Elizondo Unplugged
50:13 Share

The PC gave us computing power at home, the internet connected us, and mobile let us do it pretty much anywhere. Now generative AI lets us communicate with technology in our own language, using our own senses. But figuring it all out when you're living through it is a totally different story. Welcome to Leading the Shift.

a new podcast from Microsoft Azure. I'm your host, Susan Etlinger. In each episode, leaders will share what they're learning to help you navigate all this change with confidence. Please join us. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. At Sierra, discover top workout gear at incredible prices, which might lead to another discovery. Your headphones haven't been connected this whole time. Awkward. Discover top brands at unexpectedly low prices. Sierra, let's get moving.

This is Need to Know. Real talk about unidentified anomalous phenomena. From Australia, Ross Coulthart. From the U.S., Bryce Zabel.

Lou has been all over our dials. He's been in podcasts. He's been on the major media circuit. And we want to talk to him about that experience, but also by kind of following up some of that, it's going to give us the opportunity to take a look at some of the questions that maybe didn't get answered or to follow up on some of the things that we'd like to know a little bit more about. So let's get right to it. Let me bring in Ross Coulthart from across the sea. Ross,

That was quite a great interview that you did to sort of, you were the starter's gun for all of this madness. It seems like, I guess it was only three weeks ago or something like that.

G'day, Bryce. Yeah, lovely to be talking to you again and very excited to be speaking to Lou here on Need to Know. I think it's important before we bring Lou in just to introduce him because one of the things that you and I have been talking about is that a lot of the podcasts don't explain exactly who Lou Elizondo is. I think everybody just takes it for granted that we know who he is. But there's been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in the last few weeks, a lot of people throwing mud, a lot of debunkers trying to assail him. So

So let me just put Lou in context. Lou worked at the very highest levels of the Pentagon, the US Defense Department, out of the Office of the Undersecretary for Defense Intelligence. And he was, before he got involved, I think, with the UAP subject, involved in highly sensitive, extremely sensitive special access program liaison, dealing with some of the most intense secrets in the Pentagon hierarchy.

He was a very, very highly trusted official inside the US Defense Department. And that's why I find it very amusing that people have been throwing mud at Lou, this ridiculous argument about AATIP and OSAP. In the long run, it's irrelevant. The guy you're about to hear from is somebody who has operated at the very, very highest levels of the Pentagon, the Defense Department, and the intelligence community.

Everybody I've spoken to about Lou, including a lot of people he doesn't know that I've spoken to, have vouched for his integrity, his honesty, and his absolute loyalty to the American public in doing what he's doing. So Bryce, let's bring on Lou Elizondo. Let's get him in. Hey there, Lou. How are you? Nice to have you.

Gentlemen, thank you so much. It is truly, truly my honor and privilege to be with you here today. Lou, you've had the honor and privilege of being on a lot of podcasts and a lot of media. I've seen you on a bunch of them. And I just had one quick observation. When I saw you on CNN and I think CBS and maybe a couple of others, to be honest with you, they give you like that three to five minute window.

You're on, it's like you better have your talking points because that's all they got. And what I noticed in a couple of cases is I thought that the people who were interviewing you looked like they'd done about as much prep as you might expect if they were gonna speak to the guy that just won a hot dog eating contest or something. I just didn't really feel like that they knew how important this thing was. So here's my first opening question for you. Having just gone through all these interviews,

What do you think you taught America and the rest of the world while you were doing these interviews? And on the flip side, what did doing all these interviews teach you? Wow. Well, first of all, let me preamble if I can.

I think mainstream media has got a lot going on right now. And it's easy. We refer to something as combat fatigue in the military. But the media suffers from the same thing. And you've got so many of these issues du jour, whether it's elections or it's the ongoing conflicts right now over in Israel or the Middle East or with Russia and Ukraine.

And of course, an election coming up as well. So there's a lot of issues. So it's very easy to get distracted. The UAP issue is we're playing a long game. This isn't a soundbite. This isn't a headline. And then it goes away. This has been a very slow and steady process, a slow march towards ultimately what we hope to be complete disclosure.

So with that said, I want to make sure we don't put blame on mainstream media because I think they've got their hands full. And let's not forget that until recently, the last maybe six, seven years,

This topic was completely taboo, right? This was a professional career ender to even consider taking this topic seriously. And had it not been for people like you and Ross Colthart, and a few others that just said, you know, to hell with stigma and let's chase the story, we would still be in that situation. Now, what have I taught media? Probably that...

I'm about as attractive as a cement truck. This is it. This is as good as it gets, right? So I'm probably not the best guy to have on camera. With that said, what I have learned from the media is that there is a significant interest in this topic. And you're right. It's like a...

It tends to be like a puddle on the sidewalk. It's not very deep. Their knowledge base is not very deep. Maybe what they've seen in Hollywood, in a movie, or maybe what they've read in a book. But for the most part, they don't have a deep knowledge of this topic. And so they've taught me to some degree to have patience and exercise that patience. Try not to get frustrated if they're not asking me the questions that I think

They need to ask me. I think they're probably asking the questions they think they need to ask me. And for that, I'm OK with it. You know, this is like I said, this is a marathon, not a sprint. And it's going to take a while for people to to really begin to to absorb the enormity of this of this topic, in my opinion, anyway. Ross.

Lou, Nancy Mace, the congresswoman for South Carolina, has just announced in the last few hours that there's very likely to be a UAP hearing in September, I think she indicates, or maybe in October. I don't know if that's realistic, to be honest. One, do you think it's realistic there is going to be a hearing before the election? And two, is Lou Elizondo going to be called to testify? I want to see you under oath, my friend.

Sure. So again, two-part question. Let me answer the first question, and then I'll go to the second one. There is going to be hearings. Now, whether they occur in end of September or October or perhaps even November, you're right. There's an election coming up. That's a huge distraction. And so they have to pretty much, if you will, weigh the pros and cons to determine, is the timing right now or--

should we wait till after the elections? That's a decision that I certainly can't make, nor can I influence.

To answer your second question, I have already made it perfectly clear that if I am asked to testify, I will absolutely testify. Now, with that said, there is going to also be, I think, Senator Gillibrand recently made an announcement that she is also going to have some people testify. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it's actually Arrow that she wants the new leadership of Arrow to testify. Now, I could be wrong.

But from my latest understanding is that the hearings at Gillibrand, not the House, but the Senate wants to have in the near term, will probably at first begin with Arrow and the government apparatus if I was a betting man.

You know, gentlemen, we're actually recording this as the presidential debate between Harris and Trump is going to be taking place. So I've already outed our time frame on this thing. But I think it's probably a safe bet that they probably won't be asked about UAP in this debate because it doesn't tend to come up in these things. Maybe I'll be surprised. That would be great. But, Lou, here's my question.

Let's assume that it doesn't get asked in this debate and that there's another debate afterwards. And somebody were to say to you, Lou, what should we ask these two candidates on the topic of UAP? How would you phrase the question that a moderator who, as you just pointed out, usually isn't completely wired into this debate?

How would you phrase that question? How would you have them ask Donald Trump and Kamala Harris what they think about the UAP national security issue? I would start with the basic question. What do you as a presidential candidate think?

believe the American people are entitled to know? First and foremost, what do you believe in your heart is okay that the American people are made aware of? Because that's question number one. Because if they say, well, we have to keep everything secret because of national security,

We already know their position. If they say, look, I think Americans should know as much as we possibly can tell them whether or not we're alone in the universe. And look, if there's technology that maybe we've been able to glean from this, we're probably not going to have that conversation with the American people. Why? Because we don't want our adversaries

to know what we have, right? So that'd be question number one. What do you believe that the American people are entitled to know about this topic? And then two, how do you plan to enforce and ensure accountability that those organizations within the executive branch that have been established to do the work are actually going to do the work and will have access to the information that they need to do the work? That's a great question. Ross, I'll give you the next question.

Okay, Lou, there's been a very interesting post in the last 24 hours that seems to have been very quickly taken down as soon as it was posted. But there's a guy called Walter Kern who interviewed David Grush for a podcast or a magazine, I think, called County Highway.

And in an interview, Walter asserted, and I don't know the truth of this, but I haven't spoken to David about it. He asserted that Dick Cheney is at the very top of the UAP secret keepers, according to David Grush. Can you comment? Look, there's a lot of speculation about who may have known what and when. I am certainly not going to speak on behalf of David.

Dick Cheney, nor have I spoken on behalf of anybody else. As you probably know, I can only speak on behalf of me. We do know for a fact that there were certain people in certain administrations that were read onto this topic. And we know that there were some that were not, to include certain presidents that were not read onto this topic.

What type of presidential privilege Vice President Dick Cheney may have had is certainly something that I think we should ask him. I think it's a great question. I know what I have been told and what I have learned through my time at AATIP, but with that said,

I can't comment for Vice President Dick Cheney, just like I wouldn't comment for former President Trump or current President Biden. It's not my place. As you noticed before, when I'm asked questions about Congress and their intent, I never answer those questions because it's not my place to say. If people have a question for that person, address it to that person.

That would be my answer. I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm trying to be respectful. I want to make sure that I know my left and right limits, if that makes sense. I actually anticipated you wouldn't be able to answer it, Lou. I just wanted to see your reaction, which I thought was quite telling.

Hey, you know, on the subject of all this, back in 2017, the guys that were doing a lot of these interviews were yourself and Chris Mellon, sometimes Tom DeLonge, but basically you were the insiders who were talking about it, sort of setting the standard for it. And that continued for a while. Now we've had other people speak, but most noticeably last year we had David Grush talk. So my question is,

Because I think people get a little confused. They go, well, who are the whistleblower? What's going on? And my question would be, is there any daylight between your story and David Grush's story that we should highlight differences in how you see what is going on? Or if there isn't any daylight, could you then at least summarize for us the essence of what you and Grush and Mellon have all been saying so that

Because I feel like there's a lot of us, like myself, I'll have friends or my family, and I'll want to say, okay, here's what I think is going on based on the people I'm talking. But I'd like to hear your summary of that.

Yeah, well, again, great question. I can't speak for David, but let me tell you my experiences with David. First of all, David's an American hero. David is everything he says he is. I know because I worked with him in a skiff. I'm not supposed to say where right now, so I won't. But at some point, hopefully, we can have that conversation. But we're also different people, right? I know the things that I've been exposed to and the things that I did.

I know the things that David and I have done together and we've been both exposed to, but then there's stuff that David has also done that I wasn't part of. And so it's, it's, um, it's kind of like being married really, uh, where, you know, you, you, you live with somebody, uh,

24/7, but there's times you may have to go run an errand or go shopping or your spouse has to go take the kids to school and drop them off and has a conversation with the neighbor. So I wasn't privy to everything in David's world, just like David wasn't privy to everything in my world. But we took every opportunity to brief each other up on the important things, the minutiae and details of what type of Frappuccino I had in the morning.

Probably not a detail that I would waste his time with, but if there was a video that he and I both needed to look at and analyze, we're absolutely on the same sheet of music. Chris Mellon, very much the same thing. Chris Mellon is his own man. I can tell you my experiences with him. He is, again, a national hero, national asset. He is a national treasure, in my opinion. We are only having this conversation in part because of the work and sacrifices of Chris Mellon.

But is there other stuff Chris Mellon did? Yeah. I mean, he was a deputy assistant secretary of defense at one point. There's a whole lot of stuff. There's a whole other world that Chris Mellon has been involved with that I wasn't involved with, right? And so I think people assume or presume certain things like, for example, right?

Now, you, Bryce, and Ross, you guys are working a show together, but you also do things independent and separate, still for the same goal. It's very much the same thing. James is a very good friend of mine. He's a good human being. I trust him implicitly. I talk to him today. We talk all the time. Again, he worked for another agency, another three-letter agency, which I've never been employed by that agency. We work together.

but he had access and did stuff through that agency

that I wasn't privy to. And frankly, in some cases, I probably didn't even have a need to know. And I'm OK with that. This is not like, well, I need to know everything because I was part of ATIP. No, no, no, no. This is a far more sophisticated and complex topic. So we have to understand that there are aspects of his job that he is going to be part of that, frankly, I have no need to know. And I won't be part of it. And I won't ask him. And he won't tell me. And vice versa. Right?

Right. So I don't know if that answers it, but I think there's a I think we're pretty, pretty simpatico. Same with like Carl Nell. Yeah. And, you know, I guess let me just follow that up, though. If if there's a commonality to what all of you have said or intimated in the various interviews you've done over these years is.

You all basically say there's those three videos that we've all seen and that they're not very good, but they're shocking, right? But you imply they're not very good. And I heard you recently, I forget the show, but you said there are hundreds and hundreds of HD quality videos of UAP. So this is the question that bothers the people who leave comments on our show and send me emails over and over, which is...

Wouldn't the release of just one of those high-quality HD videos be a game changer? And secondly, to release a few should not impact our protection of classified sources and methods, one would think. If you're just showing what you saw in high quality. So why isn't this happening? Why can't we see one great video?

Sure. Well, I can't answer on behalf of the US government. What I can tell you is a lot of them are classified for very real reasons because of where they were taken and how they were taken and the fidelity of the information that we have. So people said before, well, how come the government has never released a video? Well, they did. They released three of them. It took 70 years.

But they did. So I think the time is going to come, and hopefully sooner rather than later, where other videos will also be released. But you've got metadata that you've got to scrub. You've got locational data, because we're doing things in places that, frankly, we're

maybe the bad guys don't know we're there, right? And we're using certain capabilities that can do certain things at certain times that we don't want the enemy to know. And it's really hard to take a video and strip all that information away with just a bunch of black

squares to redact. At that point, the video almost becomes useless, really. There are ways to do it. I think that there are people in government-- look, Donald Trump just said that if he was elected, one of the first things he'll do is he agrees with releasing not only the JFK files, but also the UFO files, and potentially releasing better video.

whether you're for Trump or against Trump, it doesn't matter, right? I'm being apolitical here. I'm just saying that there are politicians right now as they're having the debate that are actually for disclosure. They're pro-disclosure. And again, I'm not saying vote for a candidate because they're for disclosure.

I'm not saying that. What I'm simply saying is that as an example, there are people, right? Barack Obama said recently that the same thing, that there is very compelling information, that these things are real. Look, Jim Clapper, right? He was working for Obama as the director of national intelligence. He said one of his greatest laments is,

and regrets was that he didn't push for disclosure more when he was the DNI or when he was the USDR, when he was at one of the various agencies, that he should have looked into it more. So people are having a conversation. And I think videos will be forthcoming. But again, look, with now today's day and age of deepfakes,

You're never going to satisfy everybody. There's always going to be people out there, oh, that's not real. Oh, this is hogwash. Oh, this is a psyop from the government. Oh, this is whatever. You can't make everybody happy, unfortunately. And I'm not sure another video is necessarily going to do that. Maybe it does. Maybe it helps. I hope it does. But I think we may even be beyond that at this point in the conversation. OK.

Lou, you mentioned the JFK files that Trump has pledged to release, and that's a great segue for an issue that both Bryce and I are very engaged on. Let me ask you this way. Do you think there is a connection between the death of JFK and the UAP mystery? Well, there certainly may be a tangential one. It was known that JFK wanted to release certain UAP UFO files, and

If you talk to RFK right now, one of the individuals working with Trump on his campaign, he is very pro-disclosure. He has indicated multiple times that he thinks that whatever files are in the possession of the US government should be released. It was known that JFK had an interest in this topic. Now, was that the primer that saw him, unfortunately, be killed?

Probably not. There's a lot more there. I happen to know somebody who was privy to a lot more information. It was probably more related to things like Bay of Pigs invasion and possibly a re-invasion. I think there was some potential mob ties and some intelligence stuff. I don't want to elaborate, certainly, and I don't want to speculate anything.

I've already had people accuse me online of being a conspiracy theorist, which is the farthest from the truth. I just want to be careful because the moment people hear that, they go, oh, JFK, conspiracy theorist. No, no, no, we're talking about conspiracy fact is what we're talking about. But I wasn't there and I wasn't alive. And so I'm going to be very careful not to pontificate on something that I don't have complete insight into.

Which is fair. And certainly you haven't brought up JFK in most of these interviews I've seen or any of them to the best of my knowledge, but something you have brought up a couple of times. There are two things you brought up and I just want to make sure I'm understanding what I'm hearing.

You talked on Joe Rogan, for example, about how we're happy to go fly a helicopter around and, you know, tag a snowy plover or a wildebeest or whatever and, you know, do our business with them and then release them back into the... You talked about that. So my question is, are you confirming that we have an abduction issue problem?

Because you've also talked in your book about implants. So I just want to hear it in plain English. Are people being abducted? And is that something that we're aware of? And are we doing anything about it? So the allegation is there. We know for sure that some people have sustained negative medical consequences as a result of getting too close to a UAP. That may be

It may be a result of the technology itself and not deliberate. But keep in mind my background as a former special agent. If you, let's say, take an Uber or a taxi, and you want to go to the mall, but instead, they take you to their house--

That's kidnapping, right? That's a felony offense. And oh, by the way, if they happen to touch you without your permission, even just touch you, that's assault, right? So now we can start adding up the crimes, the federal crimes here. That doesn't seem benevolent to me. Now, imagine that happening to your kid, right?

We've got a problem. If that's happening, we've got a serious problem. Because look, in some cases, doing that kind of stuff is an act of war, literally. It's a provocation. If that is indeed happening, now, there are people that will tell you all day long that it's happening. My focus at AATIP was more nuts and bolts. So I was more interested in the military encounters over controlled US airspace, over sensitive military installations, so

So that wasn't really my area of focus. There were individuals in the program that were more focused on that. That is their story to tell. But I personally come from the background that if you are taken away against your will and touched in any way, I don't see how that's a good thing. I know some people say it is, and they report that they've had a good experience, but

I don't think I'd like it very much if somebody tried to take me somewhere without my permission and, you know, touch me. So you should definitely be spotted that one. It's not necessary. You said you were more nuts and bolts. So the thing that you have said in your book and in some of these interviews, that's very nuts and bolts is you've casually stated that Roswell happened and that it was NHI. I mean, you, you haven't been hiding that you've actually said it. So just so I'm hearing this straight up,

Because Roswell has been something I've been looking into for a long time. Are we finally getting to the place where we're going to admit that Roswell was a crash of an exotic technology that included bodies of potential NHI and that this has been something the government has had in its possession going back, what, 75 plus years now? So I will answer your question with a statement.

I had been approved by the Pentagon to talk about this particular aspect. I will say that there was a point in time where I was told to my face verbatim, I am not allowed to talk about crash retrievals at all.

or I will absolutely go to jail. And I've honored that. And that's why my book went through the DOPSER process, because I wanted to make sure before I talked about it, I had approval from the Pentagon to do it. And so my book took almost a year to go through the Pentagon process, but they approved me talking about

Roswell. And so that's why I can talk about Roswell. Yes, Roswell, by all accounts, was a crash. It was not a balloon. It was not test dummies being thrown out. It was a crash. In fact, it was two events. And bodies were recovered? Yeah. Correct. And when you say two events, you mean two craft that

crashed with each other and created separate debris fields or one craft that blew apart into two debris fields? So what I was told was that there was two events. One was recovered by us and one was able to go away on its own. And that biological samples were non-human biological samples were recovered. Keep in mind, this is the end of the 1940s. Lou Elizondo wasn't alive then.

But there were people and there were reports that were generated as a result of that event that colleagues of mine had access to. For the record, I would just like to say that I too was not alive then, even though I am older than I would like to be. Ross? Yeah.

So, Lou, I want to get into this issue of threats. So you've been assailed by some people for talking up a threat. You know, in some interviews, you've given the impression that you're almost talking about a potential for invasion by a non-human intelligence.

And I just want to quote to you something from Jeff Kripal, Professor Jeff Kripal's new book, "How to Think Impossibly," which I found a very interesting read. He says, "I strongly suspect that what we finally have in the UFO phenomenon is a spiritual physical phenomenon that is being grossly misinterpreted as a conventional military threat or potential corporate technology, but that no one really understands much less reverse engineers with our strictly physicalist assumptions.

To speak paradoxically, and I hope shockingly, we are trying to shoot down souls. What's your take on that? Well, again, you can't argue a negative, can you? I can't say that's not correct because, frankly, we don't know. If I can just digress here for just a moment. Look, there's more to this topic, surely, than nuts and bolts.

Just like there's more to the topic of me when I go to the grocery store than just nuts and bolts in my car. There's all sorts of things behind it. There's intent and there's motivations and there's, you know, if you want to say spiritual aspect, sure. I mean, we are as human beings, I often say, you know, we are, we are spirits having a physical experience, right?

There's more to Ross or Rice or Lou than this, because if I lose my arms in an accident and even my legs, I'm still Lou, I'm still me. In fact, if I suffer a traumatic brain injury because I get too close to some ordinance or something like that happens or I trip on the sidewalk, I might have some debilitating issues with my brain.

I'm still Lou, right? So it's not the body that defines Lou, the physical nuts and bolts. It's not even the intellect that defines Lou. There's something else that defines me. It's what makes me, me, and what makes you, you, and your audience, your audience. Because it's not just a physical body and a brain. The question is, what is it? And for millennia, mankind has been giving it labels like the soul, the spirit, the chi, the id, whatever you want to call it.

Um, but there is something else that's a little bit more perhaps elusive and yet indelible than just the physical body that, that makes us and the human experience. Look, I tell people all the time, you know, if you want to, if you want to believe in spiritualism, I can ask you a very simple question. I said, do you love your kids? And people will say, yeah, of course I do. My answer is then prove it.

How can you? You can't touch it. You can't taste it. You can't hear it. You can't smell it. How do you know it's real? Well, can you even define it for me? No. I mean, we all feel it. We all know it's there. And yet we all have a very, very difficult time putting our finger on just exactly what it is. And yet we all inherently accept it to be a real thing.

So we are spiritual beings, at least most of us, maybe someone sociopathic perhaps. But we are beings that are very spiritual. So is it really that much of a leap to say that, oh, I don't know, NHI also have this aspect to them? No, it's quite possible. Look, I've got four German shepherds, and they all have human names, and they treat them like a human. Why is that? Are they human? No, of course they're not human.

But there's a connection there. It's beyond just the fur and the four legs and the tail, right? There's the dogs and myself, just like anybody who has a pet out there, there's a connection. And it's a connection between kindred spirits. It's not just a physical connection. It's emotional and spiritual connection that we have to our loved ones.

So maybe there is another aspect to this. The problem is that from a national security perspective, they're not really interested in that, are they? They're interested in incursions over controlled US airspace. They're interested in potentially reconnaissance over sensitive military installations. They're interested in potentially the manipulation of our nuclear capabilities, right? These are national security issues. If you want to talk about the other stuff,

Probably your priest or your local imam or rabbi would be better suited to have that conversation because the national security apparatus isn't really the best place to put that conversation if you ask me. In fact, I don't want a general telling me what to think about this topic from a spiritual perspective. You want to tell me what to think about this from a national security perspective? Hey, rock and roll. I got you.

But don't tell me what this should mean to me in humanity from a psychological or sociological or even a theological or philosophical perspective. That's none of their damn business. That's why we're having this conversation. That's why this type of conversation is so important.

Great answer. And it makes me feel like you always underrate yourself. You say, I'm not a physicist. I don't, I'm not this big. Actually, you become sort of our Carl Sagan, who's not, you know, you're explaining these complex things to people. I like it. You say that to all the girls, I'm sure. I

Well, actually, I think Carl Sagan probably knew a lot more than he ever let on, if the truth be known in the future. But anyway, we're talking about the nuts and bolts, the national security parts of it. I understand that. And in your book and in a lot of these interviews you've done, you talk about how you want to be forward-looking. So obviously, like Dave Grush is talking about,

a craft being recovered from Italy in 1933. Right. So you're saying, well, I'm not looking there. I'm trying to look forward. And I get that. That makes a whole lot of sense. But on the other hand, if Roswell was a real event, then we, you know, how government works. We all do. Government is going to say, wow, that was a big deal. And they just come out of world war two and they're going to try to get a plan together. So

I guess I just want to know if you've heard about this, and if so, if you've heard anything that makes you feel one way or the other. And I'm specifically asking, can you confirm or deny that the creation of any kind of government group in the past that was either known as Majestic 12, MJ 12, Magic 12, or any of that,

And was this Eisenhower briefing memo that became so famous in the 80s because you you had memos you brought to, you know, a couple of these podcasts from the 50s. So it's not like you're not aware of it. Was this Eisenhower briefing memo supposedly given to him after he was elected, but before he took office in 1952 that told them about Roswell and Majestic 12? Is that a real document? Have you heard of Majestic 12?

I'm aware of Majestic 12. Let me see if I can answer this in a way that is succinct and accurate.

There is absolutely a cabal, an organized group of individuals who have a comprehensive understanding of the US government's involvement in the UAP topic going back decades. They are very influential and they guard this information jealously.

In the past, they have been able to exercise extreme influence, and I cannot overstate the terminology I'm using here, to keep this conversation squelched. And both Dave Grush and I, and I cannot speak for Dave, have felt the brunt of that at one point. And I'm not prepared to go into that conversation right now.

That will, at some point, that part of the story will probably be revealed. It's very concerning and disturbing. The length that people will go to in order to keep this conversation under wraps, again, I understand it. I don't agree with it, but I can understand the rationale. I think I'm going to leave it at that. I...

There is a very, very influential and powerful group of individuals, and not all of them are necessarily happy with this conversation happening. I guess the only follow up I want on that is, have you seen that memo before?

Eisenhower briefing memo. And do you have any emotional feelings one way or the other about whether you think it's real or not? It was before my time. I have no idea. I wasn't even alive. You know, I'm aware of it. I saw it. I, you know, I didn't write it. So I can tell you. On the same theme, Lou, you left an incredible job at the Pentagon to go and work for Tom DeLonge at To The Stars. And it

And it's quite obvious, you don't have to say it, it's very much in the public record because it was leaked to WikiLeaks. It's quite obvious that there were conversations going on between John Podesta and the White House, between General Neil McCasland, General Michael Carey, Air Force, and Robert Weiss from Lockheed Martin. There were clearly discussions going on in anticipation of a Hillary Clinton expected victory in the presidential elections that year. It didn't happen, though.

But Tom DeLonge did, in the years prior to those moments, make a number of quite astonishing claims. Do you take issue? You've heard what Tom said. Do you think Tom was accurately reflecting your understanding?

Tom is his own man. Let me give you a little brief explanation of Tom DeLonge. Sometimes when you're in a crowded room, you need a bullhorn to get people's attention. You hear about the proverbial bull in the China shop. Well, Tom DeLonge is the hand grenade in the punch bowl. Very effective at getting attention when needed.

This was a topic that needed attention. No, I do not agree with necessarily everything Tom says, nor does he agree with everything I say. Tom is his own man. He's, by the way, a very, very intelligent individual and extremely creative. And so everybody's entitled to their own opinions. My opinions are based upon my experience and the data that I saw when I was at the Pentagon and working with my colleagues.

Tom's opinions were formulated by his own experiences, people he talked to. And quite frankly, he had access to some very senior people. As you said, look, I've spoken to John Podesta myself. He's not a dumb guy. He's brilliant. He's a really, I mean, he's the opinion of an intellectual.

So the question is, was Tom getting this information from somebody else or was he formulating his own opinions based upon conversations he had with somebody else, right? And those are questions you'd have to ask Tom DeLonge.

I couldn't answer those. But no, Tom, I'm sure, doesn't agree necessarily with some of my postulations, and I don't agree with some of his. But it doesn't make him necessarily wrong, and it also doesn't make him a bad guy. He's done a lot for this cause and disclosure, and really put his own credibility on the line and put his own money on the line, which is a lot more than other people have done in the past. So

Him and people like Robert Bigelow put their money where their mouth was. So, Lou, as we kind of wind down here, I just want to get clear on one thing because I've now read your book, obviously, and I've heard you talk at length. I've heard you do the short interview, the long interviews.

And what comes up a lot is the invocation of the NDA and the line where you've actually said, well, you know, there's this line. I can't, I can go up to it. I think you've said, I can put my toe on the line, but I can't go over the line, that kind of stuff. And it's very colorful language and all that. And I get it, but I will say that the one thing that's frustrating for a lot of people is,

is trying to get their brains around the line. Now, Ross walks his own line, by the way, you know, where he's a journalist protecting sources, right? So it's not like this is something that's only on you. It's on a lot of people in this world. But here's what I'd like you to clear up for us as best you can right now.

How does one decide where the line is in this process that you're involved in? And how do you define that line so that you know, you know, whether whether someone is someone else defining the line for you? Are you the definer of the line that gets approved? Where's the line? Who's calling it? How do you respect it?

There is a security classification guide that the US government has on managing this information. I did not write it. It is property of the US government and in there are the left and right limits. And if you have a security clearance and you've been briefed into this topic,

There are lines in black and white that tell you, you can't say this, you can't say that. You can say this, you cannot say that. And if you want to say that, you've got to go through this process, go through the original classification authority, you've got to go through DOPSER, you've got to get the reviewers to all look at it, and they will make a determination.

for you. So that's really important to understand. This is not ruled according to Lewin. Yes, I'm willing to run right up to the line, as I've done many times before. But I do have a security clearance. Look, I'm loyal to my country. And no, I am not going to leak information. And I'll tell you right now, as I've said before, if I'm put jacked up against a corner and I have to make a decision, national security or disclosure, I will always choose national security. That's--

I'm not going to lie to you. That's what I will do because I'm a patriot and I love my country. But I don't think we have to make that choice. Look how far we've come in the last seven years. And look, I haven't had to go to jail, right? And I haven't had to just say, no, I'm going to shut up and I'm never going to talk about UAP again.

I'm talking about it every day. And by the way, look where we are with Congress. No, by the way, now we have an arrow. And oh, by the way, now we've got organizations and people coming out now that want to talk about this and whistleblowers, right? And so it's happening. It's happening. We don't have to violate our national security oaths and our NDAs to have the conversation. And this is proof right here, right now. This is proof.

Now, just to follow that up, though, one of the things where you've defined the line is you have said repeatedly in your book and in some of these interviews that we are dealing with a non-human intelligence and a form of non-human technology. So what I think is confusing people is they're like going, holy crap, he gets to say we're dealing with non-humans now?

but our government won't say it? That the government that is creating the line for you is saying, yeah, you can say it, but we're not going to say it. And I think that's what frustrates people. Do you know what I'm saying? Oh, yeah. I mean, think about me, how frustrated I am. I mean, I feel you, brother. I feel that every day. I mean, ask Dave Grush. You know, he testified before the American people and the government did the same thing. You can say this, you know, and he went out there and he did. And boy, he caught...

flack for it. Within 24 hours, they tried to ruin his reputation and his career. This is after getting approval to do it. It seems a little bit disjointed, doesn't it? I think we're beginning to have that conversation. I think as NASA gets closer to potentially

identifying and announcing life on Mars and okay, yeah, look, it looks like life is more than just earth. That part of the conversation probably will naturally come and probably very quickly. Well, that's an optimistic tone. Lou, I'm very conscious that we're coming to the end of our time with you, but on the way out,

Is there reason for optimism with Congress? I know all the politicians are very distracted by the election at the moment, but do you detect any lack of resolve from senior people in Congress?

Yeah, there's a few there that have interests with the military industrial complex. They historically side with them because they get their campaign financing through them. I don't like it, but it's legal. Fortunately, there's a lot of people on the other side that want to see transparency and they're pretty formidable. I've seen them personally engage on this topic. They're not afraid to have the conversation.

I'll leave you with a little joke I used to tell my daughters. I understand if you look at the word progress, it's really the truncation of two words, pro in Latin meaning forward and gres meaning movement, so forward movement. So it's no wonder...

And Congress is named what it is. But the reality is that there are some good people there, and they do want to do the right thing. And I think they are making a difference. And just like this new legislation that's been put up again for the National Defense Authorization Act,

People need to know that they should support that. This is good for our country. This is good for America. Look, I strongly believe America deserves to know the truth. America can handle the truth. Just have the conversation with the American people. Let them decide. So again, I don't want to disparage anybody in Congress. There's a lot of really good people in Congress that are working very hard on both sides of the aisle. Let me emphasize that.

both sides, both liberal and conservative. So that to me is very, I'm very optimistic for that. If anything, maybe it helps bring the country together on a topic for once, you know? So that's good. Can I just ask one parting shot question here? Do we have that much time? It's just this, Ross has experienced this. I've experienced it. You experience it. And by it, I mean,

We get excited. We say, oh my God, the government has actually admitted that UAP is real. You know, the only question is who are they and what do they want? But they're admitting that it is now real. And there's whistleblowers out there that say we have crash wreckage and we have this and we get excited. We tell our friends and family. And quite often, a lot of them will say, huh, that's interesting. Do you want Italian tonight or what? And we're

I'm always stunned by that because I go, what could be more important than trying to get to the bottom of this? So I'm just wondering, have you experienced that and what is your thought? Yes, but I think it's a good thing. It shows, you know what, there was a time in our country, everybody thought we had these studies done by the Rand Corporation and these other corporations, these big think tanks that said if we were honest and truthful with the American people about the existence of NHI and UAPs,

What would the consequence of that be? And the report said, you can't do it. You absolutely can't because it will collapse the very social structure and fabric of our country, right? People will go run on the banks. People will lose faith in their religions. People won't pay their taxes. People will go rob the stores. None of that's happened, right? The fact that they go, meh.

I think is a good thing because you know what? It proves that we can handle the truth. You know, we're still going to pay our mortgages. We're still going to pay our cell phones. We're still going to take our kids to the PTA meetings and have talks to the teacher. That's a good thing. And I, I, I'm encouraged by that. I'm glad it's being received that way because the opposite is catastrophic disclosure. And I think most people in the government don't want that.

Well, Lou, respect and appreciation for what you do. Thank you. Gentlemen, my honor and privilege again. Thank you. And Ross, really appreciate what you guys are doing. I know some of the folks that you've talked to, and I've got to tell you, man, you've got a lot of weight on your shoulders, brother. Man. Take care. It's an interesting time for all of us, Lou, but thank you so much, mate. And really, very strongly appreciate you talking to Need to Know.

Absolutely. Again, anytime guys. Take care. God bless. Take care. Bye-bye.