universe 
really is. Just in the observable universe,  
there are more stars than there are grains of 
sand in all the beaches of all the world. So  
think about that for a minute, what that actually 
means. So we only perceive because of how tiny we  
are to the universe, very, very small fraction 
of what's really out there. So some people have  
claimed that remote viewing, some scientists, 
is that human consciousness, that the actual,  
not the intellectual thought process, but 
what makes us us and self-aware and sentient,  
is a quantum process in the brain. And 
involves a quantum, when I say quantum,  
literally the field of quantum mechanics. There 
is a process occurring in the brain, and that  
is what creates the illusion of self-awareness and 
consciousness. If that's the case, some scientists  
have proposed that, let's go back to this analogy 
here, that this, pretend this is a cigar, smoking  
a cigar. You can compare time to the analogy of 
a cigar, where the past of a cigar is the ashes  
that's already burnt. The future is the part of 
the cigar that hasn't burned yet, that you hold  
in your hand. And the present is the cherry. 
It's a moment of ignition. It's a process where  
the future becomes the past. It's not really an 
event. And if you were to look at time at a very,  
very small scale, Planck scale, some scientists 
believe that time gets fuzzy, meaning that there  
are elements of the future kind of commingling 
with elements of the past, and that the cherry, if  
you will, the moment of ignition of the cigar, it 
doesn't burn evenly. And perhaps even may explain  
some of the duality principles of the electron 
and the electron cloud versus electron orbit and  
its valence, and actually being able to pinpoint 
where it is. So that was some of the conversation  
occurring at the time. And so some people had 
posited that perhaps some people experience  
current, the current time, what we consider the 
present, that cherry being bigger on the cigar,  
meaning there are more elements of the future and 
more elements of the past that could potentially  
be experienced as if they are occurring now. 
Do we have any proof for that? We do not. Do  
I necessarily subscribe to that? I don't know. 
What we do know is that there are nonverbal cues.  
I suspect remote viewing is just as ordinary. 
Most people experience it all the time and don't  
realize it. For example, you are in New York and 
your spouse is in Toronto, and you say, you know,  
I'm going to call her. You give her a call and 
she says, oh, you know what? I was just thinking  
about you. I was just going to call you, right? 
Some have said, well, that's actually a form  
of remote viewing, that the brains give off 
electrical signals. We know that. That's how  
we can tell if people are clinically dead or 
not when they've died in a hospital, is their  
brainwave function. And some are now saying, well, 
you know, the brains can give off frequencies that  
we can actually detect. Is it possible that 
there are some people that can receive those  
and interpret those frequencies? I don't know. 
I'm not a medical scientist. I'm certainly not  
a neurologist. So I would be completely speaking 
out of context. But my point is, I think when you  
get into the conversation of remote viewing and 
nonverbal communication, I'm pretty confident it's  
based in science. It's, I'm pretty confident. It's 
not mumbo jumbo, weird woo woo stuff. But at the  
end of the day, it's probably somewhere embedded 
within the field of quantum mechanics. If I had  
to guess, I don't know for sure. But that would be 
the way I would explain it. So this cigar theory  
of time, this fuzzy present, is this something 
that you've been briefed on or is it something  
you've heard some other physicists speak about 
and then you're surmising it has something to do  
with remote viewing? Both. Both. Some people have 
said that is the way it works. And other people  
have said, this is the way time works. And then 
within my own experience, that's my observation.  
But again, let me caveat, I could be wrong. And 
it's, you know, it's a conversation, there's  
so little known about it. And it's, you know, 
it's not always accurate, right? There's a lot  
of error and interpretive error there. And it's 
very subjective. So, you know, I can't hear it. I  
can't tell you definitively, other than through my 
own experience, that it's real legitimate. There  
are some incredible statistical findings that the 
government, I mean, we've actually used to find a  
downed Russian, for example, supersonic aircraft, 
experimental aircraft that crashed in Africa near  
the Congo. And our best satellites couldn't find 
it. But it took remote viewers about 30 minutes  
and they found it. How do you explain that? Well, 
I don't know. I mean, why do police departments  
still use psychics to solve cases? Because they 
have a good batting average. In some cases,  
they're actually finding the evidence that 
the police are looking for, right? I can't sit  
here and tell you, you know, to your 1 million 
viewers and listeners out there, how it works,  
because I don't know how it works. I don't even 
know if it works most of the time. I know it works  
some of the time. And I'm confident about that. 
But the mechanics of how it works, I couldn't  
even begin to tell you, brother, I'm not qualified 
to have that conversation. Oh, there's so much,  
man. There's so many here. Okay, let's start with 
physical implants. What are they? Let's hear more  
about them. So implants. Let me explain it to you 
from a immunological perspective, because that I  
do have some qualifications to discuss. The body 
has an autonomic immune response when there is  
ever introduced a foreign object into the body 
that the body does not recognize. It's the reason  
why when people have transplants, they have to 
take transplant drugs to suppress the natural  
immune response to something in their body, long 
to them. Okay. And so I've personally held in my  
hand a sample that came from the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, but I've also was aware  
of previous samples very similar, where a 
something which is going to say something  
right now was removed by a surgeon from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs on an individual,  
a former US service member who claimed to have 
had an interaction with a UAP. When they tried  
to remove this object, according to the surgeon 
there, who was very upset by this, the object  
tried to evade being removed, meaning it moves 
under its own power, under its own metabolism,  
metabolic capability. And what appeared to 
the surgeon is trying to avoid detection. Now,  
why is that significant? Because there was no 
immuno cascade response, meaning there are,  
let me give you an example, parasites out there. 
There's something called a spirochete. Certain  
trypanosomes have this capability. They're highly 
motile and have this little tail that they whip  
around and they move throughout the body. And when 
they do that, they create this enormous trail of  
destruction through a, what we call an immuno 
cascade response or a white blood cell response,  
trying to fight the infection as this thing is 
moving around. That was not the case with this  
foreign object that appeared to have encapsulated 
itself with some sort of look like human tissue,  
maybe from the host, from the person, and yet 
had a, I'd like to say a technical device, a  
small metallic, I don't want to say the word chip 
because that is so cliche. We don't know if it was  
a chip, but it's a piece of metal in there. And 
around this encapsulated area, there were these,  
what appeared to be referred to as Morgellon 
fibers. Morgellon fibers comes from, the term  
comes from the old wizard, Morgan le Fay, who 
was the sister of the wizard and King Arthur. So  
these Morgellon fibers, when under scrutiny, don't 
seem to have any DNA. Some have said that they're  
fibers from carpet, that they're artificial fibers 
or blue and red fibers, but these were not carpet  
fibers. This was removed from underneath the 
skin of an individual with the chip and those  
fibers can be clearly seen. More, I think, 
alarming is the fact that one of the forensic  
pathologists that was looking at this sample 
said that it had its own metabolism, meaning it  
still moved underneath the microscope when they 
were studying it. Sorry, what's the definition  
of metabolism being used here? So anything that 
is alive gets its energy. Usually we consider,  
for example, human beings and animals through 
the ATP, ADP process, adenosine triphosphate to  
adenosine diphosphate. When you cleave one of 
those phosphates, you create energy. It's all  
part of the Krebs cycle, what they call citric 
acid cycle. And that is a metabolism, basically.  
That is how we derive energy from consumption. 
And so you can metabolize and you create energy.  
Anything that moves requires energy to move. So 
you either have to have an external energy supply  
or you have to have an internal energy supply. In 
this particular case, the object that was removed  
seemed to have an internal energy supply. So it 
had its own metabolism. My understanding is that  
metabolism requires life. You don't infer life 
from metabolism. You start with something living  
and then you call it metabolism. Otherwise, you're 
just making an analogy by saying that something  
transforms energy, has self-repair, maybe some 
nutrient processing, but the phone that you have  
transforms energy. The phone that you have engages 
in a minor amount of self-repair with its adaptive  
battery. Maybe there's no nutrient processing, but 
all of that would have to be shown. So otherwise,  
you're just making an analogy saying it's 
metabolism-like. Yeah, but this is technological,  
not biomechanical. Totally different. So this 
is a technological device is deriving energy  
through a power source. And that power source is 
an external power source, usually via a battery.  
And it's using that in the form of electrons. This 
is not the case. We're talking about a biological  
metabolism. So the conversion of a biological 
process through the process of biochemistry  
to derive energy. And so let me be clear on that. 
And also let me finish this other piece for you  
as well. There's an individual, it's not my story 
to tell. So maybe this person will become public  
one day, but he's a senior CIA official who 
had a very scary UAP encounter with his wife.  
And they actually went to the CIA and to some 
of the doctors and they were able to extract,  
well, first of all, the individual had a 
hole punched in the back of their neck.  
But the wife, when she blew her nose, had a 
foreign object that was recovered. And so that's,  
again, I don't want to go too specific because 
it's not my story to tell. There's an individual  
that hopefully at some point will feel comfortable 
about being public about that. For now, I'm not  
going to say who the person was. But there's 
a lot of these examples. I know another one  
that's a good buddy of mine. We worked very close 
together. They had a very interesting situation as  
well, where there was potentially some sort 
of interesting encounter and as a result,  
some sort of biological consequence. We 
talk about the five fundamental observables,  
but there are actually six. And biological effects 
was one of them. Yes, we had actual doctors and  
surgeons looking into the medical consequences of 
military members and intelligence officials who  
may have gotten too close to a UAP. So that did 
indeed happen. I know you got to get going, man.  
And we can continue talking for another couple 
hours. So I'll end with this question, which may  
be simple. Maybe it's not. But are we souls? Or 
do we have souls? I think most people do. There's  
maybe some individuals who don't. Maybe those are 
the individuals that do bad things to one another  
because they have the intellect, they have the 
mind, and they have a body. But somewhere along  
the way, they lack that essence that allows us 
to connect to one another and empathize with one  
another. And help one another. And because of 
that, they don't have empathy, they don't have  
sympathy, and desperate to feel some emotion, they 
resort to doing bad things, potentially. There is  
real evil in this world. That is a fact. And I've 
seen it myself. And you can't negotiate with it,  
you can't barter with it. It feeds off of 
pain and suffering of other individuals. So,  
yes, I do believe the soul is real. I believe most 
people have it. Maybe absent in other individuals.  
All right, sir. I know you got to get going. 
As always, honor and privilege. And thank you,  
huge thank you to your amazing audience for tuning 
in and allowing me to yammer on. But hopefully  
I didn't put any, well, maybe I did. Hopefully I 
did put people to sleep. Maybe they're insomniacs,  
right? They're listening to my silky smooth voice. 
I tell people I have a voice that's as soothing as  
a cement truck in high gear careening down a dirt 
road. It's an honor that you spent your time with  
me. Thank you, man. The honor and privilege is 
mine, Curt. Thank you so much. And thank you for  
your service. Curt, it's my privilege. My honor 
and privilege to be with you here today. Also,  
thank you to our partner, The Economist. Firstly, 
thank you for watching. Thank you for listening.  
There's now a website, CURTJAIMUNGAL.org, 
and that has a mailing list. The reason being  
that large platforms like YouTube, like Patreon, 
they can disable you for whatever reason,  
whenever they like. That's just part of the terms 
of service. Now, a direct mailing list ensures  
that I have an untrammeled communication with you. 
Plus, soon I'll be releasing a one-page PDF of my  
top 10 TOEs. It's not as Quentin Tarantino 
as it sounds like. Secondly, if you haven't  
subscribed or clicked that like button, now is 
the time to do so. Why? Because each subscribe,  
each like helps YouTube push this content to more 
people like yourself. Plus, it helps out Curt  
directly, aka me. I also found out last year that 
external links count plenty toward the algorithm,  
which means that whenever you share on Twitter, 
say on Facebook, or even on Reddit, etc.,  
it shows YouTube, hey, people are talking about 
this content outside of YouTube, which in turn  
greatly aids the distribution on YouTube. Thirdly, 
there's a remarkably active Discord and subreddit  
for Theories of Everything, where people explicate 
TOEs, they disagree respectfully about theories,  
and build, as a community, our own TOE. Links to 
both are in the description. Fourthly, you should  
know this podcast is on iTunes, it's on Spotify, 
it's on all of the audio platforms. All you have  
to do is type in Theories of Everything and you'll 
find it. Personally, I gain from re-watching  
lectures and podcasts. I also read in the comments 
that, hey, TOE listeners also gain from replaying.  
So how about instead you re-listen on those 
platforms, like iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts,  
whichever podcast catcher you use. And finally, 
if you'd like to support more conversations like  
this, more content like this, then do consider 
visiting patreon.com slash CURTJAIMUNGAL and  
donating with whatever you like. There's also 
PayPal, there's also crypto, there's also just  
joining on YouTube. Again, keep in mind, it's 
support from the sponsors and you that allow  
me to work on TOE full-time. You also get early 
access to ad-free episodes, whether it's audio  
or video. It's audio in the case of Patreon, video 
in the case of YouTube. For instance, this episode  
that you're listening to right now was released 
a few days earlier. Every dollar helps far more  
than you think. Either way, your viewership is 
generosity enough. Thank you so much. Thank you.