Pentagon's UFO Investigator Breaks 2 Year Silence

The truth is out there, but our system is broken and hiding it.

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. 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.

=> 00:06:35

Corruption erodes democracy and leads to tyranny.

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 akin to, I want to be careful that I don't disclose anything inappropriate because you still consult with the government and 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. What you may or may not know is my father recently passed away. He had cancer, like my mother. My father, however, was an old soldier. 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. I was very fortunate about a month before he passed away 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.

We're driving and, you know, we got three days to catch up on conversations. I asked my dad, probably a bit flippantly, "Dad, what is the greatest threat to humanity?" I was thinking to myself, maybe it's some sort of pandemic or disease, or maybe it's terrorism. My father looked at me, thought for a second, and said, "corruption." I asked, "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." Whether it's moral corruption, religious corruption, governmental corruption, corruption means you're trading your own values in exchange for something else. When you do that, and you're in the government, that begins to erode the very pillar of what democracy is.

My father said to me, and he was right, "It's a very slippery slope. From the moment you start chiseling away at the pillar of democracy, to totalitarianism and tyranny. And it happens very quick." My father would know because he was a revolutionary in Cuba. He 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. He lived through that tyranny and came to this country, which gave us opportunities that no other country would or could offer. My father was very loyal to this country and taught me at a very early age what freedom actually means and what someone has to do to preserve it.

The problem is, our country here is so great and so rich that people can get away with being corrupt in some cases because 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 corrupts the entire system. It circumvents our Constitution. At the end of the day, our Constitution either means something or it doesn't. Part of my quest is to ensure greater transparency and accountability for the American people on this topic and any other topic 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 in 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 a few things in there, and I wanted to try to tie them together. You mentioned you still consult with the government. The government is quite large, so what's meant by that? Also, consultation is quite a general term, so what's meant by that?

I still maintain my security clearance with the United States government. When asked, I have consulted and will continue to consult on an as-needed basis on a variety of issues, whether they're counterterrorism or UAP related. I'm here to serve. As far as what capacity that is, mostly it's as a consultant. Within the consultant arena within the US government, you really have three types of government people: you've got military personnel, men and women in uniform, then you have government contractors that do a lot of the work for the military, and then you have civilian service. Civilian service and military service are pretty co-equals. The contractors are there to provide support to both government civilians and government military personnel in various branches of the government. It doesn't have to just be the executive branch; it could be the legislative branch, judicial branch. That's kind of how it works.

=> 00:11:50

I consult for the U.S. government on critical issues like counterterrorism and UAPs, serving when needed.

I still maintain my security clearance with the United States government. When asked, I have consulted and will continue to consult on an as-needed basis on a variety of issues, whether they are counterterrorism or UAP related. They matter, and I'm here to serve. My role is mostly as a consultant. Within the consultant arena in the US government, there are three types of government personnel: military personnel (men and women in uniform), government contractors who do a lot of work for the military, and civilian service. Civilian service and military service are pretty much co-equals, while contractors provide support to both government civilians and military personnel across various branches of the government, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

As for me, my consultation has primarily been in the executive branch. I will continue to advise the government when asked, though I do not actively seek out these opportunities. As a consultant, you typically come in as a contractor, meaning you are given a specific task by a government boss. For example, they might ask for my thoughts on the best way to write a national-level strategy on the counterproliferation of nuclear weapons. Given my background in the counterproliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, I would provide ideas and highlight key areas and organizations to involve in creating the strategy. This is how a consultant works: by providing advice and assistance to the government.

Christopher Mellon, in the foreword to my book "Imminent," mentioned that when he first met me, we faced a prevailing establishment mindset that associated the UAP issue with irrational beliefs in subjects such as poltergeists and astrology. This implies that subjects like poltergeists and astrology should not be associated with the UAP issue, even though many people do. If you want to delve deeper into that, you'd probably want to talk to Chris Mellon. He is not necessarily agreeing with that irrationality; he is simply stating that people make that comparison. Chris is not diminishing it; he is just noting that people often wrap the UAP topic with other areas considered irrational, like poltergeists.

My focus has been more on the nuts and bolts aspect of the UAP phenomenon. However, in my book, I talk about green diffuse orbs, which could be natural phenomena. It was just odd that these occurrences happened while we were investigating them. This universe is vast, and many things we consider paranormal might not be. I often start my briefings by defining the word "para," which in Latin means above or beside. For instance, a parachute is something that helps you descend slowly, and a paramedic is a first responder. When I mention the word paranormal, people often react with skepticism because we have been socially conditioned to think of it as weird or related to the occult. In reality, everything in science is paranormal until it becomes normal. For example, a cell phone would have been considered paranormal 50 years ago, but now it is routine and mundane. There are many such examples, like tribes in the rainforest thinking a photograph steals their soul, or acupuncture being dismissed as nonsense in Western medicine.

=> 00:16:57

What we call paranormal today might just be the science of tomorrow.

The term paranormal often elicits a reaction of skepticism or dismissal because society has been conditioned to view it as strange or related to the occult. However, by definition, everything in science is paranormal until it becomes normal. For instance, a cell phone would have been considered paranormal fifty years ago, but now it is routine and mundane. There are many examples of this phenomenon. For example, tribes in the South American rainforest once believed that taking a photograph would steal their soul, which was paranormal to them. Similarly, acupuncture was once dismissed as nonsense in Western medicine but is now prescribed by the Department of Veterans Affairs for therapeutic purposes.

When we use terms like poltergeists or other labels to describe phenomena we don't fully understand, we are merely trying to explain the unexplainable. One famous quote suggests that technology twenty years from now would look like magic to us today. Therefore, it is important not to dismiss things outright as nonsense. Everything can be related in some way, and we should be careful not to jump to preconceived conclusions.

The etymology of the word paranormal shows that it was created in the early 1900s to describe things beyond the normal. Just because a prefix works in some cases doesn't mean it applies universally. For instance, a parachute or a paramedic still falls within the class of normal, whereas paranormal is another class altogether. The definition of normal is subjective and has evolved over time. Historically, many things we now consider normal were once thought impossible, such as breaking the speed of sound.

Most of life is nonlinear and not easily categorized as normal or abnormal. The term paranormal was not necessarily created with a negative context but to explain the unexplainable. Religion, often associated with the supernatural, is another example of this. Both supernatural and paranormal are terms used to describe phenomena beyond our current understanding.

The examples given, such as the cell phone or the reaction of a tribe to a ship, are technological. The implication is that today's paranormal phenomena could be tomorrow's technology. However, we cannot be certain if what we call paranormal today will indeed be understood as technology in the future. Our perceptions are influenced by our upbringing and the various lenses through which we view the world.

=> 00:22:06

Love is real, even if we can't fully explain it.

I reject the notion that attributes saying something is negative, just like I do with the supernatural. By definition, all religions are supernatural. This doesn't make them wrong; it just makes them beyond our current understanding. I don't see the issue with this.

All the examples given of things beyond our current understanding, such as the cell phone or a ship seen by a tribe that couldn't understand what it was, are technological. 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 we don't know if it's a technology. We are calling it a technology, but we don't know for sure.

We are all individuals and we all look at things through the various lenses of our upbringing, whether it's Sunday school, how someone was raised, or what mom and dad told you at the dinner table. By definition, we are biased. Every single person has a bias, whether it's about flavor ice cream or the type of book you like to read. So, when we look at something, especially in the spiritual world, there are things we consider normal and things we consider not normal.

I don't think everything is based on technology. There is a lot about human psychology and human sociology that could be considered abstract or abnormal, yet it's a very real part of our life. For example, Curt, do you have a family? Do you love your family? My wife saves my life on a daily basis. Do you love your wife? I hope I do, and I think I do. Prove it. How do I know that the way you feel love is the same way I feel love? You can express it in certain ways, but I can't see it, feel it, or smell it. It's an emotion, and yet it's very real.

This discussion leads to the concept of universal truth versus personal truth. There are two types of truths in this world: universal truths like gravity, which apply to all of us, and personal truths, such as religion or political affiliations, which are not shared universally. This ties into the esoteric nature of what it means to be human and paranormal. Some would say love itself is an expression that doesn't make sense; it's not logical, and yet it exists. Everyone can recognize it, but we all have different explanations for it.

Tolstoy once critiqued his socialist friend who claimed to love society. Tolstoy argued that you don't know society; you know individuals like John, Peter, and Clarence. Similarly, you don't know corporations; you know specific companies like Kellogg's. The friend countered by saying that Tolstoy claimed to know God, the most abstract concept. Tolstoy responded that God isn't the most abstract; God is the most intimate, like the love you feel. What we think makes sense, makes sense because of love.

Love escapes understanding and might seem illogical. I don't know if logic is embedded in love, but we can feel it even if we can't make it explicit. It's there; we all know it's there. A mother willing to be run over by a car to protect her child is an example of maternal love and instinct. It's real, yet elusive, because none of us have an appropriate definition for it, and we all explain and feel it slightly differently.

How do you prove something that we know is there but lies beyond explanation? The whole argument that what's paranormal is associated with what's outside the normal isn't necessarily the case. The examples given were technological, which sounds like physicalism. Anytime we see something we can't explain, we might say ghosts are an advanced civilization's technology. I don't think that's the right inference. For instance, acupuncture is not technological; it's medical and physiological.

=> 00:27:05

Sometimes the unexplainable isn't paranormal, just beyond our current understanding.

The discussion began with the challenge of proving something that is known to exist but lies beyond explanation. The argument was made that the paranormal is often associated with what is outside the normal, but this is not necessarily the case. Examples given were technological, suggesting a basis in physicalism. The notion that ghosts might be an advanced civilization's technology was mentioned, but this was not considered the right inference or example. Acupuncture was highlighted as a non-technological, medical, and physiological practice, unlike the technological advancements previously mentioned. It was noted that sham acupuncture nullifies the effects, suggesting a psychological component, though some argue there is a physiological effect that short circuits neural pathways, preventing pain. The speaker admitted to not having personal experience with acupuncture and was merely presenting a counter-argument.

The conversation then shifted to a fascinating chapter in the book "Imminent," specifically about orbs. The speaker recounted a personal experience involving diffuse, green, luminous balls of light, seen by both the speaker and their family. These orbs, described as glowing like a neon sign and varying in size from a volleyball to a baseball, were observed floating down hallways and passing through walls or doors. This phenomenon occurred during the speaker's involvement with the AETA program, and similar encounters were reported by others in the program.

The speaker considered various possible explanations for the orbs, including ball lightning, electrical glitches, or plasma energy. Despite these possibilities, the exact nature of the orbs remained uncertain. Some people suggested a connection to the UAP phenomenon, while others, including indigenous people, attributed it to spirits or ancestors. Scientists often explained it as ball lightning. The speaker included this account in the book to be transparent with readers, despite not knowing its significance.

The orbs were seen both individually and collectively by the family. Sometimes, they all witnessed the orbs together, such as when watching TV in the living room and seeing the orbs float by from the kitchen. The orbs emitted light, illuminating the surrounding area but without a visible center. The speaker reported no physical sensations or fear associated with the orbs, only curiosity and wonderment. The children even giggled about it, while the wife was more curious, asking if everyone else saw it too. There was no sense of dread or fear, which in hindsight, might seem bizarre.

=> 00:32:11

A mysterious green orb floated through our house for years, leaving us more curious than scared.

It was luminous, but you couldn't see anything in the middle. It was emitting light. When it would come by, did you feel anything other than the fear or anxiety associated with something unknown? Nothing. Some people report feeling like a static charge or something, but I felt nothing at all. To be truthful, I wasn't necessarily going to go up and touch it either. Psychologically, there was no fear, just a sense of wonderment and curiosity from my wife and kids. My kids had an easier time, sometimes giggling about it when they were young. My wife was more curious, asking, "What is that? Did you all see that?" We were all sitting right there, and we all saw it too. There was no fear, and I don't think my wife had a sense of fear at all, which, looking back, might be kind of bizarre. If I were to tell you, "Hey, you're going to have a green orb of light in your house today or tonight," there might be some element of fear. But if you're just sitting down, watching TV, not expecting it, and then boom, it just goes by, there's not even time to have fear.

The orb moved at a walking speed, sometimes a fast walking speed, like a brisk walking speed. It never hung around, loitered, or came up to your face. It didn't scan anything; it was just in the house and would go right through a wall or door without making a sound or disturbing anything, like it was cotton. There was no correlation between the time of day, although it mostly happened in the evenings, between five to eight o'clock at night. It would happen randomly in different parts of the house. Some people laughed, saying we had a cemetery nearby, which was about half a block away, but I don't think the two were related. Some Aboriginal people say there's a connection between these luminous balls and ancestors or spirits, but I never came to that conclusion.

The orb's motion was very smooth and straight, like taking a balloon and letting it float down the hallway. It wouldn't zigzag or try to evade anything; it would just float right through. If you saw one in a day, you would not see a second one in the same day. It appeared once every couple of weeks, from 2010 all the way through to probably 2015 or 2016. There would be moments of increased frequency, and then maybe for a month or two, you wouldn't see it. Then, all of a sudden, four days in a row, you'd see it, and then it would be gone.

The orb was not blinding to look at. It was like looking at your TV or a monitor—bright but not hurting your eyes. It was a passive illumination, glowing like a diffuse green ball. As you got closer, it seemed to get thicker in the middle, but there was no interior that I could see. It looked like a neon light, more brilliant in the center and more diffuse towards the edges. There did not seem to be any technology behind it, no device inside. It was like a plasma ball but not as intense or violent.

We didn't set up cameras inside the house. Back in 2010, I was using a BlackBerry with disabled cameras, and we couldn't predict the frequency of the orb's appearances. It wasn't like I had a camera next to me all the time. We didn't have cameras externally either, just an alarm system. Some people might set up cameras if there's a suspected burglar, but I didn't think to set up cameras for the orb. When there's a thunderstorm near your neighborhood, do you set up cameras to look at the lightning? No.

=> 00:37:19

Living in the public eye is exhausting; I crave solitude and privacy.

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 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

=> 00:42:11

Written words are indelible and immortal; they capture our experiences forever.

When you write something down, those words are indelible. I can have a conversation all day long on mainstream media, and it gets converted to ones and zeros, becoming digital and easily forgotten. This is why the ancient Egyptians wrote the Book of the Dead on papyrus, why the Magna Carta was written on parchment, and why our Constitution was written down. The written word is indelible; it lives forever. When I wrote this book, I was able to put my own experiences down, knowing nobody could ever take them away. This was my experience for the record.

More importantly, the book had to go through the Pentagon for a security review. This was crucial because I have a security clearance, and I am not out to violate my security oath. I knew that once it came back from the Pentagon, I could talk about it without fear of going to jail. This fear is very real because I know there are people watching every word I say. If I say something I’m not supposed to, I will be in big trouble. Therefore, I am very conscious, almost paranoid, about what I can and can't say. I don’t want to compromise national security, which has never been my intent.

Once the book came back from the Pentagon, not only were these my words and experiences, but it also served as an endorsement by the government, allowing me to talk about it. However, they did redact information, even though I made every effort to make the book completely unclassified. There were sections the government found too sensitive, and they redacted them. I left those redactions in the book so readers can see there are parts the government doesn’t want them to know. I respect that.

When I noticed the black lines, it was as if I was signaling to the reader. I wanted the reader to know there are still portions of the story the government doesn’t want to be disclosed. I made that deliberate decision on purpose. There have been times when someone from the government said I wasn’t supposed to talk about something, but if it was unclassified, I continued to talk about it without getting in trouble. This shows an opposite narrative to what some in the government have perpetuated.

The government is not a single entity; it is a quilt patchwork of different fiefdoms, such as the intelligence community, the national security community, and those working in international politics and state affairs. These little kingdoms under the bigger umbrella of the US government don’t always share information or agree with one another. This lack of communication is why events like 9/11 happened. Pockets of information were withheld by the FBI, CIA, and DoD, leading to the 9/11 commissions.

When we say "they" are trying to keep things quiet, "they" is not a single organization but pockets of interests, whether it's the military-industrial complex or elements within the intelligence community. These groups often choose not to share information with one another or with the US government, including Congress and the executive branch. This is part of the problem.

There are also people within the government who want this conversation to happen. This is why I still have a security clearance and remain on good terms with many in the government. They believe we’ve kept this under wraps for too long, and it’s now working against our national interests. Other countries are investigating UAP openly without issue. In 2017, when I first became public, the majority of the government did not want me having this conversation. Now, it’s a bit easier; you don’t have to whisper the word UFO in the halls of the Pentagon. You can now just talk about UAP.

=> 00:47:26

The tide is changing: UAPs are real, and the government is starting to talk about it openly.

The discomfort with me discussing this topic isn't limited to a single group of people; there's a wide array of interest. However, there are also individuals who support this conversation. This support is why I still maintain a security clearance and remain on good terms with many in the government. They believe that keeping this information under wraps for too long is now counterproductive to our national interests, especially since other countries are openly investigating UAPs without issue.

In 2017, when I first went public, the majority of the government did not want this conversation to happen. Now, it's easier to discuss UAPs without fear of losing security clearances or facing forced psychological evaluations. The atmosphere has changed; I now receive support at the Pentagon from people who previously avoided me. They acknowledge the importance of removing the stigma and taboo surrounding this topic.

The tide is changing, but there are still elements that dislike me. If I were to have an accident, they wouldn't mourn my loss. This is a reality I continue to face.

Regarding the quote about disclosure, it means the realization that UAPs are real. The government has officially acknowledged their existence, though their origins and intentions remain undisclosed. These objects are not our technology, nor are they believed to be foreign adversarial technology. This acknowledgment is significant, as it confirms that UAPs are real.

There are individuals in the government with knowledge of previous UAP efforts who have informed certain members of Congress. This is why new legislation is crucial; it offers additional protection for whistleblowers. Past whistleblowers faced ridicule, which discouraged others from coming forward. The new legislation aims to provide a secure environment for these individuals to share their information without fear of retribution.

For example, I had a protected communication with the DoD and the Director of National Intelligence. Despite assurances of confidentiality, my entire transcript was released to the public. This breach of trust was a clear signal to other potential whistleblowers to remain silent. The DoD IG's actions were a blatant violation of their policies, intended to discourage others from speaking out.

There is evidence suggesting that UAPs have been present for centuries or even millennia. Conversations with academics in the Vatican and individuals from other religions indicate a long history of UAP reports. Historical accounts, such as a Roman soldier describing an eclipse, reflect the limited context of the time to understand these phenomena.

=> 00:52:13

Ancient sightings and modern UAPs might just be us imposing today's ideas on old reports.

The decision to act in violation of their own policies is a significant issue. If this were any other organization within the DoD, it would be the IG's job to investigate and make a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense on how to punish them. Ironically, they are the ones guilty of this violation.

Historical Context of UAPs: There is substantial information suggesting that UAPs have been present for a very long time. Conversations with chief academics in the Vatican and individuals associated with other religions, which have a long history of UAP reports, reveal that these phenomena were often misunderstood due to the vernacular of the time. For example, a Roman soldier described what they called "eclipses"—flaming Roman shields following them from battle to battle. Similarly, in Nuremberg, Germany, in the 1500s, an entire village witnessed what appeared to be a dogfight between UAPs.

Vatican's Role: The Vatican, often humorously referred to as the oldest CIA in the world, has been collecting intelligence for 2000 years. People reported experiences to priests, some of which were described as miracles and archived by the Vatican. This has resulted in a vast history of UAP information within Judeo-Christian religions. The question now is whether we are seeing an increase in UAP frequency or if modern technology and larger populations simply make these phenomena more noticeable.

Connection to Nuclear and Military Capabilities: There seems to be a definitive connection between UAPs and our nuclear and military capabilities, and even water to some extent. This is as close as we can get to identifying real trends related to UAPs. However, interpreting ancient reports requires thorough textual analysis to avoid imposing modern interpretations onto historical accounts.

National Security Perspective: Assuming UAPs have been here for thousands of years, the question arises: why is it now a matter of national security? Using an analogy, if you find muddy footprints in your locked house, it could be a threat even if nothing was taken. Similarly, if UAPs can enter controlled US airspace and interfere with nuclear capabilities, even a 1% chance of them being a threat is too significant to ignore. It is the responsibility of national security to investigate and ensure these phenomena are not threats.

Capabilities vs. Intent: From a national security perspective, the focus is on capabilities versus intent. While we have observed some capabilities of UAPs, their intent remains unknown. This uncertainty necessitates investigation. However, from a personal perspective, there may not be enough information to suggest that UAPs are a real threat. Nonetheless, claims from the experiencer community about abductions require serious consideration from a national security standpoint.

=> 00:57:18

We need to treat unknown phenomena as potential threats until proven otherwise, and this conversation belongs to everyone, not just the government.

Even if there's only a 1% chance this thing could be here for bad reasons, that's a 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? From a national security perspective, the calculus is super simple: capabilities versus intent. We've seen some of the capabilities, but we have no idea about the intent. So, we don't know if these things are a threat. We do know that they're interested in our nuclear equities.

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. When you talk to people in what they call the experiencer community, some who have claimed they've been, quote-unquote, abducted, I have to put my national security hat back on. 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. That's a felony offense. And by the way, God forbid you were touched without your permission, well, that's assault. So, we can start racking up the felony charges here, right? That's not a good thing.

To go back to your question, is this a threat or is it not a threat? The fact that we don't know 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? 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. 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.

If these beings or whatever powers these crafts have 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. This could be a symbiotic relationship, or it could be a non-parasitic relationship. It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship. 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 test its O2 levels and its migration patterns. Then we get back in the helicopter, fly away. The wildebeest wakes up, wanders over to the watering hole, and says to his friend, 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.

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. 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, involved in certain aspects of this conversation. This conversation involves us not just from a national security perspective, but from a psychological, philosophical, theological, and sociological perspective. 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, rabbi, imam, or your friends around the dinner table. Maybe this is a conversation to have with academics and scientists.

From that perspective, this is why people like you are so valuable in this space. You can open up the aperture, bringing this conversation to the street, 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. This is why having this type of conversation is so important and why people like you play such a vital role. Your audience, 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. 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. Yeah, man, it's ruined my life. It's 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. Let's just say there's easier things. I'd rather have birthed an elephant than have to experience what I experienced. There are multiple reasons for that. But the fight's not over yet. I don't have time to sit down and feel sorry for myself. 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 children.

=> 01:02:31

Despite the pain and challenges, bringing children into the world is worth it for the chance to experience love and beauty.

I want the people to think for us, not the government. 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. I'm not gonna even sob story. But 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 children. They 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 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 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 it takes time. And it takes sensitization. You know, you have a choice, you can jump into the pool, 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 more difficult on the system.

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. 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, served 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. Some of them didn't come back. You know, those are heroes. I'm not. I'm just doing what anybody would do.

=> 01:08:09

I'm just a regular guy doing my best, hoping others will take the torch soon.

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 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. I forget to brush my teeth and probably drink too much coffee. There are people out there that are far more qualified than me, far better than me, and more effective than me to have this conversation. I'm just a blue-collar guy, who was in the army for a little bit, went to college, and served my country. But that doesn't make me special. 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. Some of them didn't come back. Those are heroes. I'm just doing what anybody in my position who took the same allegiance and oath that I did would do. I'm not special, and 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. 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, get weird, and disappear. But until that happens, 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, which will definitely help that process. Hopefully, I become completely obsolete. When people stop asking me for interviews, I know my job is done because they don't care. I'm now boring, right? That would be a great indicator. So, any of you out there that want to interview me, stop calling. We'll be done. I'll try not to take that personally. It's not, I'm just having fun with you, Curt. But the sooner we can get more people out in the open, the better.

I think what the vast majority of people, even those who are on the believing end of the UAP spectrum, mean when they say they would like disclosure is that disclosure is a process. Everything's a process. Events transform, and that's a process to another event. But some events are more critical and significant than others. It doesn't matter how many whistleblowers come out; it could be 3,000 whistleblowers. What people want is some tangible, verifiable evidence, especially given to the scientific community in the open.

At what point does the UAP playlist on this channel, the Theories of Everything channel, distinguish itself from another playlist with the same videos but titled "Cool Story, Bro"? 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." Your audience is a little more sophisticated than that. Let me be blunt, a lot more sophisticated than that. That's why they listen to your show. They are interested in your approach, which is intellectual curiosity. Be mindful of the clickbait that's out there because the world is full of it. You seem to have a very honest debate about this topic and other topics. That's the discourse that needs to occur.

People listen to Theories of Everything because they're not interested in, "Hey, check out this UFO video, bro." That's not how you have disclosure. You have disclosure by having an intellectual, honest conversation about this. Do you remember how we started our conversation? We started talking philosophically; it wasn't even about UFOs. We were having just a philosophical conversation. That intellectual curiosity is what involves people. There's an old saying: small minds talk about people, strong minds talk about things, and great minds talk about ideas. That is your audience. Those are the intellectually curious people out there who want answers and want to think for themselves. You ask the questions you do because, half the time, whether you have the answer or not, you're trying to provoke thought and provoke people to interact with one another in a way they might not have considered before. You're achieving that. And that is not, "Hey, check out this UFO video, bro." 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.

This conversation that we're having, and with your audience right now, is very important as long as we can have a respectful and collegial conversation. Look, you and I do not agree on everything, and that's okay. I don't take it personally, and I'm sure you don't either. We can have a friendly debate on your program without having feelings hurt because both of us are confident in our own intellectual abilities. More importantly, we also respect each other's intellectual abilities.

=> 01:13:25

Respectful debates and mutual respect for each other's knowledge drive meaningful conversations and progress.

Interacting before, and you're achieving that. And that is not, hey, click out, check out this UFO video, bro. 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, is very important as long as we can have a respectful and collegial conversation. Look, you and I do not agree on everything, and that's okay. I don't take it personally, and I'm sure you don't either. We can have a friendly debate on your program without having feelings hurt because both of us are confident in our own intellectual abilities. More importantly, we also respect each other's intellectual abilities.

I know 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. So we're coming at it from different perspectives. Maybe. So, I think that's what works. And that's the difference between a show like yours and a show like some other folks. Again, 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.

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. 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. 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, maybe the past assessments we've had were wrong.

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. People aren't quitting their jobs and running to the hills and 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.

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. 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 ten 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. 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. Forty 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 forty 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, the 1930s is when the idea was really first proposed of a supermassive, infinite mass, no volume space where gravity was so intense that...

=> 01:18:43

Big discoveries like the Higgs boson and black holes took decades, so be patient with scientific progress—it's a marathon, not a sprint.

The pursuit of discovering the Higgs boson, also known as the God particle, required an enormous amount of funding and a collider. This elusive particle existed only theoretically, and the investment to find it was substantial, involving entire countries and taking 40 years. Despite this, if you ask most people about the significance of the Higgs boson, they might not be able to explain it beyond being a subatomic particle. However, its significance is much greater.

Black holes offer another example of long-term scientific endeavor. The idea of a black hole was first proposed in the 1900s, with significant contributions from Pascal and solutions to Einstein's equations, particularly in the 1930s. Einstein himself doubted the existence of such phenomena, considering them purely theoretical. It wasn't until nearly a century later, through the LIGOS experiment, that the existence of black holes and gravitational waves was proven. The LIGOS experiment used a laser interferometer to detect gravitational waves from colliding supermassive black holes, confirming that space and time could indeed ripple.

In the context of UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) disclosure, progress has been relatively swift. Although the push for disclosure has intensified over the past decade, significant strides have been made recently. The establishment of investigative bodies like Arrow and the involvement of Congress are all recent developments. Despite the impatience for faster results, it is important to recognize the rapid progress made in just six or seven years, potentially more than in the previous seventy years. This underscores the difference between doing things right and doing things right now.

The conversation parallels the journey of string theory in physics, where predictions and discoveries often take decades to come to fruition. Just as string theorists have pointed to progress over time, the same can be said for UAP disclosure. The process of changing the human psyche and understanding complex scientific phenomena takes time. While some may feel that disclosure has already been achieved, others believe it may take another hundred years. This variance in perception is valid and highlights the subjective nature of progress.

In scientific discourse, objections and pushbacks are ordinary and necessary for advancement. However, in the realm of UAP disclosure, there are sensitive personalities, and it is important to approach these discussions with respect. The speaker humorously notes that they do not take offense at being compared to a string theorist and acknowledges the importance of time in understanding and achieving scientific breakthroughs.

=> 01:23:50

We only perceive a tiny fraction of the universe, but there's so much more out there beyond our senses.

Someone in your audience may say, "we're already there." Someone else might argue, "we're not going to be there for another hundred years." Both perspectives are valid. I think you're right. By the way, I do not take offense at all by paralleling what I'm saying to other ideas. I keep prefacing that because there are some people—not you—but I'm just used to some people hearing 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. So, I don't want to step on your TOEs. Not at all. In fact, I didn't have any TOEs. You know, I'm at the age now that I'm not even sure if I have TOEs anymore. I haven't seen TOEs in about ten 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." 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. It's very controversial, but that's for another conversation. 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?

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. 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. If I can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, etc., I can't perceive it. Yet, we know if I had the ability to have, let's say, cell phone vision, and I could see in GPS, 5G, 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. 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. Then you have the scalability of the universe, which I won't get into here, but the universe is enormous. 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 on all the beaches of the world. So, think about that for a minute, what that actually means. We only perceive, because of how tiny we are to the universe, a very, very small fraction of what's really out there.

Some people have claimed that remote viewing, some scientists, is that human consciousness, not the intellectual thought process, but what makes us us and self-aware and sentient, is a quantum process in the brain. It involves a quantum—when I say quantum, I mean 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—pretend this is 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. 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. 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. This may even 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. Some people had posited that perhaps some people experience 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.

=> 01:29:12

Ever had a moment where you thought of someone and they called you? Some say it's remote viewing, where our brains might be picking up on signals we can't see. Science or coincidence? You decide.

At the time, there was a conversation about the nature of time and how some people posited that the present might include more elements of the future and the past, 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 decide to call her. When you do, she says, "Oh, you know what? I was just thinking about you. I was just going to call you." 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, by their brainwave function. Some are now saying that 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 or a neurologist, so I would be completely speaking out of context.

When you get into the conversation of remote viewing and nonverbal communication, I'm pretty confident it's based in science. 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. Some people have said that is the way it works. And other people have said, this is the way time works. And within my own experience, that's my observation. But again, let me caveat, I could be wrong. It's a conversation with so little known about it, and it's not always accurate. There's a lot of error and interpretive error there, and it's very subjective. So, I can't tell you definitively, other than through my own experience, that it's real and legitimate.

There are some incredible statistical findings that the government has used, such as finding a downed Russian supersonic aircraft that crashed in Africa near the Congo. 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. 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. I can't sit here and tell you 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. I'm not qualified to have that conversation.

Now, let's start with physical implants. What are they? Let me explain it from an immunological perspective, because that I do have some qualifications to discuss. The body has an autonomic immune response when a foreign object is introduced into the body that it does not recognize. It's the reason why people with transplants have to take drugs to suppress the natural immune response to something foreign in their body. I've personally held a sample that came from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I've also been aware of previous similar samples. A surgeon from the Department of Veterans Affairs removed something from a former US service member who claimed to have had an interaction with a UAP. When they tried to remove this object, it moved under its own power, under its own metabolic capability, trying to avoid detection.

Why is that significant? Because there was no immuno cascade response. For example, parasites like spirochetes or certain trypanosomes are highly motile and create an enormous trail of destruction through an immuno cascade response or a white blood cell response as they move around. That was not the case with this foreign object, which appeared to have encapsulated itself with what looked like human tissue, possibly from the host. It had a small metallic device inside, not necessarily a chip, but a piece of metal. Around this encapsulated area, there were what appeared to be Morgellon fibers. The term Morgellon fibers comes from the old wizard Morgan le Fay, the sister of the wizard in King Arthur.

=> 01:34:32

A mysterious object with its own metabolism was found under someone's skin, raising questions about its origin and nature.

Trypanosomes have this capability. They're highly motile and have this little tail that they whip around, moving throughout the body. When they do that, they create an enormous trail of destruction through 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 what looked like human tissue, maybe from the host, from the person. Yet, it had 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.

Around this encapsulated area, there were these fibers referred to as Morgellon fibers. Morgellon fibers come from the term derived from the old wizard, Morgan le Fay, who was the sister of the wizard and King Arthur. When under scrutiny, these Morgellon fibers 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 alarming is the fact that one of the forensic pathologists looking at this sample said that it had its own metabolism, meaning it still moved underneath the microscope when they were studying it.

Metabolism requires life. Anything that is alive gets its energy, usually 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 the citric acid cycle. That is a metabolism, basically. That is how we derive energy from consumption. Anything that moves requires energy to move. So you either have to have an external energy supply or 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. For example, the phone that you have transforms energy and 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. Otherwise, you're just making an analogy saying it's metabolism-like. But this is technological, not biomechanical. Totally different. This is a technological device deriving energy through a 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, the conversion of a biological process through biochemistry to derive energy.

There is 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. They actually went to the CIA and to some doctors, and they were able to extract a foreign object. 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. 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 are a lot of these examples. I know another one, a good buddy of mine, we worked very closely 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. Biological effects are 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. We could continue talking for another couple of 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 may be 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. 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. You can't negotiate with it, you can't barter with it. It feeds off of the pain and suffering of other individuals. So, yes, I do believe the soul is real. I believe most people have it. Maybe it's absent in other individuals.

Alright, sir. I know you got to get going. As always, it's an honor and privilege. Thank you, a huge thank you to your amazing audience for tuning in and allowing me to yammer on. Hopefully, I didn't put anyone to sleep. Maybe I did. Hopefully, I put some insomniacs to sleep with 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 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. 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 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. Finally, if you'd like to support more conversations like this, more content like this, then do consider visiting patreon.com/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.