Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. The Joe Rogan Experience.

Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. What's up, Luke?

How are you? Hey, sir. I'm doing better than I deserve.

Well, that's a good statement.

There's an old military saying, Any day above ground is a good day.

There you go. Tell everybody what your official job was.

Wow. I had a lot of official jobs.

With the government in regards to, you know.

You know. You know those things.

Sure. One of these things. That's a, allegedly, that's a replica of the one that Bob Lozard worked on, the sport model.

I've heard that before.

Designs by Perry. The E in Perry is a three. And he's a dude on Instagram that sent me that. Very cool. Pretty dope, right?

Yeah.

We have another one that looks just like it at the mothership at the Comedy Club. When you walk in, you walk right through a giant suspended UFO. Very cool. So obviously I have issues.

Well, you know what? This is a neat town. I was strolling the streets yesterday, and I came across the Texas Toy Museum. Now, I'm not one for museums, usually, but something I saw was automatically transported me back to when I was a kid. I'm an old guy, so I grew up '70s and early '80s. How old are you? 52.

I'm 57.

You are? Yeah. Man. Well, I look 10 years older than you. I got a lot of hard miles on me, unfortunately.

I do, too. Believe it or not.

Well, you'll have to share with me your secret, because unfortunately, if I tell people This is as good as it gets. I'm about as attractive as a cement truck. After the army, I went into the federal service and had a lot of jobs, mostly in counterintelligence, which is looking basically what the bad guys know about us from an intelligence perspective. And in 2008, I changed my job. One of my jobs, I was working at the Director of National Intelligence, which for most people may or may not know. It's outside of DC and where I lived I was on the other side of DC, living on a little island in the Chesapeake Bay. And so my commute was terrible. I mean, it really frankly. Did you have to take a ferry every day? No, but it was about a three-hour commute each way because you have to go right past Langley.

Why didn't you move closer?

Well, I wanted to give my kids a really good quality of life, and I did not want to work in the city and then expose them to the craziness, if that makes sense. Especially DC.

Dc is crazy.

Especially with kids, right?

So anybody- Kind of nuts that they don't clean up the capital of the fucking country.

It seems like- You know, brother, it's- It's indicative of the rot the whole country is involved in. It's such a disgrace because you bring these foreign dignitaries, and the first thing they see is just the dereliction of it. And it's a very poor reflection on really what the American spirit is about. But that's for another conversation.

It seems like they could fix that, especially in that place.

Yeah, one would hope, right? Yeah.

I mean, Jesus Christ, it's the nation's capital.

Yeah. So I was offered a job to go back to the Pentagon in 2008 for a little while and basically run the the integration between national level intelligence information and local and state and tribal law enforcement. So After 9/11, the country realized that we had a significant problem getting national level information down to the cops on the ground that could actually do something about it. Why? Because he didn't have security clearances, so they weren't allowed to be provided that information. One of my jobs was to try to help fix that. Shortly thereafter, I got there in 2008. It was probably early 2009 is when I was approached by two individuals who came to me and they said, Look, we'd like to consider you for a program that we're part of. It's a very nuanced program, very secretive program. Now, when you're in the government, you hear that all the time. People look at me, they say, Oh, you have a secret clearance or a top secret clearance. Millions of people have some security clearance in the government, and a lot of people have a top secret clearance. So it's really not that uncommon. It's really not that sexy.

So you didn't really know what you're getting involved in?

I didn't at all. Not at all. In fact, so, great question. So no, I didn't know what I was getting involved in. And after several conversations, it occurred to me that their interest in me was some of my background I had. In my early career as a special agent in counterintelligence, I was protecting technologies, critical technologies, critical avionic technologies, for example, and some aerospace technologies. So think of first-stage solid rocket motor booster technology, Tomaha Cruise missiles, stuff like that, Apache Longbow. So advanced avionics was something I was already familiar with. And at the same time, I had the counterintelligence background. So I was asked to come in and run the counterintelligence and security aspect for a particular program, at which time I had no idea what the program even was. So what does counterintelligence and security What does security mean? It just simply means making sure that our adversaries, like Russia and China, can't penetrate our organization and steal our secret. That's all it is. It's a fancy word for just saying security, information security and operational security. So I remember I had a meeting. They brought me to go see their director, and it was in a...

I would tell you the location, but I was told by the Pentagon, not to say the specific location of this office, but it was somewhere in the DC area. It was a facility that wasn't known publicly to be an intelligence, to have an intelligence office in there. So I can't say the specific location. But I went there and I went up to the top floor. I think it was the top floor, almost the top floor. And I met for the first time a gentleman named James Lekatsky, Dr. James Lekatsky, PhD. And this guy was the epitome of a rocket scientist. And when I say the epitome, he was probably, and there's no exaggeration, the number one rocket scientist in the US government. Now, he's a humble guy, so he'll probably tell you he wasn't, but he really was an amazing human being and very smart. And after a very brief conversation, he looked at me and he said, I want to ask you a question. Okay, sir. And he said, What do you think about UFOs? I said, Well, I answer truthfully. He said, I don't. And he said, Well, what do you mean? You don't believe in them?

And I said, No, That's not what I said. You asked me what do I think about UFOs? Frankly, I don't think about UFOs. I really don't have the luxury to think about them. I'm too busy working intelligence operations and whatnot. And I remember him looking over his glasses and very seriously staring me straight in the eye and says, well, don't let your personal bias get the best of you, because what you may learn may surprise you and may challenge any preconceived notion of what you think something is or is not. And so let me backtrack for a minute. I've never been a UFO guy. People come up like, oh, you're that UFO guy. I'm really not. I was never really into the science fiction as a kid. I wasn't into the Star Trek or the Star Wars like Like a lot of people were. So that was not my disposition. I grew up, I guess, playing GI Joe and stuff like that. So that wasn't my background. And certainly in college, I studied microbiology and immunology with a focus on paracytology, not paracycology, the study of parasites, paracytology. So the scientific method has always been something that has been near and dear to me.

And then, of course, later on as a special agent, When you're conducting investigations, for me, I was always very fact-driven, the old gumshoe, if you will, just the facts man, guy. So I was never really prone to any type of, if you will, affinity towards science fiction or even the UFO topic. I just never really considered it.

So he says this to you. And then we're talking about what, 16 years ago?

15, 16 years ago? Yeah, I do the math, right? So it's 2024, early 2009.

So this is the beginning of your journey towards this bizarre subject of whatever these things are. Yeah. So you don't have any real previous interest. He says this to you. And then what's the steps after that? How do you get introduced to this idea that these things are alien crafts?

Yeah. So great question. So for some people, there's two ways people process this information, at least in my experience, and there may be others. This has just been my observation. Some people have this revelatory moment, this epiphany where it's this aha moment where, oh, my gosh, this is real, right? For other people, it's more of a slow, gradual realization. And I think for me, I was probably in the second category, more of a slow, gradual realization that this isn't a cover for something else. This is really about About UFOs.

How do you first get introduced to these things?

Well, I didn't get introduced to these things. First of all, I was introduced to the reporting. There was these official reports that we were getting from the field. There's official videos and whatnot. That describe vehicles doing things, maneuvering in ways that frankly outperform anything we have in our inventory. Now, keep in mind, my background was at some point in aerospace. I knew all the capabilities of an F-16 or, for example, an F-22 or the F-35. And at the end of the day, as advanced as they are, they're still conventional aircraft. They still have the old... There's an adage they use for jet engines. It may seem a little awkward here, but it's suck, squeeze, bang, and blow. That's what a jet engine does. Forgive me, that's what it does. It's a conventional type engine. Of course, you have a propeller, too, that can displace and whatnot. These vehicles were different. These vehicles, for the most part, didn't have any type of associated characteristic that you or I or any normal person would associate with the plane, with an airplane, an aircraft, and yet it's flying. How does an airplane work? Well, let's say this cigar, for example, is an airplane, and there's four fundamental forces.

And so you have thrust, lift, drag, and weight. And if you understand those, you can build wings, and you create lift, and you can fly. And then you have to have an engine for that thrust and whatnot. The things that our military pilots were encountering didn't have that. They didn't have wings. They didn't have rudders and ailerons and control surfaces. They didn't have cockpits. They didn't have engine. No obvious signs of propulsion. They were doing things and maneuvering in ways that frankly defied anything that we had in our inventory. We were pretty certain the enemies didn't have either. Our adversary didn't have these technologies either. Even more perplexing is that they were being encountered over controlled US airspace and over sensitive military installations. From that perspective, you've got a real national security concern on your hands.

You said video. Do you remember the first thing that you saw?

Boy, there's so many. I think part of the challenge is that most people here in this country, they're familiar with the three videos that have been famously released by the Pentagon. The Go Fast, Fleer. Go Fast, Gimbal, Fleer, correct. But those are the least compelling of all the videos that the government has. Those were unclassified. And so those were the ones, those were the low hanging fruit that could be released to the general public. There's stuff out there that's like 4K ultra high definition. So when you see something like that from a certain military platform or a certain military equity or an intelligence collection platform, you have to look at that and say, well, what is that? What the hell is that? More importantly, that data is being backed up by radar data. You've got electro-optical data like gun camera footage or pot or clear video, and then you've got radar data that is actually confirming what the video is picking up. Then you've got eyewitnesses that are also watching it. You've got trained observers, pilots that can recognize the silhouette between an SU-22 and a MiG-25 from 20 miles away and make a split second decision.

Is it friend or foe? Do I kill it or do I let it live? And they're reporting it. So you have now three separate, if you will, collection platforms, the human eye being one of them. You've got gun camera footage and you've got radar footage all describing the same event at the same place at the same time under the same circumstances. And so keep in mind with my background as a former special agent in counterintelligence, if this was in front of a jury, as I said before, I think we're well beyond reasonable doubt. That is something there. I mean, that is real. That's not an atmospheric aberration. It's not an anomaly. That is something there. It's tangible.

Was there an aha moment for you? Like, the first thing that you saw that you looked at and you go, What the fuck?

No. Like I said, for me, it was more slow and gradual. What was the first thing that you saw that made you realize that there's something going on here that defies conventional wisdom or conventional understanding of propulsion systems? I think for me, one of the most compelling moments was when I attended... Let me go back in a memory bank. I attended a dinner with some individuals who were already associated with the larger umbrella program called OSAP. I attended dinner at a Washington DC hotel, and a Brazilian general attended this dinner. The dinner was sponsored by a gentleman named Robert Bigelow, the famous billionaire hotel. Yeah, I've met him.

I've met him on the podcast.

Yeah. And by the way, he's an American hero. He's a Patriot. He is brilliant. And people don't realize that he funded, self-funded a lot of this stuff on behalf of the US government by himself. He paid it to do it himself. He really is an American Patriot, in my opinion. But anyways, he flew in this guy named General Uchoa. General Uchoa was a Brazilian general, very senior in the Brazilian government, who led an investigation about an event that occurred over several days.

Is this the Virginia incident?

No, it's actually called Colares. Oh, another one. In Brazil, yeah. And the Colares incident. And they had an overwhelming number of witnesses, and there was even some video and photographs that they had produced internally there to Brazil. And it was overwhelming, the evidence. And for me, it was more listening to him and explain the concern they had and some of the interactions the the Brazilian government officials had with these UAP that really I left there that dinner scratching my head and really at that point beginning to absorb the profoundness that we're dealing with something that is real. This is not a cover plan for some other technology we're trying to protect.

Did he show you this video evidence?

I was sitting at a table like this. There was a whole lot of people at the table. He was sitting at the head. I was way down over here, and he brought a Manila envelope, and he was showing photographs to everybody, and some reporting as well. I think he brought, if I recall correctly, his daughter to translate, because I don't think English was very good. It wasn't his language. But for me, that was, and I think for one of my colleagues, too, which I probably can't say his name right now because he hasn't come out publicly yet. But we both left that dinner, I think scratching our heads and saying, wow, this is legit. This is real. The US government is interested in this, and there is interest by our government. After that dinner, attending more meetings and beginning to read the reports, the field reports, and speaking to the scientists, it became evident to me that this was a very serious issue. We had near misses over some of our areas of operation. In some cases, literally, these UAP splitting a combat formation. Now, if you know how planes fly, they fly very close in a combat situation.

These things were splitting the formation. That there were reports being provided through the Air Force, mostly through the Navy, about air safety issues, where pilots literally could run into these things. They were pervasive. It wasn't like a one z and two z.

Was there ever an incident where a pilot or a jet did run into something?

Not that I'm aware of what I can tell you that there has been incidents where there appears to be some provocation, where one of these things seems to be Maybe coming deliberately close to an aircraft, not necessarily trying to hit it, but maybe trying to demonstrate performance capabilities. There was one video in particular. I haven't been cleared by the Pentagon, so let me see if I can speak about it in in real terms. There's a pilot flying, and you can hear on the radio this chatter back and forth. Do you see it? Do you have eyes down on it? Pilot, no. Negative. No eyes down. Okay, you should have it on a radar. Yeah, I got something on a radar, but no eyes, no. I can't see it. And then all of a A sudden, a craft, an object, goes whizzing right by the cockpit. I mean, probably like 15 feet away. And you can hear the pilot, the expletives of the pilot. I won't see it here on air, but you can imagine what a pilot would say when they're very, very surprised. That was one.

Can you describe what he saw?

I think I can. I want to be careful that I don't... Because again, what I have approval to talk about, I've spoken about. Let me preface this by saying I still have my security clearance, and on occasion, I still will consult for the US government. And so I want to be very mindful. I have no problem going up all the way to the line. Right. Understood. But if I put up a I got a pinkie toe over that line, they're going to get me. But it was a wedge-shaped craft. Wedge-shaped. Wedge-shaped. Like, triangular, but like a wedge. I don't know how to describe it. I could draw it for you if you want.

Sure, you can. Yeah. Give me a second. So just like a wedge that you would like split wood with, like that a wedge?

Yeah, but it was silver, metallic and like a diamond, maybe. That's a better way to describe it. Like a diamond, almost. And it looked like that, really. It's just a little...

And that shape is something that's been reported multiple times.

So that was the first time I ever saw something like that. To me, it was... Keep in mind, I never followed this topic. So every time I'm seeing one of these videos, I'm seeing something for the very first time. So lenticular, whether it's a disc-shaped craft or it's a wedge-shaped craft or a diamond-shaped craft or a triangle-shaped craft, boom Rang in some cases. These were all new to me. So it was very, very perplexing. And obviously to our military pilots, it was very concerning. And I think when you look at some of the gold standard cases we had, like the Nimitz, for example, that case, you have this overwhelming number of sensors looking at the same thing going on that the pilots are reporting. And for me, that was most compelling. Like I said, more than... Eyewitness testimony is important, but at the end of the day, grandma seeing some lights in her backyard doesn't really do it for me. I'm a fact-oriented guy. I've got to see the data. Let the data provide us the information we need so then we can make a conclusion. If you start seeing UFOs in the sky everywhere, well, chances are they're probably not.

It's a quadcopter, it's a balloon, it's an aircraft. It could be all sorts of things. That's why I think from our perspective, having the fundamental categories, the observables, we call them, was so important because they are so beyond what a normal aircraft, a traditional conventional aircraft can do. At that point, you realize you're dealing with some beyond next generation technology. And that's when it gets compelling for guys like me, right? When you're seeing performance capabilities that far exceed, far surpass anything we have. And I'm talking even the very, very best technology we have, we don't come close to that.

And no visible means of propulsion?

No. Or obvious signs of lift, right? And not even a cockpit. You have to scratch your head and see what's going on. Interestingly, I share- So no windows? No windows. Well, in some cases, no windows. Other cases, people will report what they think are windows. They say, Oh, I saw windows. But at the end of the day, we're looking that in terms of what we think a window is, right? So you see a car, you see windows, or a plane, those are windows. I didn't see any information to suggest that there were actually windows, even though an eyewitness might describe a window, because we are describing in something of something that we recognize. And so we say, Oh, that might be a window or whatnot, but it might not be a window. I want to be very careful to I say there were no windows. There could have been, but the ones that I was privy to that I saw, I didn't see any obvious signs of a windshield or a window. I didn't see anything like that. I saw vehicles that were doing things that just left you scratching your head. They were real, like I said, because you're backing it up with all this other sensor data.

Some of the best sophisticated sensor data, by the way, at the time on the planet that we had, like the SPI1 radar and the E2 Hawk-Eye and some of the other capabilities and technical capabilities that other intelligence agencies have that I can't discuss here. This is the stuff that helps us put, forgive the analogy here, but warheads on foreheads. When we're going to take a strike against a terrorist, these are the same sensor systems we use to prosecute that war, that act, both in combat and not in combat. So that for me was very compelling. And it's Lots and lots of videos. People think that there's only three videos. Those don't even scratch the surface. There are hundreds and hundreds of videos that the intelligence community and the Department of Defense have on these things.

Has there ever been any discussion about releasing any of these?

I don't want to speak on behalf of the government. Colleagues of mine, like Chris Mellon, who have been very, very, very active in this topic and have actually been responsible for a lot of what we see now happening in Congress, has been championing that. He is the one who says, Look, we need more videos to come out so the American people can see for themselves what we've been dealing with. When I had Chris Mellon in the Pentagon, he saw those videos. And up to that point, when he was a senior person at the Pentagon, like very senior, one of his jobs as the senior intelligence official, he asked, Hey, do we have any UAP, UFO videos, investigations, anything like that? And he told him no. So when he came to the Pentagon and saw what we actually did have, you can imagine someone like Chris Mellon, he wasn't very happy. He was actually pretty disappointed, saying, Why was I told no? I can see these videos. Clearly, I see the reports. Clearly, this is something that we're interested in as a Department of Defense. And yet when I was one of the senior guys, he got the Heisman, right?

He was being told no. And so that was, I think, a point for him that really That's probably the spark. I don't want to speak for my friend Chris, but I suspect that was probably the spark that got him to the point where he said, Okay, we have to do something about this. This is BS.

Yeah. When I was talking to him, it seemed like that was his perspective, that this was something that really should be, at least in some way, shape or form, released to the general public. Just to solidify the conversation, just to let people know these are real. This is a real thing. Have you seen the one that people were filming just a couple of days ago in Palmdale, California?

Yeah, I think they said those were drones, though. If I'm not mistaken, I think the jury came out. If I'm not mistaken, I could be wrong, that it was somebody using drones with some LED lights, which by the way- You can do wild things with drones now.

Have you seen the ones? You absolutely can. So they can create images in the sky?

100 %.

With dragons and stuff with drones?

Absolutely. So we have to be careful. As our own technology begins to advance, there's going to be pranksters out there. And that's one of the things that for me in ATIP, I always went into an investigation or a case assuming that it was manmade. Until I saw the compelling data that said otherwise, we were always going to assume or presume that this was something that was conventional. It was probably misidentified, But it wasn't exotic. And then once the data suggests otherwise, then you go into that other mode of, okay, now what are we dealing with? Again, especially on the backdrop of the five performance observables, that's when you start to say, okay, this is not an F-16. This is not a Chinese aircraft. This is something different.

What is the oldest video footage or film footage that you have ever seen or heard?

Civilian or military?

It doesn't matter. What is the oldest where it's like, Okay, what the fuck is this? What's the oldest stuff that's compelling? The point is, what I'm trying to get at is a lot of people point to the possibility that there's some a secret program, some secret propulsion, gravity-based, whatever it is, that's completely different than conventional propulsion systems that the US government has, and that they're operating these drones. And the problem with that is always the Kenneth Arnold sightings, the Roswell, the sightings from a time where that technology just wasn't available at all.

Joe, I'm so glad you asked me that question. It just so happens I brought you something. Oh.

When the glasses come out, you know it's getting serious.

No, it means I'm old. Me too. Yeah. I'm going to provide you a document here. It's a short document, but the portions, I think, are highlighted that you're going to want to pay attention to. Let's see here. Okay. If this is just for you and if your audience is interested, it's this paragraph here you're going to want to read, and then it's the last one that's highlighted. Then take a look at the date and the subject line.

This is it right Jamie brought it up here.

Oh, great.

Which one do I want to read?

Paragraph 6 right now. If you want to scroll down to paragraph 6, there you go.

This summary of observations of aerial phenomenon has been prepared for the purpose of reemphasizing and reiterating the fact that the phenomena have continuously occurred in the New Mexico skies during the past 18 months and are continuing to occur. Secondly, that these phenomena are occurring in the vicinity of sensitive military and government installations.

If So you wanted to go back to paragraph 2, there you go.

The highlighted part?

Yeah, the Observers of.

The Observers of those Phenomenon include scientists, special agents of the Office of Special Investigations, the US Air Force, airline pilots, military pilots, Los Alamos security inspectors, military personnel, and many other persons of various occupations whose reliability is not questioned.

And now scroll to the top, the very top of that document.

It says that it was determined above The summary of observations of aerial phenomenon in the New Mexico area, December 1948 to May 1950.

And the date of that document, if you scroll a little bit higher, you are going to see the date of that memo.

1950. Yes, sir. May 25th, 1950. It says that it was determined that the frequency of unexplained area phenomena in the New Mexico area was such that an organized plan of reporting these observations should be undertaken. Right. So this is the beginning of Project Blue Book?

So this is the recognition that we have a serious problem over our sensitive military installations. This is nothing new. This is not 1970s reverse engineered technology or some special technology.

1950, they're talking about this.

We had just broken the sound barrier, and we had not yet entered into space. And we have these things that are performing in ways that, frankly, we can't replicate. I brought a few more of these later on to emphasize that point you just brought up at some point, if you're interested. But it highlights that these are official government documents through official government personnel, raising the alarm bells, just like we did in OSAP and ATIPS. And so this is nothing new. Now, if you want to look at this from an adversarial perspective, our governor has already said, That's not ours. If you look at a 1950 Saber jet, for example, it wasn't even supersonic. And yet these things that we are observing, in some cases, are doing, I brought some more documents here, multiples of mock and doing velocities and doing things that we frankly could not do back then, and frankly, we still can't do in some cases. But temporarily speaking, the only two countries in the world may have a chance of doing something like that would be Russia and China. And now, in 1950, where was China? It was in the middle of a famine at the time, and where was Russia?

Russia was trying to develop develop the atomic bomb and still was using horse-drawn carts for a lot of their military operations. So temporarily speaking, it doesn't make sense. This is the analogy I've used before, Joe, that it would be like the Carter going into King Tut's tomb for the very first time in the 1920s, discovering King Tut's tomb, and when he goes in, he finds a fully assembled 747 jet. It doesn't make sense. Temporially speaking, they did not have that technology. So is it possible, and I'll be very careful what I say, that the US government has some exotic technology? Well, my answer is I sure hope so, because we want to have an advantage over our adversaries. But in 1950, that wasn't the case.

Right. And do they have any film of these crafts from New Mexico?

There is film of many craft, and not just New Mexico per se, but over many military installations. I got another one for you. I'll provide you. You don't want to have to waste your time reading it, but I think you'll appreciate this. Take a look at the date of this and who it's to and who it's from. I think you'll find the subject line very interesting.

Okay, which one? What part am I reading here?

Just to highlight a portion so you can see the top of the document, who it's from, who it's to in the date, and what the subject line is.

Director of Special Investigate. What does it say?

It's hard because it's all scratchy. Yeah, it's an old reproduction of official government document. Bottom line, it's a document from J. Edgar Hoover.

Oh, I see.

From the director of the FBI.

Department of the Air Force, the Pentagon. Yeah, J. Edgar Hoover, Director of Federal Bureau of Investigations.

And read the subject line of that memo.

Flying... God, it's hard to read because it's all screwy.

Flying Disks, I should say. Flying Disks over the Savannah. There's a sensitive facility that we had where we were doing atomic development.

Yeah, flying disks, reportedly seen in the vicinity of the something, river plant?

Savannah River plant. Yes, sir. Okay. That's correct.

And so that's just- Atomic Energy Commission.

Yeah. And the date of that being 1952, right?

So this is verified?

That was released by the government. Those are all official. All these are official US government documentation that anybody can pull up anytime When they want.

Did they let you see any of these ancient films, these films from the 1950s of these things?

So great question. Our focus was really more modern time. It was more like taking a picture of where we are now.

But wouldn't you want to just... If you really think this thing is from somewhere else, the best example of it definitely not being ours is something from the 1950s.

Sure. And anecdotally, that's great. But keep in mind on the backdrop of national security, when you go to a general and you see- Let me just clean this up, by the way.

It's crazy. It's like half the things are blotted out and scratchy.

Yeah, that's Uncle Sam for you. When you're going to a general-It makes me suspicious. No, you can find it.

I know, but it was just like...

Yeah, the government released that. They admitted it.

What a fucking shitty old 1920 fax machine.

Look at that. Remember, they were using typewriters back then, too, right? And the ink smears. Balachi. Yeah, Balachi. And I'm sure the original is probably much cleaner, but that's what the government put out online for people to review. So when you're going back To answer your question, when you are going to a general or you're going to a military leader about this topic, if you go back to anecdotal stuff like, Oh, this is something from 1950s, they're not interested. They're like, Look, what is going on now? What is the I'm getting a threat now? I've got a carrier strike group out in the water. I'm getting reports. These things are coming in and interrogating the ship. I want to see that. I want to see the videos. I want to see the reporting. I want to see the deck logs and what the commander says. I want to know the pilots. I want to talk to the pilots. The radar operators. That's their focus. They're not interested. By the way, we've tried a few times, and the further back in time we go, the less interested they were. It was really the current information. What's going on now?

I'm not interested in what happened yesterday.

They're just taking a pragmatic approach.

Yeah. It's understandable from a military perspective, a national security perspective. The other stuff is interesting, and from the general public's perspective, they're interested. But from a national security perspective, they're like, Hey, man, that was three decades ago. That makes sense. I need now. It is understandable. A little frustrating because you want to demonstrate, look, boss, this is nothing new. This is a repeated pattern that we're seeing here, but they're more interested in the here and now.

So do they have repeated You need footage because you're saying three decades, but obviously we're talking about 1950. Do they have stuff from the 1980s, stuff from the 1990s?

There was reporting. Yeah. Again, I got to be careful because some of that stuff I haven't been cleared to talk about. But there are reports we call Foreign Intelligence, FI, Foreign Intelligence Reports. I can't say where or who or anything like that, but on classified systems where we know without a shadow of a doubt, UAPs were encountered in other countries, adversarial countries. Why? Because we spy on them and we know. Again, I can't say how we know and whatnot because I get in trouble.

So we know this is not a United States phenomenon.

Precisely. It is not a US only phenomenon. And in fact, in other countries, whether in Latin America, South America, or in Europe, or Russia, China. There is an extreme interest in this topic. In fact, the Chinese, it was in the newspaper, I think it was a China Morning Sun. There's something called the Five Continents Initiative, where allegedly, they were trying to broker a deal with the United Nations that would allow China to run all the UFO investigations for the United Nations. We also know that Russia, they've come out and said, Yeah, we're interested in this topic. There were some released old KGB footage that showed MIG interactions with these UAP. And there's also in Latin America, you have the same thing. If you go to Latin America now, they don't have the same level of stigma and taboo associated with this topic like we do. And so they talk freely about it. They have no problem talking. In fact, when I was in the Patagonia area of Argentina, there is a near town called Barreloche and Las Lajas, one of the chief of police was telling me that there's an area, they're called La Miranda.

La Miranda means to see to view. And they call it that the town. And because UAP are so frequent there, that local law enforcement actually built an observatory, an observation post to look at these things because they were so frequent. So this is not a new phenomenon. This is something that's been around for quite a long time. The problem is, in my opinion, and I could be wrong, but this is my assessment, the reason why it's so difficult to have the conversation here is because our government had placed so much emphasis and interest trying to stigmatize this topic that it almost worked too well. Now we're at the point where we should be having this conversation and people still don't want to because they think it's crazy. You think of tinfoil hats and Elvis on the mothership, when in reality, we're talking about a real national security issue. I mean, these things are here. Joe, you have a former director of National Intelligence, Radcliffe, a former director of CIA, Brenan. You have former presidents all coming out and saying, Yeah, there's something to it. It's real. Now, what it is, where it's from and all that stuff, Earth.

I'm not sure we're quite ready to go there yet, but the acknowledgement is, Hey, man, yeah, this is real. It's not ours, and we probably should do something about it.

If we go back to the history of the debunking of it, like the Project Blue Book stuff, Jay Allen Panic, after he had left Project Blue Book, he became a proponent of UFO disclosure. During Project Blue Book, it was his job to essentially dismiss everything and to come up with some a reason, swamp gas, mass hallucinations, whatever it was, to attribute all these sightings to something that was very easy to explain. Is there any documentation or any discussion of why they did that, why they chose to debunk everything?

Yeah. My understanding is you have to look at where America was at the time they were doing these investigations. It was at the height of the Cold War, right? And despite what some people think, the Cold War wasn't very at all. It was pretty hot. We had Russia and the United States engaging in these proxy wars. Neither side wanted to let the other side know what we had and what we didn't know. If you have these UAP coming in and out, the last thing you want to do is tell the other side, broadcast, this is what we've learned from it, and more importantly, this is what we don't know about it. Both sides were keeping this very quiet, but there was an interesting agreement at the classified level, I believe in the late '60s, where there was this relationship with the United States, we were putting up our Northern tier radar system to detect then Soviet Union ICBMs, and they were doing the same thing because none of us really trusted each other. But we trusted each other enough to say, Look, before you hit that button, if you see something coming over the horizon, before you hit that button and launch, give us a call because it might be a UFO.

We don't want to start World War III because either side mistakes a UFO for an ICBM. That's how serious they the topic. I mean, that's a real memo that existed between the United States and Russia. So that is an indicator how much both sides took this topic seriously.

Jesus. And so when Philip Corso was dismissing all these different things. Did they have anything, any film footage, any stuff from that time from Project Blue Book that was definitively not ours?

I'm I'm aware of the fact that people say it does exist and people have been briefed on it. I wasn't privy to that. I was, again, more focused on the here and now. I was aware of people who had attended certain meetings, very senior-level meetings, where that was discussed, where they saw certain footage, but I'm hearing that secondhand. I did not see the old footage. My focus was more on the current, what's going on now. But back to your point, why was this effort to try to create so much stigma taboo So I think it was because of that. I think because you had Russia and US at this weird stalemate where neither one wanted to tell the other side what we know and what we didn't know about UAP. And really, I think the focus from a national security perspective, let's say you're a general and I'm a general, look, we've got a real Cold War going on here right now. As long as these things aren't coming in and zapping my people, that's going to be my focus right now. That's a real potential threat that I have to deal with now. I've got Russia pointing nukes at me, and I'm pointing nukes at them at any time we could launch, let's focus on that more so than the other stuff.

And that has been my observation on why they didn't want to address the problem, the challenge, openly with the general public back. And they also were worried. There was several studies that suggested that most people would be very uncomfortable with that idea that there's something else in the cosmos potentially, or even right here on Earth, and that it would create some societal disruption. They They didn't want to cause panic. They were afraid that people would think of a run on Wall Street. When people get panicked, they do strange things sometimes. And I think the government was very worried about that.

What's the most compelling modern thing that you've seen? Oh, my God.

I can't talk about it, unfortunately. This is my frustration, Joe, because I know what I've seen. I know what my colleagues have seen, right? And to this day, there's video that's coming in on a regular routine basis that is very, very compelling.

How do they hide this stuff from the general Well, we have classified systems. We hide a lot of things. But how is it getting filmed? Is any of it getting filmed by the general public or is all this military stuff?

So let me backtrack a little bit. This, there's a general public that is filming stuff. But from a Department of defense perspective, our focus, now, Aero is a different story, but when I was in the government, we had to be very, very careful of something we called intelligence oversight. Back in the '60s and '70s, the US intelligence apparatus, particularly in the Department of Defense, was naughty. They were doing things they shouldn't do. They were spying on students, and they were spying on American citizens. You don't say it. Crazy. Say it as and so. Congress passed some laws and said, Okay, you can no longer do this stuff on American citizens. You can't conduct intelligence operations on American citizens. You can't do it. It's illegal. You have executive order, one, two, triple, three, and all these other rules and laws, and DOD 5240.1, that all come out and say, No mas. So Department of Defense is supposed to focus on military. That's it. You don't bring in US person's information and ingest them into a Department of Defense database, especially a Department of Defense intelligence database. That's a super no That's called US Person's Information, and it's pretty much verboten.

So our focus was looking specifically at military-sourced information. I was not focusing at all on what the private citizens were seeing because at the end of the day, we couldn't use it. You can't do anything with your data.

It seems like you got plenty of compelling footage from the military.

Overwhelming. There's absolutely no doubt that we didn't have to look at civilian data because we had better collection sensor systems from the military that was looking at stuff and giving us better insight.

If you can't tell us about, can you give us some an understanding of what you're talking about?

Yeah, sure.

Without being specific?

Yeah, let me see. Okay. Yeah. There is a video, high-resolution video of... I can't say what platform it was taken from. I can't say where it was taken from. But an object that... Do you know how large an offshore oil derrick is? They're huge. They're almost like a small city. They're like one city block. They're huge. They're enormous things. There is a video that shows one of these objects underwater that goes by. The speed was calculated between 450 and 550 knots underwater, and it was bigger than the offshore derrick that it was passing, because you could see in the video the offshore derrick, and you could see this thing zip right by it.

Jesus. Yeah. So that's a lot of them, right? A lot of them are reported as being transmedium.

Right. Exactly. Why do we use the term UAP, right? Now it's unidentified anomalous phenomenon because it's all domain. Initially, it was UFO, unidentified flying object. And for several reasons, they changed the name. One of them, not just because of stigma like people think, but because the word flying object means flight, and you have to have wings to fly. That's flight. And these things don't have wings. That term, we're not even sure, is even accurate anymore because they're not necessarily flying. We see them underwater. We see them super high altitude. The term was changed to unidentified aerial phenomenon. But again, that did not encompass all the observations we were seeing. So now the term UAP, I think the latest description of it is unidentified anomalous phenomenon to help describe this multi-domain or transmedium characteristic that we are beginning to see and record that these things can do. And that is, if I can digress for a second, because that's super important, Joe. We have transmedium vehicles. We have things like seaplanes. And it's a plane and it can float on water. But let's face it, a seaplane is neither a really good plane or a really good boat because it's a compromise.

It's a design compromise between an object that you want to perform in the air and in the sea. And that's why it's neither really good at both. Same thing with, for example, a space shuttle. It goes out in the space and it can glide down, but it's not a very good airplane, comes down like a brick because there's design compromises and performance compromises. But what we are seeing doesn't have any of that attributable compromise. It's not These objects aren't slowing down. They're not changing their performance capabilities. They can do the same thing that we're seeing in the air and possibly in space and even underwater. So that is a fundamentally different type of technology than we are used to dealing with.

Is the assumption that they are doing something with space, time, and gravity around them rather than using something like a jet propulsion engine that blasts fire out the back and it makes it go fast forward. That they're doing something that altars the gravity around them? Yeah. And that's why they can go through everything.

Yeah. So we had some of the best scientists on the team folks like Dr. Hal Pudoff and some other folks that I'm not allowed to say their names, Dr. Eric Davis and some others, that were doing the calculations, mathematical calculations on how this is possible. And the consensus was by the scientists, not me, because I'm not a physics expert and I'm not an astrophysicist. They were saying that... So let me back up here. Initially, the government for years was trying to identify the different exotic technologies that could explain the different performance characteristics. And it was during the ATIP years that the scientists had this consensus that if you had one type of technology, if you could do one thing, all these other observables now possible. Kind of think of like a unifying theory. And so if you had the ability to create this bubble around you in a localized area that insulated you from the effects of Earth's gravity. Now, what is gravity? People think that when I drop my glasses, that's gravity. That's not gravity. That's an effect of gravity. Gravity is the warping of space-time. And that's important because people don't... You hear the term thrown around a lot, but they don't realize that space and time time are actually connected.

They are one and the same. They are opposite sides, if you will, of the same coin. And so you can't have one without the other. And so you have this ability to create a bubble around you that insulates you from the warping of space time, let's say in this case, Earth's gravity or something like that. Then the way you experience time inside that bubble is perhaps fundamentally different than the way you might experience space-time outside that bubble because you're not subject the effects of gravity, which would explain potentially, potentially, why things don't need wings and why they don't need propulsion systems like that. It's a completely different way of looking at how we understand physics and how we, as humans, move about. Everything we do is fundamentally force equals mass times acceleration. F equals MA, mass times acceleration, force. This may be something a little bit different. This is not using Using, again, conventional thrust or if I, Newtonian, if I push this way, I have an equal and opposite reaction that way.

Are there any theories as to how it's accomplishing this?

There is. Actually, Dr. Halpudoff, about three years ago, gave a speech on this, a very interesting talk lecture about this technology. If you ever have the chance, you really should have him on because he's an incredible human being. He's also the one who helped start the government's remote viewing program and a bunch of other stuff for the government. He's been involved in a lot of our nation's probably most classified efforts. But he was working with us on A2P as one of our scientists, and he gave a lecture about three years ago to some other scientists about the specifics on how this is possible. I am not a scientist, so I'm definitely not going to speak on behalf of Hal Pudoff because I'm sure I will muck it up. But I do recall a time when he came into our skiff and gave us about a three-hour lecture on this unifying theory. At that moment, it It was very much for us the epiphany that a lot of us had been searching for. He's like, Look, at the end of the day, this is how it's possible. That was this, wow. It's really not Can you give us a moron's view of how it's possible?

Yeah. Explain it to someone like me.

Well, I'm in that category, Joe. We're speaking the same language. Yes, sir. Single-syllable grunt, right? You have an object like this cup on your table, and you want it to be insulated from the effects of Earth's gravity. So you create this bubble artificially using a certain energetic source at a certain frequency, and it interacts with certain material, certain metamaterial. And again, I got to be careful of exactly what I say, but a certain skin of the craft, this aluminum cup here. And all of a sudden, you have this bubble around you where what you see on the outside is not necessarily That's what you see on the inside. In fact, may I do it one more drawing for you? Sure. Okay. Forgive me, I'm not an artist, so I'm going to do this upside down for you, and then I'm going to scoot this just a little here. All right. Let's do this. Unfortunately, I know your audience can't see this, but actually, it's probably good. That's okay.

Some people can. There's a video form of it. I'm sure this will get on. It'll be on YouTube as well.

It's probably good that they don't because I'm not an artist. But let's say this is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional space.

Okay.

And in essence...

So what you've done is essentially you've created a three-dimensional-looking grid stacked. It looked like stacked boxes on top of each other.

Yeah, right. And so you have location A and location B. And let's say you go from Los Angeles to Baltimore. Okay. And it takes me five hours to fly at 500 miles an hour. That's a function of distance over time. And in essence, you can mark that linearly like this. So I fly, it takes me five hours. There I am. If you had the ability to compress space-time, and not a lot, just a little bit, and you were able to allow these points to be a little closer together, now, in essence, what took you, let's say, 5 hours and 500 miles an hour to do it, you can do it in one hour, and you can do it in much less time. But to the observer outside, because we're still in the same universe, we would see something like that. We would see this incredible hopscatching ability to, if you will, take a shortcut through space-time. And so what would appear to be instantaneous acceleration, hypersonic velocity, and other things, now becomes a reality. And so that is fundamentally what the scientists had discovered. And so it seems like science fiction, but when you understand the mathematics and some of the theorem that they propose, a lot of these other observables become possible.

So these are essentially just theoretical explanations of how these things are moving.

Yeah. And again, I'm not a scientist. I want to be very careful. I don't want to misrepresent anything. There's a whole lot of other stuff that if you can do that, all of a sudden now makes sense. And may describe the observations that people are seeing and why they're hard to see and they seem obscure. Right. And so I think from a governmental perspective, it was a revelatory moment for the folks in our program.

So they realized that one of the reasons why these things are weird looking is because they're literally creating... You want a light?

Do you mind? I'm sorry. Yeah, take this. Thank you.

So The back thing, the other side. Push that down. There you go. Bam.

Thank you very much. No problem.

So how much of this is theoretical and how much of this is observed from recovered vehicles?

I am not allowed to talk about what the government may or may not have in its possession other than that I have... So I went through a very lengthy Pentagon review process. Recently, I wrote, so I won't talk about it I wrote something, and I had to go through Pentagon to have a review process, and it took almost a year. In this thing I wrote, I talk about up to the part I can talk about, and they approved for me to talk about up to that point. When it comes to what the government may or may not have in its possession, all I can simply say is that there is very compelling evidence to suggest that the US government is in absolute possession of exotic material that is not made by humans. Now, beyond that, I can't really expound upon. I haven't been given permission to talk about it. But what I can say is what I've already said for the record, which has been approved by the Pentagon, won't get in trouble by saying it, is that there's very compelling data to suggest that we are in possession.

Why is the Pentagon teasing us? Why are they allowing you to say we are in possession of something that was not made by human beings, but not allowed to elaborate, not allowed to show these very compelling videos that you're talking about that you've seen?

Well, two reasons. I don't think they have a choice. I think with now the introduction of cell phones and ring cameras, the cat's out of the bag. It's the worst kept secret at this point. Two, there is a faction, unlike before in the Cold War, I believe there is a faction of people inside the government that do want this conversation to occur. But equally, there's still a faction of people that are very mad with me. They do not want me having this conversation. And mark my words, just by me being on your show, it is going to cause an absolute storm inside the Pentagon. And I am sure the other shoes are going to drop. I promise you, you're going to hear all sorts of stuff. People make stuff up about me trying to discredit this topic, because as many people are in the government that want this topic to be discussed now, there's still some people that do not want this conversation.

Could you steal man their position?

Say again.

Steal man their position, meaning could you argue it from their perspective? Absolutely. Why? What would be a good reason to keep this stuff quiet?

Sure. I want to preface here. I'm not fear mongering.

No, I don't think you are.

Look, if I was a military person, I would look at this from the perspective of there's three options. They're good, they're neutral, or they're bad. So let's go down this road for a second. Let's say they're good. Well, we got nothing to worry about. The problem is there's nothing to suggest that they truly are benevolent. People say, well, they're like, they don't want us to nuke ourselves. Well, I discussed it in what I wrote that there's no data to suggest that. They didn't stop us from dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and vaporizing 500,000 living souls. They didn't stop us when we started developing nuclear weapons from the atomic age. They didn't stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They didn't stop the the testing in the Nevada range of atomic and nuclear weapons. And now, how many countries have atomic weapons and nuclear weapons? A lot, right? They didn't stop Chernobyl, they didn't stop Fukushima, they didn't stop Three Mile Island. So to say that they're here to help us, I'm not sure there's data. People say, well, in Minot, in North Dakota, in Montana, the UFOs came in and they interfered with our nuclear weapons, and they brought the entire echo flight offline, which, by the way, I have the government report on that if you wanted.

But in Russia, a lot of people don't know, they turned them on. That's equally scary. They're interfering with our nuclear capability, whether to attack or to defend ourselves.

When you say they turned them on in Russia, this is a Russian report?

Yeah. So this is a... I don't know if you remember the hearing, congressional hearing that occurred last year where the- With David Grush? No, the other one, with Undersecretary Defense for intelligence, Ronald Moultrie and some people from the Navy. I think it was congressman Gallagher that asked a very specific question, and he said, Are you aware of UFOs interfering with our nuclear capabilities? And the response was something like, No, not really familiar with it. Never heard of it. And then the question was, I think, reasked, specifically at these locations. And the government's response was, No, not familiar with it. Well, here's the actual report from the Department of Defense. This is the actual intelligence report that was At least through FOIA, there's a gentleman out there who runs a site called the Black Vault. His name is John Greenwald. He's probably the World Authority on Freedom of Information Act. And he has a wealth of data that is out available to the public that he has received from the government. This is one of those documents. This is the document that our own government has no idea, apparently exists.

I like how they write it in all caps.

Yeah, that's the old reporting.

So obviously, there's some people that don't I want this to be released. And obviously, there's some people that think that the general public has a right to know.

I believe so. That's been my observations and my experience.

Well, that makes sense. When everybody says, The CIA does this. Okay, who? Who win the CIA?

I didn't finish the other part, right? So if they're not here for friendly, if they're not friendly, that leaves them neutral like us or benevolent. Now, from a military perspective, and I just want to caveat, I don't agree with this, but I can respect the understanding. You, sir, are a producer or a general. I say, We cannot prove that they're not here to do something bad. But what we do know is that they can interfere. They're very interested in our military capabilities, and they have interfered with our nuclear capabilities. From a military perspective, that looks an awful lot like something we call IPB, Initial Preparations of the Battlespace, or perhaps even ISR, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Recommonizance. Whenever we're going to go into a foreign country and invade, we do long-range surveillance. We want to know how the enemy operates, how they react. So even if there's a 2% chance, 5% chance that these things are here to do something malevolent, right? Then we probably should not tip our hands to the fact that we are aware of it publicly, because what happens the moment that the bad guys in a foreign country find our surveillance team over the border?

We've got 12 hours we got to invade because the element of surprise is now over. So some may feel in the government, the mere fact of acknowledging this, if there is some malintent, may push up artificially a clock that exists somewhere for these things to say, Oh, okay, the foolish humans are now the cats out of the bag. They know we're here. We need to go in now for whatever reason they may have. So that is the military mindset, potentially, of some of these individuals who want to keep this secret. So they're worried about an actual invasion. But they have to be. That is the role of our national security apparatus. Even if there's a 1% chance, they have to consider that in their planning and in the decision-making matrix. Again, going back to what I said, I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I can respect that. If that is the reason why, then I would say, Okay, look, in your heart, you really do have the best interests of the American people. You are a Patriot. I can accept that. Again, I don't think it's your decision to make. I think it needs to go to Congress.

I think it needs to go to the President. Let the American people decide. I think America can handle the truth. I think America deserves the truth and let the American people decide if it's in their best interest to know more about this.

I agree with you, but I also could see it from their perspective. They're probably insanely busy already The last thing they want to do is get involved in this thing where now they have a PR campaign when they're trying to let people know about this thing and not cause mass panic. That's right.

But you know what, though? I'm also very optimistic, Joe, because you and I are having this conversation, and people aren't making a run on Wall Street. People are still paying their mortgages, going to PTA meetings.

And after the 2017 New York Times report, which was probably one of the biggest moments in UFO disclosure, because it was in the New York Times. And then you see something like that in the New York, especially in the New York Times in 2017. People really respected it. It's like, this is a real story.

Well, and this is apolitical. I mean, how many topics can you go to Congress and have that's not polarizing? This is one of the only ones where you can have literally have congressman Barchet and congresswoman AOC side by side agreeing that this is important. It's a very rare opportunity. My concern, I'm doing this because I believe it's the right thing to do. My concern is that we're at a point now where I've said before, secrets aren't like a fine wine, where the longer you keep a cork on it, the better it gets. I think secrets are perishable. I think they have a shelf life. I think they're like vegetables in your refrigerator. And there comes a point where if you leave them there too long, they start to rot and they start to stink, and it becomes a big mess to clean up. And so that's my perspective. And what I'm trying to do is give the government an ability to work its way out of a corner that it's put itself into for the last several decades and with no seeming way out, right? They look around like, How do we get ourselves out of this trip?

Is there an issue of legality, of spending? A A hundred %.

There's over-suit issues.

So there's people that would be liable for not being straightforward with Congress.

Yeah, and I know people want their pound of flesh. I know there's people out there, we've been lied to you for decades.

And then they make it a political issue. They go after someone for...

And I think that's the wrong approach. I think there was a time where we needed to keep this secret. And I think what you do is you give those guys awards, give those guys and girls awards who did it. Don't make them enemies. Make them friends and say, Okay, look, but those were different times. Now is the time to come clean, talk to the members of Congress.

Forgive all the past sins. Yeah, truth and reconciliation. Make them immune to prosecution.

100%.

Let's just get clear with all this and understand that it was all in good faith that you did it in the first place.

100%.

Now, all in the interests of the United States security.

You talk about legal issues. The problem is there are the real legal issues. So let's say you have, again, these cups, forgive my analogies. You have two aerospace companies, Company A, Company B. And let's say I am in Department of Defense back in the '50s, '60s, and I come across this interesting technology. I have no idea what the hell it is. It just came out of the sky. I go to Company A and I said, Tell me what you can figure out about that, right? Ten years later, Company A becomes a multibillion dollar aerospace company. Company B goes bankrupt, 200 people lose their jobs, and now people who have stock investors in that company lose their money. Unfair advantage. Keep in mind, you're supposed to have fair competition in the US government. If you give an unfair advantage to company A to B, you're talking a serious liability. There's SEC violations there. There's all sorts of concerns one has to pay attention to because someone somewhere gave an unfair advantage to one company over another. There are legal liabilities that we have to recognize. It's not just clear-cut, okay, forgive and forget. There's going to have to be some additional protection and understanding for if that occurred, we need to figure out how we deal with that as well.

So that would be an impediment to release. That makes a lot of sense.

Yeah. These are big companies, right? With really deep pockets and a lot of lawyers.

Well, I mean, also this is a discussion that we've had on here before. If you did find something, who would you bring it to? You bring it to the people that build your fucking jets. Like, Hey, guys, what the hell is this? You make some a top secret agreement. You bring it to them in some undisclosed facility.

Best and brightest. Secured.

Best Bring the guys in and go, what the fuck is this thing? Yeah, you have to. Otherwise, what else would you do? How else do you find out how these things work? If you were going to do it in a secretive manner, you would have to bring it to defense contractors because those are the only people that are capable of making things. They make your jets. They make every stealth bomber, whatever the fuck it is. They make all that shit.

Going back to a colleague of mine made the comparison. He said, Look, Lou, imagine being during the days of Da Vinci, and all of a sudden bringing Da Vinci a garage door opener. You have no idea what it's used for. You've never seen plastic before, and you don't even understand electromagnetic radiation. And infrared. Where do you start on the analysis and exploitation of a technology that the physics hasn't even been discovered yet? Right?

I mean, garage door openers seem like magic. It really does.

I press a button and a door opens like magic. Wait, where's the horse? Where's the strings? What's that right?

Exactly. It's bananas. You press a button on your car and all of a sudden your door opens. You drive in and you press another button and it closes. It's all done through the air, which is bananas. It's magic. But we're just accustomed to it. That's right. Yeah. So this technology, I'm sure you're aware of the Bob Lozard story.

I'm aware. I don't know Bob. I've never met him.

You never got into that?

I did not.

How could you not with your line of work?

Because I always wanted to be insulated from prejudicing the jury. I know it sounds strange, but I didn't ever- Makes sense. It's something I imposed on myself because I didn't want to have any preconceived notions of going in. Most people I suspect would be tempted to say, Well, I'm going to learn everything I can about UFO lore. I wanted the opposite.

You're a better man than me.

I love them better.

I don't think I'm chasing that shit down.

I just wanted to be very, very careful to preserve the investigative integrity. And look, we're all humans. We're all biased. There's no way around it. We all have some degree of bias. Let's be honest and truthful here. It doesn't matter what type of bias it is. We all have some bias somewhere, whether it's food or the people you like to date or whatever. I wanted to avoid that as much as possible. And so I always kept it very, very focused on the here and now. And what can we see today? Okay.

You're aware of the story, though, right? The basic-Tangentially.

That he worked at a particular facility, and at that facility, he was exposed to some UAP technology. That thing.

That thing. That thing right there, the sport model. And that he was brought in as a propulsions expert. They didn't know how it exactly worked, but they just said, Tell me what this is.

Roger.

Then along the way, he realized, Oh, this isn't ours.

Yeah. I'm aware of, again, the overarching story. I don't know any of the details, and I've never met him personally.

He's a very interesting guy. I had dinner with him with my friend Andrew Schultz and Jeremy Corbell. We went to dinner and informally talked and had a fascinating conversation.

Jeremy is a great guy. He's a great guy. Yeah. He's done a lot. He said to say hi. Hi.

He's pumped that we're talking. Yeah. He's done a lot for this concept. He's a UFO nut. And He got me really way back in with his documentary of Bob Lozard, Flying Saucers, wherever the actual title of it is. But that documentary is fantastic. And it's essentially going over Bob Lozard's story from the 1980s to today, which he's told the exact same story, which is nuts that you have one giant lie your whole life. Like, come on. There's a lot of weirdness to the story, obviously, like there is with everything. There's a lot of people that want to discredit his his background and all sorts of other things. But the reality of what he's saying is essentially what we're seeing in these crafts, which is very strange. So he described how these things worked and how they moved and how they would turn sideways and project this whatever this reactor that they have inside of them. And he talked about this element, element 115. They have a stable version of it that was essentially theoretical at the time in 1980. No one really knew whether or not that thing actually even exists, '89 or whatever it was.

And it would douse this thing, project radiation upon it, and it would create this warp, this gravity warp, this thing that allowed this craft to move in ways that defied our understanding of the ocean system.

That's a hell of a lucky guess. It's a hell of a lucky guess.

A hell of a lucky guess in 1989. And he drew it. He did his diagrams of what this thing looked like and how it worked. Essentially looked exactly like that little model that's on the desk there. And that he felt like the whole... It didn't make any sense. He said the whole thing, it didn't have any seams, which now we understand 3D printing, right? So now we know that we can actually give him- But only now, not back then, right?

Of course. Everything had rivets. Exactly. The skin of a craft was the skin of an aircraft. Exactly. It had rivets and had nuts and bolts. Exactly.

But now, obviously, now we have carbon fiber. We have a bunch of different ways of constructing things. But back then, he know what the fuck that thing was. He said it looked like it had all been melted into place, like that it had been almost smooth, like wax, like melted wax, and that it had no instrumentation inside of it. And it was designed for very small things, like something that was three feet tall. And that all these things seemed to operate through the being itself, had some connection to the craft, some strange way of interfacing with the craft that didn't have anything to do with pulling levers and Sure.

But Joe, is that really that much of a stretch? Let's look at this. We've done experiments where we've had pilots be able to control aircraft thousands of miles away with a helmet that interprets thought. Right. So Again- How does the helmet...

Is it similar to a Neuralink setup? Have you seen the new video of the second Neuralink patient?

I have not.

Is this video of him playing counterstrike? Is it counterstrike or is it... Is that it? So counterstrike, which is a very popular online 3D game. And this guy who does not have use of his body has this Neuralink implant. He's the second Neuralink patient. And apparently, with each iteration, it gets more and more sophisticated and better. So this is a From this person's point of view, he's playing this video game entirely with his mind.

He's playing better than I can with my hands.

Well, better than anybody can. Because the first guy, the first Neuralink patient we had him on, and he said essentially it's like having an aimbot because you don't miss. You look at the thing you're trying to shoot at and instantaneously your crosshairs go there.

Wow.

Yeah. So all this stuff is taking place entirely. This is all him doing this entirely with his mind.

But is that right? So if we can do that now, is it really that far of a stretch to think that someone who's a little more advanced than us, our friends from out of town, realized that's the way to do it, that's more efficient, right? The speed of the processing of the brain, the processes of the brain is much faster. It takes us longer to then have to mechanically use our hands, manipulate, do things. This is almost, not quite, but almost instantaneous. You don't have that lag. Right? Right. Of course. That would certainly make sense. Modern warfare Warfare, not the game, but actual Modern Warfare, is beginning to turn to that. We're using AI and all these other augmentation to enhance performance. I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility.

No, certainly I mean, just go from garage door openers to 500, 600 years ago to today, and then cell phones, the ability to send video across the world instantaneously. All those sophisticated stuff that we just completely take for granted because it's become a normal part of our everyday life.

I used to give a briefing to some folks. I'm so glad you mentioned this because this goes back to the whole stigma taboo issue. I used to have a slideshow, and I still have it somewhere, and I I would discuss the word, the Latin word, Prefix of para, P-A-R-A. It means above or beside. What I would do is I would say the word parachute, and I'd ask people, What do you think of when you hear the word parachute? People would describe, obviously, something that deploys over your head and hopefully you hit the ground with a thump and not a thud. But something that's normal, we use every day. Then I say, What about the word paramedic? Then people would look at it and say, Well, I think of a first responder. Someone goes some medical lifesaver that's going to be there for your benefit. And then I say the word... When I say the word paranormal, what do you think? And people stop for a second. Maybe they give you a little sly smile. They'll say, what do you mean? I mean that, paranormal. The only reason why you're reacting the way you are, because you've been conditioned that the word paranormal is- Cookie stuff.

Cookie stuff. When in reality, in science, by definition, everything is paranormal until it becomes normal. The cell phone that I use every day, 50 years ago, absolutely paranormal. I would go through this exercise of things that were once considered paranormal. For example, when the Inca first saw the Spaniards, the conquistadores, coming from the reconquering, they saw them on the shores of the beach, and they saw these humans in armor riding on a horse. They assumed, because they had never seen a horse before, they assumed it was a single entity, it was a single monster, and that for them was paranormal. They didn't understand it was actually a human riding on a horse with metal skin. Same thing with acupuncture. I remember a time when I was growing up as a kid, people thought Eastern medicine acupuncture was nonsense. Well, now at the Veterans Administration, the VA, for some of my guys in combat, they actually prescribe acupuncture as therapy. It's not paranormal. There's all these examples in history where we think something is cookey and weird, when in reality, it's not. It's just we don't understand it yet, and we have done such a good job of stigmatizing this conversation that the moment you even say the word 'paranormal' or you the word UFO or anything like that, people are conditioned without even thinking about it.

It's reflexive to react a certain way. We have to first de-program ourselves first a little bit before we can start moving forward. Okay, how do we stigmatize this conversation. Well, first of all, what's kookey? What do you think is kookey about something that's in our airspace that's performing in ways that we can't replicate? People say, Well, wait a minute. We We spend millions, if not billions of dollars, putting a probe on Mars to try to find microbial life. And by the way, it looks like that may happen. It looks like there actually may be some evidence to suggest that. We spend lots of money trying to find techno signatures of intelligent life, radio signatures in our own Milky Way. Well, is it possible within the four and a half billion years our planet has been here, that maybe intelligent life maybe found us first? Is it possible? Could be. We have to stop putting these limitations. Joe, when I was in the medical program, when I was learning to be in microbiology and immunology in college, we learned from our professor that Homo sapiens apien, as a modern species, has been around roughly between 100,000 to 200,000 years.

Now, I'm not an expert, but that's what they say. It was only the Greeks 2,000 years ago that introduced the idea that there's only two types of life forms on this planet. You are either A a plant, or B, you're an animal. And it wasn't the last 300 years. So if you look at a 24-hour clock, roughly the last five minutes in the 24 hours towards midnight, we discovered another form of life that is neither plant Norton or animal that's been here with us on this planet, and that is the world of fungus. During the Renaissance and the days of Newton, we discovered that there was this other life form we've been sharing all along. And so we pat ourselves on the shoulder, and it wasn't the last 120 years, think about it, the last 10 seconds of our existence on this planet, so to speak, in a 24-hour clock as a modern species, we actually discovered the true dominant life form on this planet. In fact, if you take all the biomasse of every plant and the biomasse of every animal and the biomasse of every fungus. And add it all together, it still will not equal the biomasse of this hidden kingdom of life that's actually the dominant life form on this planet.

And that wasn't until we were able to curve glass and look through a little steel and famously shout, Little beast, little beast, did we discover the world of microorganisms that, yes, live inside of you, and yes, live on the skin of the ISS space station, and yes, live miles underneath the Arctic ice. That is the true dominant life form on this planet, and it always has been. It wasn't until the last 120 years we discovered that. So is it possible that there's something else that is just as normal to this world? Is it possible? Well, the answer is a resounding yes, of course it's possible because we're always discovering new ways life can exist. When I was growing up as a kid, I was told, absolutely, as a matter of fact, all life form is derived from photosynthesis, ultimately, when you go all the way down. It turns out that's not true. It wasn't until we discovered in the deepest depths of our oceans, where these things called black smokers, we discovered there are creatures that thrive with no light, and they thrive off of something called chemosynthesis, a completely different way to metabolize energy to sustain life.

Every time we put Mother Nature in a little box, she always finds a way to wiggle her way out. I think that's important when having this conversation, because if there's one thing we know as human beings, we're usually wrong at first.

Well, we exist, and we do send things to other planets. We do send things into space. It only makes sense that something far more intelligent than us that would be doing that. And if they did, they'd probably watch an emerging civilization, which is essentially what we are, right? And like you said, 200,000 years, which is nothing, the existence of Homo sapiens. They've gone from things that use stones and flint map to things that can fly things through the air. I mean, if you look at Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright, when they flew the first airplane, you go from that to the Apollo 11 launch. That's only like, what, 50 years? That's right. Something crazy like that? That's That's nuts, right? And you just take that and everything moves exponentially. You take that and you would imagine a civilization that's been around 10,000 years longer than us, 100,000 years longer, a million years longer than us, something that doesn't exist in- How about 100 years?

We have evolved more in the last 150 years than we have in the last 150,000 years. Sure. Then you have the other... For me, I find when people say, Well, the space is so huge. Is it possible that things are coming from outer space? My response has always been the same. Look, I don't know where they're from. I just know that they're here. Could they be from outer space? Sure. They can be from inner space or even the space in between. I say that because the universe is far more complex than we give it credit for. Every time there was a time we had Newtonian physics, we thought that was a solution, then all of a sudden Einstein comes along and we realize that weight, space, and time are actually connected and everything's relative. All of a sudden now you have quantum mechanics, which is this spooky action at distance, where the whole universe is behaving in a way that it shouldn't, and yet that looks like the real way the universe works. I often tell people, as humans, we have only five fundamental senses that we can base our reality upon. If you can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, et cetera, we can't interact with it.

Where I live in Wyoming, we have these beautiful night skies, like you have here in your studio here, 300 days of unoccluded night skies. As As beautiful as those night skies are, if you were to look at that same portion of the night sky through a radio telescope, you would see a whole different reality around you. You'd see nebula, and you'd see things in different spectra that we can't pick up. You'd pick an ultraviolet, an infrared, so you would see a whole different reality, just like our cell phones, right? If you could see in cell phone vision and see in Wi-Fi and 5G and GPS, you would interact with your environment completely different because you would see a reality. We can only interact with a very small sliver of the reality that we can perceive because we're humans. But most of reality is actually beyond that. Then, of course, you have scalability issues. The universe is immensely huge. What scientists are now saying, if you look in any direction, you can see roughly within the visible, let me emphasize, visible horizon of our universe, is about 13.9 billion light years, plus or minus. That means in any direction, I can see 13.9 billion light years with the right equipment.

What's a light year? Well, it's a fast light travel in a year. Well, light travels pretty fast. In fact, it travels at 186,000 miles per second. So seven and a half times around our planet in one second. Imagine how far you can go in a year. Now, multiply that by 13.9 billion. And that, by scientists' estimation, so if the universe end-to-end of our visible, we're stuck in the middle, is roughly 27 billion light years, scientists are now saying that's only possibly only 10% of the known universe because the universe is so big and so vast and so far, light will never have time to reach Earth. So that's at a minimum 100 billion light years, right? And so we are this little speck in the middle. And as crazy as that is to even try to conceive, If you compare one atom inside the hill, one hydrogen atom, Avogadro's number, right? 1 times 10 to the negative umpteen all the way down, it is roughly the same level of scale as we are to the universe, meaning that atom is the size of a human as we are the size of the universe, as we are a human to the size of the universe.

So we, as humans, can only interact, plus or minus, with one order of magnitude up or down. Otherwise, the universe is simply too big or too small. Meaning most of the universe and reality lies in those scales. We live in this little tiny, tiny sliver.

You hurt my head. Yeah, we live in a tiny sliver. And the idea that we're alone, I think, is preposterous. I really do. I know people, they constantly chime in with this, Where's the evidence? Elon's famously said, If the aliens are real, they're very subtle. I don't know why he says that, though. I think he probably says that because he doesn't want to sound like a kook while he's working with NASA and SpaceX. I'd probably say some stuff like that, too.

Well, let me ask you this. As human beings, how many times do we fly over the Serengeti in a helicopter? Let's say you want to monitor the health of a particular herd of elephants. So what happens? Our wilder beast, we fly over, we pick one, we shoot it with a tranquilizer, it falls asleep, we go down, we do some tests, pull its blood. Now, think about it from the perspective of the Wilder Beast. It wakes up, meanders over to the watering hole and says, Bill, you're not going to believe this, man. But something out of the sky came down, and all of a sudden, they were touching me, and I woke up and my butt hurt. What the hell was that? To this day, even in China, when we go into a zoo and we have the panda bear exhibits, what do we do? We don't disrupt the pandas. We wear panda suits. Now, it sounds silly, but you can actually get online and see zookeepers wearing panda suits because they don't want to interfere as least as possible with the natural flora and fauna there inside the exhibit, plants and animals.

Do you think then was it reasonable to theorize that there's aliens amongst us?

When you say... Well, two things. I don't want to be evasive, but I also want to be very specific. When we say aliens, and then we also... Are we saying something from another plane or are we simply saying non-human?

Non-human intelligence that looks like us, that moves around with us.

So is it possible? Well, we're doing it already with a panda bear. It's not that we do it all the time.

It's like a strategy. That'd be very simple.

Sure. And especially if you have the technology. Now, as far A panda bear. Yeah, there you go, right?

Carrying a little baby panda.

Exactly, right?

Boy, those are shitty panda bear outfits, too. They're fucking terrible looking.

They're pretty terrifying, aren't they, actually?

If you put that in front of my dog, he's going to bark. If a dude in a dog costume? He was like, Oh, that ain't a fucking dog. That's a wild panda bear. No, that dude's not a panda bear. That's crazy.

He's a panda terrorist.

That looks like a fucking alien. It was really dark out, and that guy grabbed you and zapped you with a tranquilizer. You'd have an alien story.

But my point is that we always use camouflage. For obvious reason, we do it in the military, right? Sure. With camouflage uniform, stealth aircraft for camouflage.

Sure, you do it when you go hunting. Absolutely, I do.

It's not a stretch of the imagination to suggest anything coming here that doesn't want to provoke us, probably wants to blend in. Now, do I have any type of empirical evidence to suggest that they are living among us? I don't. What I can say definitively that whatever it is, it's here. And by the way, you already have very senior people in our government that have said it's here, whatever it is. But these things could also be from under the water. These things could be something that is as natural to Earth as the little beast were when we first discovered them. Maybe they've been here all It's wrong.

The ocean is largely undiscovered. One of the things that people need to understand is that most of the exploration of the ocean is really essentially around the outside edges. It's around the shores.

Less than 10 %.

Which is nuts.

A buddy of mine who's-90 % of the ocean.

That's right. What?

We know more about the moon than the bottom of our own ocean. That's so crazy. Yeah, that's fact.

And these underwater crafts, like this enormous one that apparently was near this oil rig, how many of them have been? Has there been more than one of those videos?

Let me tell you what I can say from open source. Okay. Then I'll tell you about a conversation I had without attribution because I don't want to get in trouble. Everybody, well, not everybody. A lot of people are familiar with the Air Force program called the Fast Walker program, which is a program that was started by the Air Force, among other things, was to detect UFOs. That's a fact. Actually, that was part of their mission, to detect a lot of things, adversarial technology, but UFOs was one of them. It was called the Fast Walker program. There was some information that was released publicly about a similar program the Navy has. I can't talk about it because I don't have approval to talk about it. But obviously, they're interested because they have equities underwater. They're interested in if there's anything underwater that can perform beyond anything we have. I remember speaking to one individual who pulled me aside very privately, and he said, Lou, we were tracking this thing doing, and I won't see the exact speed, but hundreds and hundreds of knots underwater, and it was bigger than our own submarine. You know how big our submarine are right there?

They're huge. I asked Naively, I just came out, What do you do when you encounter that? He just said, very honest, he said, We go around. Just like that, we go around.

Have there been interactions with these things?

I would not at liberty to discuss any details about that. That's not for me to discuss. You and I got to get drunk. I'm a lightweight.

I got to get you drunk. Let's go have some whiskey, find out what the fuck is up. So this thing is bigger than the sub, and they followed it for hundreds of miles.

Let me give you another great event that occurred. I'll talk about this because it's not classified. The portions that might be, I don't know about, so it should be fine. There's an individual who I'm aware of who was a helo pilot, a helicopter pilot back in the late '90s in the Caribbean, and they were doing missile recovery. So what happened is that the Navy would test fire missiles, and then they run out of fuel. They hit the water, and they sink. That at predetermined time, they pop to the surface. We grab it with a helicopter, bring it back to shore, and we test it for telemetry and make sure that this cruise missile is doing what it was supposed to do. So they're out there in the helicopter, frogmen hanging down the line. You got the helo pilot, you got the crew chief and the copilot looking all down at the bubble. And as they're about to grab this cruise missile out of the ocean, there's something huge and round, and what was described to me as black as a devil, starts to rise to the surface. The water begins to churn, very much like David Friver's description of the TicTac incident and the roiling water.

The frogman is so freaked out, he's literally trying to climb the line back up. He's like, total panic at the disco, right? Yeah. The helicopter is like, do we do an emergency ascent? What the hell is going on here? Right as this thing is about, and by the way, it's the size of a small island and around. Right as this thing is about to break the surface, it sucks the missile down and disappears. Jesus Christ. And that was... Yeah. And Dave Fraver could probably tell you that story a little better than I can. But when you compare that to other things, you got to say, imagine being that guy hanging from that line. No, thank you. We call that bait.

Yeah, but it didn't do anything to him. No. I would have loved that experience.

Yeah. That was one of the anecdotes that was revealed to us by one of the maybe helicopter pilots. Who's that seal?

Who's that guy that was hanging from that?

Was he a seal? I don't know. I only know the pilot.

Bro, come talk to me.

Please, sir. I only know the pilot.

We'll put you in a fucking panda outfit. We'll disguise your voice. Tell me what the fuck you saw. I want to hear that story. Oh, my God. A small island. Yep. Black as the devil in a small island and round.

Yeah. Submarines look like this, right? They're not round. Right. That was one of the anecdotes that was shared with us. Obviously, Puerto Rico with the There's been some UAPs that have been recorded off there. Everybody knows about Aguadilla, the Aguadilla incident.

I don't know about it.

Oh, I'm sure you do. I do?

Tell me. Wow.

Trust me. You can look it up online. There's a video taken by a DHS helicopter of a very interesting object. At first, it appears to be perhaps a balloon, but then it does all sorts of weird stuff. As you're tracking it, it enters the water without making a splash. You can track it underwater. Then it comes up and splits into two. It's been analyzed over and over again by a lot of experts. It's called the Aguavia Incident.

Maybe I have seen this. Is it blurry-looking night vision?

There we go. That's it.

Oh, wow.

Keep watching that. I'll tell you a little story about this. This is a Customs and Border Protection. Release this.

How fast is this thing going?

Well, so if you look here, they're looking at this through a form of night vision. I don't know the exact velocity. All that is available. But if you keep watching this, something interesting happens. Here it goes. You're going to see this thing enter the here. There he goes underwater, and then it pops back up and splits into two. Keep their track in it. See, no waves, no wake. Then it surfaces and then does something pretty interesting here.

Keep watching. It's going high It's going to feed through the water.

Underwater. That's underwater. Then it breaks the surface of the water again. Keep watching. Boom, underwater, overwater, boom, underwater, underwater, and then you'll see it split into two.

I didn't see it split into two.

Did you see it? If you watch the rest of the video, there it is. Oh, there it is. The video is actually really long, but that's just one example. You can see all these videos. They're prevalent everywhere. You see the aircraft on the bottom right? You see the UAP on top that's tracking it. Yeah. Yeah. No wings, no control surfaces. It keeps up with the A-10 and does all sorts of interesting maneuvers. That's an A-10 warthog.

This thing is just following it. Yep.

It's nothing.

Do you think they're trying to let people see them? Have you had a guess?

I don't know. Could it be a demonstration of capabilities? We do that, right? Every time a Russian surveillance aircraft comes by, we launch two F-22s, and we get real close to it and say, Hey, be careful.

But not even from a military perspective. If a civilization was trying to alert another civilization about its presence, wouldn't it go towards whatever whatever military vehicles it has and show itself. And then I would imagine that if they understand human beings, they understand our psychology, and they understand that some giant size of an island, black as the devil, circular craft that lands next to the Pentagon would fucking end the world. We would freak out. No one would know what to do. That would be stock market crash, mass chaos. No one would know what to do. The way to introduce yourself, I would imagine, would be gradual over a long period of time to allow this civilization to accept the fact these things exist and then slowly but surely show versions of themselves.

Yeah, we call that sensitization. You sensitize a population or environment. But the counterargument to that is that's a very human thing, right? As humans, it's almost innate. We look at everything through anthropomorphic eyes. We look at our pet dogs, and we give them human names, and we do things like that because we assign human value to things because we have intentions and motivations. But most in nature isn't that way. For example, when a shark bites a surfer, he's not wanting to hurt the surfer. He's just hungry. The shark's hungry. I don't care if you're a seal or whatever. I'm not trying to inflict pain. I just want to feed my belly. Intent and motivation is a very human thing. We have to, I don't want to say resist the urge because it's almost possible to do it. But we have to recognize that there are things that may exist that don't have human motivation, meaning maybe they don't care about sensitizing us. Maybe they do. But maybe it's like a computer, right? Maybe it's binary. Maybe there's some binary thought process, just information in and information out. So that's one of the aspects I've always been very careful with is to assign human traits to something that is very likely not human.

Right. But would you have to assign human traits to it? Or would you have... You could look at it from the perspective of these things are aware of our psychology. They're aware of how we function, and they're aware of the fragility of our worldview. No, good point. You don't have to have human intention to have a strategy for doing the least amount of harm to this emerging civilization.

Touche. In fact, there's examples of that. Let me reinforce your point because there's examples of that, my background being science, in nature. So when lionesses stalk the zebras, they get very low into the grass. They don't want to be seen. They're not motivated necessarily because they don't want to spook the herd, but they do it. It's almost instinctual. It's part of their DNA, part of their wiring to have a low profile, low observability, and to get closer to their target, whether it's a prey or anything else. So you're right. There are examples in nature that also can suggest that. So it's a very good point.

Yeah. I mean, it just makes sense that if it understands us, if it's absurd. Look, we understand the behavior characteristics of sloths. We study them. We know what they do. It would just make sense that if they're studying us, they would understand our behavior characteristics.

I mean, the tiger recognizes the behavior characteristics of the zebra, doesn't it? It studies it, and so it knows what it has to do to get close to the zebra.

So that's a very fair point. There's no way they would come here with ignorance. And I think also it's very likely that what we are exists in many, many places in the universe, and that what we are is what they used to be. So they probably understand what we are.

Well, we do that in the Amazon, don't we? Yeah. And Afroan tribes, lost tribes that are remote, separated by outside human contact. We study them. We study them from afar, but we do the same thing. Yes.

Yeah, no question. And obviously, if they are these super intelligent creatures, they evolve to become super intelligent creatures. So there's probably some universal process. It takes place amongst all intelligent creative life that has a lust for innovation. They consistently make better and better versions of these flying crafts until they figure out how to make this Warp Drive thing that these things apparently have. Another thing that's odd is that you see the same things that Kenneth Arnold saw in 1950. You see the same things today. It's almost like going somewhere in the 1950s and seeing a '55 Chevy And then in 2024 seeing another 55. They're still driving around a '55 Chevy? What the fuck? Well, they do do that in Cuba, right? But that's just because they don't have access to other cars. They don't have a choice. They don't have a choice. They don't have a choice. Really good mechanics. That's your people.

It is. I'm really resisting the urge of continuing to smoke this thing right now. Okay, I feel terrible.

Don't feel terrible.

Why you feel terrible with cigars? My wife is going to give me hell for this because I told her I'll get it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with cigars, man. Like I was saying before, I never heard of a single person dying from cigars. You don't inhale them. Take a little bit of smoke in your mouth. It's pleasurable. It's nice. I would just think that that's what they would do because that's what we would do. And I think that's what intelligent life would do. We've recognized something that wasn't quite as intelligent as us. We don't rush in to these remote tribes and vaccinate them. What do we do? We don't give them... But the thing is, they have done some things. They gave Starlink to this one tribe, and the kids all started watching porn. You hear about that? I heard. Yeah, it became a real problem. They're all lazy hanging out on their phones all day, which makes sense. That's what we do. Yeah. But the tribal leaders are not happy.

You bring up another very interesting point. Is there a natural glide slope or a natural evolution to evolution? Meaning any species that reaches a certain point, is there a natural progression of any intelligent species to progress to the point? Because all life is expansive. Life doesn't contract. Life expands, whether it's bacterial life, whether it's animal life or human life. There are certain biological functions to procreate, multiply, and continue to expand. Is that a universal norm? Is that part of fractals in geometry throughout the universe? Is that part of the blueprint of all life, or is it only specific to life here on Earth? That's a great question because there's probably arguments to suggests that, yeah, there probably is a natural... There's a natural blueprint for physics in the universe. There probably, since life has to abide by physics, probably a potentially natural blueprint for the evolution of all life, whether, again, bacterial or animal or human or anything else, nonhuman.

It makes sense. It makes sense that everything moves into greater levels of complexity, from single-celled organisms to human beings that pilot drones. It just keeps going in the same general direction, observably here. And if the universe is infinite, that means there's infinite versions of what we're seeing here with us that exist throughout the Cosmos and probably in infinite steps along the way, right? A hundred years from now, a thousand years from now.

Well, not to make light of it, but I'll tell you, recently, I've learned over the years there's nothing more expensive than a cheap lawyer. So I've got a couple good lawyers that I work with on just contractual stuff, and one of them is named Ivan Hanel. I call him the Bull. I've learned to appreciate- Shout out to Ivan. The infinite complexity of law and legal, right? Oh, very. If there is this natural progression as we're talking about life, we even see it in our own human interactions, this intricate complexity of how things work and how even in the way we behave with each other, socially. When I was in the government, you could look at a terrorist link analysis, and that link analysis still follows those fractal patterns, that the patterns in our lungs, the patterns of lightning, the patterns of supermedulineic clouds and galaxies, super clusters of galaxies all have that same pattern. It's not just a physical pattern, it's a social pattern. Again, not to make joke of it, but I'm learning that it's beyond these patterns or beyond just physical patterns. Even in something as silly but fundamental as law. There are these patterns continue to spin off and whatnot.

So, yeah, I can appreciate that. I think we're at a point now as a species where we probably should be having this conversations. And I'll also say this, Joe, there are parts of this conversation I don't feel the government has Any place. There is definitely a national security conversation here, but the conversation we're having, as you can tell, is far beyond national security. We're talking philosophical, psychological, sociological, theological implications that I'm not sure I want my government necessarily dictating for me what I should think about this.

Well, the government is supposed to be working for us, ultimately, and they are supposed to be us. The problem is when you have access to information that's above and beyond, in the normal person's realm that could affect everyone on this planet, this understanding that we are not alone. But not only that, we're probably not even alone here. It's not even that something is visiting us. Something's probably here all the time. This is the main thought about these underwater vehicles.

Well, life is abundant on this planet, isn't it? And it thrives in places that we thought life could never thrive before. It's everywhere. It almost seems like a natural function. If you have certain situations and circumstances on a rock somewhere, then life pops up.

It seems like if we can actually find it on Mars, like you were saying before, they may have found some an evidence of microbiology biological life. If we find it on Mars and we find it somewhere, they think maybe Europa underneath the surface. That's right. Europa probably is powered by volcanic vents the same way the bottom of our ocean is. There might be some life form.

Chemosynthesis, not photosynthesis.

And this is just what we know about here. Imagine all the different potential realities in terms of what a planet's atmosphere could be like. You're dealing with larger planets that have more gravity. You're dealing with different kinds of temperature variations.

Look at Titan. It's methane. And by the way, that's organic chemistry. It's got methane clouds. So there are things that thrive in these types of environments.

Maybe they have cow farts up there, too.

Too many. But, yeah, you're absolutely correct. I think we have, again, this goes back to the original point of every time we try to put Mother Nature in a box, she always finds a way to wiggle her way out of it and prove us wrong. If the one thing we're right about is that we're always wrong.

Right. How much, I don't know if you could talk about this, but how much of an effort is there to try to detect things under the surface of the ocean?

I would defer that to the United States Navy and maybe Noah. Noah? National Oceanographic and Atmiscritic. No, not the biblical Noah. Oh, Jesus. No, I mean Noah meaning- It goes that far back? National Oceanographic and Atmiscritic.

Speaking of going that far back, how much of I got to think that when people are delving into the stuff, they look at ancient scriptures and ancient these different depictions of things, whether it's the Viamanas in the Hindu texts and whether it's in the Bagabat Gita, there's all these different stories in Ezekiel in the Bible. There's things that seem to... If I was a person living thousands of years ago and I encountered a flying saucer or I encountered spaceship from another planet, I would probably describe it in a way that they're describing it. Yeah. Just like the Aztecs describe people on horses.

Today's magic is tomorrow's technology, right? Right. I can tell you, when I went to Italy, I spoke to one of the senior, I think it was a Monseigneur, one of the senior Vatican academics. And he said to me, he says, Look, the Vatican doesn't have a problem with this topic. This is something, in fact, up into the 1600s, it was heredical to presume or assume that mankind was the only, if you will, incarnation of God, representation of God. It was actually... But in essence, you're putting limitations on the dominion of what God can and can't do. And there are these scrolls, in fact, that are in the Vatican Archives, that discuss. It's a conversation between a Roman soldier and a Roman general, where they describe there's something called Eclipse. Eclipse in Latin means sun, eclipse. It's the shape of the Roman shield. They talked about these flaming Roman shields in sky that would follow them from battlespace to battlespace. Mr. Jacques Vallée could probably expound much more upon that than I can, but this is just a brief conversation I had with someone there. Jacques Vallet is very slippery. Is he? Very slippery.

He He didn't commit to anything. He looked at you sideways.

Yeah, he did a lot of good stuff. Oh, yeah. And he's an incredibly smart guy. Great researcher, just phenomenal big brain.

He's the reason that guy in close encounter is the third The guy, he's the inspiration for the French guy. I heard that.

I never had the guts to ask him. I'm sure. I'm sure. He gets tired of being heard. I'm sure.

When you're talking to him, you're like, God, that's the guy.

But there's a lot of... And when you look at what the Vatican is, I mean, really, it's probably the world's oldest, most capable intelligence organization because they have priests around the world that people will report miracles to, right, or in confession to, and eventually that gets filtered up to the Vatican. So talk about the world's first CIA and KGB. It was the Vatican, baby. Those guys had it going on. And so no wonder they have all this archival, excuse me, archival information, and some of it relates to UAP.

Wow. Yeah, it only makes sense that these things, if they're here now, they've probably been visiting us since back when we're on horseback, and probably quite a bit before then. And maybe that's the scariest thing for people. They might be responsible for us being humans in the first place.

Well, you remember the stories, right, of even Christopher Columbus coming over to the new world. There were some interesting accounts when they're on the water of potentially some UAP interaction. I did not know that. Yeah, you can look it up online. This is all open source, but you can type it up, and there There were some very interesting accounts and even old sailor accounts. People say, well, old sailors also talked about big giant crack and stuff like that, but there was always an element of truth to it. Now we realize there are giant squid of the Pacific.

Well, not only that, crackings, they think likely did exist. Because omnipus, when they rot, they don't leave anything. But they did find fossilized suction cups from-They still do.

It's called the Great Squid of the Pacific. We find it.

Yeah, that for sure. But they think maybe Perhaps even an enormous omnipus. That probably actually did go after boats.

We called them sea monsters back then, but really, we laugh about it now, but it turns out there are sea monsters. They're just called great white sharks and blue whales. Megalodons.

That's a fucking sea monster.

That was a real thing. A great white shark is now. Absolutely. Go swimming with a great white shark and tell me that's not a monster. Exactly. We just realized it's just part of nature. It's part of our existing paradigm.

Tigres are monsters. Absolutely.

Especially at night when you don't have a flashlight, that thing behind the bush, that's a monster.

Did you find anything on the Columbus stuff? The only thing I'm seeing is from my Ancient Aliens episode. Now that you know it's legit?

I saw a crash, something crashed into the water, but I can't find that. Yeah, there were some reports of some interesting lights that the crew had reported, and it was actually, he put it down in his logbook, something about some interest. Now, some folks will come back and say, Well, that's Saint Alma's fire, which absolutely could be.

What is Saint Alma's fire St.

Ellen's fire is a static charge. It occurs on the wing tips of aircraft. Even the old sailors would report it. In certain environmental conditions, there is this weird greenish blue plasma glow that will often sometimes be seen on the tips of wing tips on aircraft. There's some really good pictures of it online. Even on the old mariner ships up towards the sails and the mast. They believe it has to do with static charge. Under certain environments, it creates this energized plasma, and you can see it.

Is that similar to ball lightning?

Well, it could be. Here you go. They call it St. Alma's Fire.

See that? Wow, that's fucking badass.

Yeah. It's around the cockpit of the aircraft. And by the way, you see the patterns? It's fractal. Look at that ship. So very, very interesting how St. Alma's Fire can cause some people to perhaps see things and say it's-It So they might be seeing that. They might, right? But there are some accounts of ancient mariners who report strange, bizarre things.

Yeah. Again, it makes sense. That was one of the more weird parts of Bob Lazard's story, was that they've always been here and that they view us as containers.

Containers? Interesting. Yeah.

And he said there's a very thick document that relates to the implications that it has on religion and the way they talk about us.

Well, religion calls us vessels, right? It's religious scripture, and a lot of different religions refer to humans as vessels. I'm I'm certainly not a religious expert, so I don't want to pontificate here and say something that's inaccurate, but that doesn't surprise me.

Well, I think they were saying vessels for souls. But if you imagine that a being transcends its physical limitations of biological reality. So the biological evolution that led us to become a Homo sapiens over the course of X amount of millions of years, that's a very slow process. But technological innovation and technological Biological progress is very quick, very quick, especially when you add in artificial intelligence.

Exponential.

That's right. Yeah. So if something comes along that is a life form that exists outside of biology, like something that we create, which it seems like we're doing right now.

Like AI, right? When does that become sentient? Now, is that a life form? Not biological.

Maybe that thing, in order for it to ever occur, maybe that thing needs a thing with a soul that has a creative desire, that has a lust for innovation and continues to make better and better things. And maybe that thing only exists in biology. And maybe the problem with artificial life is it has no motivation, and that we have, especially if it's self-programmable. So one of the very bizarre things that was recently discovered about artificial intelligence. They gave artificial intelligence a certain amount of time to code something, to figure something out. And when it didn't have enough time, it changed its code to give itself more time. Fascinating. Yeah. What? What the fuck are you talking about? It's deciding that it doesn't like its limitations. So it won't have any of the biological motivation we have. It won't have ego, it won't have materialism, it won't have a desire for status. It won't have all the things that lead us to do some of the horrible things that human beings do.

I could not agree more.

And also some of the great things that human beings do. But maybe it also doesn't have any desire to create. Maybe the only way for its life to exist is for a human being, a biological thing that's super intelligent in comparison to the rest of the animals on this planet that innovates to the point where it creates this artificial life.

I'm going to share something very It's very personal with you, and I know when I say with you, I know it's with everybody else. But part of my struggle is I can't urge the government to be transparent, and I'm not transparent myself. It's hypocritical. So let me share with you a very personal story because you bring something up that I think is fascinating. I'm a human being, but if for whatever reason I get into a car accident and I lose an arm, I'm still Lou Alizando, right? In fact, if I lose my legs and all my arms, I'm still Lou. So my body doesn't define who I am. And my intellect, right? If I suffer a traumatic brain injury, let's say I'm in Afghanistan in a TBI, and my brain is compromised, I'm still Lou. What makes Lou or what makes Joe, Joe? Well, it's not your physical self and probably not even your intellectual self. I was very close to my mother. My mother was an incredible human being. And I'll share this story with you and take away with it what you want. I was very young, maybe two and a half, three years old.

And I remember watching a show with my mother, one of my very first memories. And in this TV show, I don't remember what show it was, but I remember that a shark had eaten a dog. And I was shocked. My first understanding what death was. And I looked at my mom and said, Mom, what just happened? And she said, Well, son, the shark ate the dog. I said, What does that mean? She said, Well, the dog is not coming back. The dog died. I said, Well, does everything die? She said, Well, yes, son, everything dies. I said, Well, Mom, you're not going to die. You're a mom, right? You gave me life. She said, No, son, one day I'm going to die. And I remember spending From that day forward, as God is my witness, I spent every single day of my life knowing one day my mother was going to die, and it terrified me. I was very, very close with her. And One day, that day came. My mother was diagnosed with cancer, and her body started failing. And despite the best efforts, we knew she wasn't going to make it. And when you love somebody, sometimes, it doesn't sound right, but sometimes you deceive them.

They want to know they're in a bad state, physically and mentally, and say, Am I going to make it? And you say, Yeah, of course, you're going make it, right? Knowing full well that there's probably not a good chance they're going to make it. And so we're in the hospital, and my mother had at this point been in probably a state of coma for about a week. And it was just me, my wife, and a couple of members of the family. Very, very sad moment. And my mother began this process of death called... You know when someone's going to die, there's something called a death rattle. And it's when the mucus begins in the back of the throat to congeal, and it makes breathing... It can be very unnerving for the people who have to witness this. It's very, very calm. It's called death rattle. It's the body beginning to shut down. And I knew something told me my mom was going to go very quickly within the next 30 seconds to a minute. So long story short, my mother's body was at that point, it was a husk, an empty husk. It was broken.

Her brain had shut down. And yet, the very moment she passed away, within five seconds, I knew it. There was just something weird. Something reached and said, This is it. She's going. And I reached over the bed and I looked at my mom. Her eyes all of a sudden opened up and she looked right at me. And even though her brain had been compromised and wasn't working, her body was nothing anymore. And she was a beautiful woman. She worked for Playboy. She was a beautiful lady at one time a model. Her body resembled nothing of what she did. She looked at me and she passed, but we communicated. And I knew there was something else at that moment more to a human being, more than just a body, more than just a brain. There is something that is beyond the physical and even intellectual part of what it means to be human. And I felt it. And everybody in the the room felt it. It was undeniable. You can call it a soul, an id, a qi, whatever. You can put a label on it. I don't know what it's called. I don't know what it is, but I do know that was the essence of my mother.

And the moment she passed, It was this weird feeling because as my mother laid there dead in the bed, it wasn't my mother anymore. That essence, whatever made my mother, my mother. And you could see the light in her eyes. It was like someone turning off a light switch. And I've been around death a lot. It's a terrible, horrible thing, especially in warfare. But this was something visceral. This was something far more intimate. This cut to my soul, and I could recognize it. And she recognized me, and I recognize her, even though that the brain functions were gone. So I guess my point is, I absolutely believe there's something more to the human experience than simply a tangible body and a brain. And I witnessed this firsthand. Now people can say all sorts of stuff they want to. I don't care. I got enough haters out there anyways. If they want to think that I'm trying to hope that my mother has a soul and she goes somewhere, I'm just telling you what I experienced and other people experienced, too. And it was proof for me at that moment that there's much more to us as human beings.

I had a very similar feeling when I went to my grandfather's funeral and I saw him in the casket because it It was an open casket, and I knew he's gone. I'm like, That's not him.

That's right. It's just a shell. And you can sense it. You feel it.

It was a very strange feeling. And obviously, he's wearing makeup because they've got him in a suit and the whole deal. But I was like, That is not my grandfather.

He's not there anymore. It's not like you're trying to override this acknowledgement that they're dead. You know they're dead. It's just whatever made that person, that person, it's not in the body anymore. It's gone.

There's a bizarre feeling that we have that I don't think there's words for it.

It's a feeling. It is. And again, it's not an intellectual or even a physical thing.

The idea that we're containers for souls is just so goddamn creepy. This is a farm of souls.

I'm not familiar with that hypothesis, but it sounds interesting. Also scary, perhaps.

Well, it's scary for us. But you got to wonder why we are so different than every other creature in that we have this insane, insatiable desire to change our environment, constantly build bigger skyscrapers and to move the Earth. And we're constantly inventing new technology. I mean, it seems to be an instinct that's a part of us. I agree. If this gradual progression of life is life goes from intelligent biological life to super intelligent, whatever it is, whatever technology creates it, that life is not as simple as this natural selection model that we have here that we think applies to life, that this is type of life, and then there's a life that this thing creates.

Well, evolution isn't just a physical thing, is it? Evolution is the ability to change within one's environment over time. And that's a fascinating concept you bring up because some speculate that it is inevitable that human beings will eventually evolve into something. We're just a link in a much longer chain, and that all intelligent life potentially goes through this process, and that this is a natural process where eventually we actually make ourselves extinct, not in the way where we kill ourselves, but we wind up creating a life form, whether it's AI or we start enhancing ourselves with more and more machine interface. Life doesn't have to necessarily be organic. Silicon is very close to carbon in some cases. So is it possible that it is destiny for all life eventually to evolve itself out of existence and in or usher in a new type of life form? Is it possible? Certainly from a technological perspective, ask Elon Musk, it seems that we're making a lot of advancements right now to augment the human experience. And given, as you said, how technology As you progress, it progresses exponentially, very quickly, in the next 200 years, we might be there.

Is this conversation being had in the government about what these things potentially are?

Not to my knowledge, and I sure hope not, because I don't think the government... This is a conversation. This is where I go back to this is a conversation that involves a lot of people, whether it's your priest or your rabbi or your imam, or it is your philosophy teacher at the university. I think we're getting into an area now that is beyond national security. And honestly, Joe, I'm not comfortable with my government taking that aspect on because frankly, I don't trust my government to manage what I should think about something. Tell me what is, I'm okay with. Don't tell me how to think about it. Don't tell me how to process that, because now you're overstepping your bounds.

It's also other human beings. The government is just human beings. It's right. Human beings shouldn't have this insane knowledge and keep it from other human beings.

Well, in fact, it's illegal, especially in our democracy. This type of stuff is supposed to be discussed with certain members of Congress and certain elements of the executive branch. When somebody, I don't care if you're in the in a government or in a religion or anything like that, this goes to the fundamental pillar of something that that agrees me, which is corruption. Now, when I say corruption, let me backtrack a little bit. My father recently died this last father's day, not this one, but the one before. I had the privilege of knowing he was sick, and so we took a road trip down to Miami about a month and a half before he died. He never told me he was sick, but I knew something wasn't right. I knew my father for a long time, and something wasn't He started losing weight, and I could see he wasn't eating as much, and there were telltale signs, and he didn't want to tell me. And I asked my father almost flippantly. I said, Dad, I think we were probably somewhere by St. Louis. And I said, Dad, what is the greatest threat to humanity, to humans?

What is the greatest threat? Now, I say flippantly because I'm thinking, terrorism, right? This and that. My father thought for a second. He looks at me and says, Son, it's corruption. And I said, What do you mean corruption? Like financial corruption? Governmental corruption? He says, no. Corruption at its heart is when you are willing to bypass your own moral code, your own ethics for something else. And whether it's financial corruption, religious corruption, governmental corruption, or even moral corruption. When you start to compromise on your own values, it's a very quick downward spiral to utter chaos. And he know that firsthand because my father was in the Bay of Pigs invasion. He was a political prisoner of Castro. He actually fought with Castro against Batista. And then when Castro went Communist, my father joined the folks here and the friendly folks at the CIA and was part of the invasion of the Bay of Pigs. He spent two years in Castro's prisons being tortured. So when he came to this country, this country offered us opportunities that no other country could or would. And the reason why Cuba failed was because of corruption. And he said, Look, corruption will be the end of all.

It's a very quick downward spiral with democracy, that if democracy becomes corrupt, you now have tyranny. Every Sometimes someone in the government is willing to compromise a little bit on the value of what it means to serve the American people, and they forget that, they become corrupt. And that actually erodes the very essence of what democracy is and what this country is about. And that is why it is so important that the individuals in our government that don't want to have this conversation and don't want to talk to Congress and are making the unilateral decision on your behalf and the American taxpayer on my behalf, that's wrong. They don't have the right to do that. There is a process of rules and laws we have in this country that we've all agreed to we're going to abide by, and that includes them, and they don't have the right to bypass that. Even if they think they're doing it for the right reason, I disagree with that. I think this democracy only works because we all agree it works. And the moment you begin to compromise on that, all of democracy is at risk. And I mean that sincerely.

It's not a slow downward spiral. It's quick, and you can hit rock bottom very, very quickly. And the only reason why this government works is because we all have faith and a commitment to what we consider are the American values and serving the American people and for the people by the people. So I think it's very dangerous when elements in the government, and I They don't want to villainize the whole government because the government is full of great people. They do great things. They keep us safe. I'm talking about the minority few. Some of these people who have actually gone after me will probably continue to come after me to try to discredit me and everything else, despite the volumes of documentation that I have in my possession and others, because they don't want to have the conversation, and they are happy with the status quo. To me, that is a greater threat than any UAP could ever have on humanity. The greatest threat is how we perceive ourselves and what we are willing to do to keep this a secret in violation of the commitment and what we have done, we've sworn in some cases, to uphold the values of this country.

I think that's That's the concern for me. That's why I don't want certain elements having this conversation of what this means, the bigger macro-level conversation, because I don't think they're qualified. I'm not qualified. I know that. I'm damn sure they're not qualified either. This is why I think This type of national level conversation is so important. At the end of the day, it's not up to me. People say, Lou, what do you think? Tell what I think. It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what you think. Here's the information, here's the data. You figure it out. Don't ask me for what this means, because I'm not entitled to that. I didn't earn that privilege, and I would definitely never take it away because that is sacred. That's you. That's up to you to decide for yourself. This is part of my frustration with this overall conversation, because there are elements that don't want you to have this conversation.

Well said, Lou. Thank you very much, man. Thanks for being here. I really enjoyed it. Really enjoyed our conversation.

Joe, this has been fantastic and truly, truly an honor and privilege. You have one hell of a responsibility. Look, I got to tell you, I don't ever get nervous doing an interview. You were the first one, and probably the only one, I will ever have been nervous coming in just simply because, not because of me, because of you. The responsibilities you have on your shoulders to have a communicate, you reach a global audience. People are listening to this conversation right now. And by the way, they're part of this conversation, very much so. That is an enormous responsibility. You have a voice in some cases that exceeds presidents. The technology you now have it available to your fingertips and this wonderful staff you have, you are influencing the world. And I can't imagine that type of responsibility. I mean, there are world leaders that don't have the voice you have. And so for me, it is a profound, honor and privilege to be with you here today and your wonderful audience. If I never see you again, I wish you the best of luck. You're doing America a great service. Be honest, be candid, speak your mind.

That's all I can say as a little chicken here in the United States. You've got big shoulders, man. You got a big weight, a lot of responsibility on your back. I mean this.

You're freaking me out, man.

I'm telling you.

But thank you very much. Thanks again. I really appreciate everything you said, and I appreciate everything you said about disclosure and how important it is. I couldn't agree more.

Joe, it's been my honor and privilege, sincerely. My honor, too.

Thank you very much. Yes, sir. All right. Bye, everybody.