Transcribed by Joe Murgia – @ufojoe11 on Twitter
Glenn Beck (GB): What do these videos mean? Here’s what the Pentagon said: The DoD is releasing these videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there are more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as unidentified. So in other words, the DoD, for the first time, is saying, yeah, this is real, we just don’t know what the crap it is. Now, I want to separate fact from fiction here. Anybody who is thinking that the United States government is looking for aliens, I don’t think we have proof of that. What we do have is the government looking at things they cannot understand, describe, or or recognize at all. Is a foreign country so far ahead of us or are these from space? That is the search that I am interested in. And both pose extreme national security risks. One of them is global security risk, as an outsider looking in.
Now, let me show you a couple of other things. Also, just a few days before…what a surprise…the Pentagon announced something else. They released these videos. A couple days later, they decide they’re going to roll out this promotional video. Watch.
Space Force commercial/promo plays…
Narrator: Some people look to the stars and ask, what if. Our job is to have an answer. We have to imagine what would be imagined, plan for what’s possible, while it’s still impossible. Maybe you weren’t put here just to ask the questions. Maybe you were put here, to be the answer. Maybe your purpose on this planet, isn’t on this planet.
GB: I have to tell you the first time I saw that, that was the most exciting thing I have seen – probably since I was a kid – coming out of the United States military. Because we are explorers. Now, is it a coincidence that the government is now releasing that, yeah, there’s stuff we don’t understand and the Space Force. Are they connected? I don’t know. But I have a couple of guys on that…you know, back in the old days, when I was growing up, Leonard Nimoy would do the search for the unknown. And they were always cheesy. They were like, “Does Bigfoot exist?! Do UFOs and aliens exist?! Look at this desert painting!” I don’t want to get into any of that. I want to talk to people who have actually been working for the government, with the government and have some credibility on the issue. Whether or not these are ETs or another country developing things, I’d like to know. But is there anyone with credibility? Yes, there are two people with real credibility. and let me introduce you to both of them.
The first one is Luis Elizondo. He’s been on my program before. He’s a career intelligence offers whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, National Counterintelligence Executive, Director of the National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent in Charge he also supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence case officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America, the Middle East. Most recently, he managed the security for a certain sensitive portfolio for the U.S. government, as director for the national programs of special management staff. For nearly the last decade, he also ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies, which is basically what we would call UFOs. His academic background includes microbiology, immune immunology, and parasitology, with research experience in tropical diseases. He is also an inventor who holds several patents. Welcome, Luis.
The other guest that we have on today is Christopher Mellon. He is currently serving on the advisory board to To The Stars Academy, which we’ll explain in a minute, which is fascinating. He previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for intelligence during Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He is the former, minority staff director of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He’s a private equity investor, chair of the Science Committee at Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Neither one of these guys are slouches. He is personally working towards prompting the government to take action on what he believes is a serious threat to national security. Just wanted to read their full resume to know that you’re not dealing with some sort of a UFO guy who’s living in his basement. Chris, tell me what To the Stars Academy is.
Christopher Mellon (CM): Thanks very much. It’s a private…it’s a B Corp., so we have a social responsibility and we’re engaged both in entertainment and scientific research, trying to push the envelope and fire young people’s imaginations.
GB: Okay, and if I may, I want to read this. You collect documents and physical materials from public and private sources, related to the UAP, which is the official term for UFOs, to study it and then transition the transformative technologies behind it to wider applications of public benefit. That’s amazing, just that. Can you tell me about that?
Christopher Mellon: Sure. So, Commander Dave Fravor of the Black Aces, who observed one of these objects, said, “Well, I’d like to fly that thing.” And we’d like to think that’s possible with sufficient research and focus in the public and private sectors. These aircraft are demonstrating unprecedented capabilities, capabilities that are beyond even what our science is able to understand. So they also, though, are demonstrating it’s possible. So we’re pressing ahead is as arduously as we can to get more information and try to better understand how this is happening, in an effort to duplicate these capabilities.
GB: So I want to be really clear and be very careful that I don’t create this atmosphere or the impression that I am an Area 51 believer and you know, that we’ve got aliens in jars and everything else. Maybe we do. I don’t know. But I don’t think so. But I do want to ask, when you say you want physical materials from public and private sources, do you believe that we do have physical materials from some of these things that we have been studying, that maybe we’re holding back?
CM: We’re not taking that position, publicly, but there are materials that have been provided to us and the individuals providing them, in various cases, have established plausible linkage to explosions that have occurred, for example, and materials that have been recovered. Other researchers have been doing this for years, Jacques Vallee for example, And some of these materials have genuinely extraordinary properties. So…
GB: Can you give me an example of what that means?
CM: Sure. So, there isn’t any metal, for example…naturally occurring element…a subset of the atoms that have an extra neutron, that are an isotope. So, on our planet, there’s a signature…iron will always have, say 4% of the atoms in a total sample that have an extra neutron, say. So, some of these materials have different ratios than anything normally found on Earth. So, it raises the question whether or not somebody was manipulating those in a lab, somewhere on Earth at great expense, or whether these materials actually came from outside the solar system, formed in a different stellar explosion, in a different solar system. The level of the ability to manipulate materials at that level is one, extraordinary and two, enables different engineering processes…it can support different engineering processes, a different science. So, it’s the kind of thing that we’re seeking to establish in our work, in our research.
GB: Because I know that we have talked about hyper speeds, I can’t remember what it’s called, but speeds that are just not…there’s no alloy on Earth…
GB: Yeah, hypersonic, There’s just no alloy that will hold up to that. And that’s what we’re seeing on some of these videos, right?
CM: That is correct. The analysis of these vehicles and also eyewitness testimony from Navy pilots show velocities that no aircraft we know of could withstand ,and no pilot could withstand,
GB: How fast are they going…do we think?
CM: In some cases, it’s not even the top speed that’s so stunning as much as the acceleration itself. From zero to thousands of miles per hour in in a couple of seconds. So for the case of the Tic Tac, the top velocity may have been 5000 or 7000 miles per hour, but it achieved that velocity in practically the blink of an eye.
GB: The G-Force alone would kill anybody inside at least as we understand it.
GB: Luis, let me let me go to you. You were part of the government. You oversaw some of this research, correct?
Luis Elizondo (LE): Yes, sir. That’s correct.
GB: Okay. And we’ve been funding this research, even though the government has been denying it forever, we have been funding it forever. And now that, for the very first time, is coming out in incredible ways. And, for the first time in history, we have said, “Yes, these things are true.” Why has it been so…why is it so remarkable that today we know that the government is verifying these things when they have denied them since the 1930s? Why now? What’s happening?
LE: Well, unfortunately, Mr. Beck,. First of all, thank you for having me, once again, on your program. Really appreciate it. I think it’s first important for me to share with you and your audience that I’m no longer employed with the U.S. government for the last year and a half, two years. So I really can’t speak on behalf of the government why they chose this timing now versus any other time. But what I speculate is that we are now at a point where we have the technological capabilities to not only look at something but assess what it is we’re looking at. And it’s to the point where we can look at electro-optical data like gun camera footage and then we can, of course, cross reference that with radar data and, of course, the eyewitness accounts as well. And what it does is paint a very compelling picture that we’re dealing with technology that is beyond next-generation. We’re dealing with a capability that can outperform anything we have, at least conventionally speaking, in our inventory. And from that perspective, one has to presume that there may be a national security threat. Whether it is an adversary, a foreign adversary that has leapfrogged us in technology, or it’s something completely different.
GB: Let me stop here. And I’d like to ask both of you here…when you just said, next generation technology, this doesn’t seem like the next generation. This seems like several generations past us. Is that accurate> I’d like to hear from both of you.
LE: Beyond next-generation.
CM: This is not incremental. This is not the next generation, this is fundamentally different.
GB: Right. And if a nation had this kind of technology, they would be so far ahead of us, we’d be like Panama versus the United States. There’s just no way to…this technology is stunning and it would not be just one vehicle. This would have to translate to all kinds of technology that would be stunning. Correct?
CM: That is correct.
LE: Yes, that’s correct. And from it from a DoD perspective…and Chris can talk to your audience a little bit more about this. But we spend billions, with a B, billions of dollars each year to avoid strategic surprise, Meaning, we want to maintain a technological advantage over our adversaries and if there is someone or something that has this type of advancement – and by the way, going back to 2004, and possibly earlier – then all this time and effort and money and resources and manpower that we’ve put into to ensuring we remain a superpower on the global stage…then you have to kind of scratch your head and say, “Okay, well…maybe we’re not.” And that’s obviously a concern ,at least from my perspective when I was at the Pentagon. I’m not into UFOs, I’m not a UFOlogist or into all this other stuff. My my job was and is now…is basically your old gumshoe investigator. Just the facts, ma’am, kind of guy.
GB: If I’m not mistaken, Luis, when you were asked to head this, you were asked, “What do you think about UFOs?” And you thought it was like a trick question. Like, “I don’t know, I don’t think of UFOs.” Is that right?
LE: Yes, sir. That’s true. In fact, my answer was, “I don’t think about then because I really don’t have the time or luxury to. I’m too focused on on bad guys and terrorists and spies.” But at the end of the day, when you’re in that type of environment, especially intelligence, and you realize that you’re coming across truly something that is a paradigm shift, exponentially more capable than then you are, then that becomes a problem.
GB: So Chris, tell me what this truly means to us. I mean, is there any other way to explain these? That’s not a natural phenomena. We now have verification from the government that this is not some trick of camera or anything else. So there’s no way to explain it. Tell me what this means to us, on Earth, all of us.
CM: Yeah, it’s alarming. First of all, I would point out, this represents a massive intelligence failure on the part of the United States and that’s one of the reasons that Lue and I have both gotten involved, Because there was no reporting on this, on these developments, that went to any senior official in the executive or legislative branches of government. The Secretary of Defense was not being informed the Director of National Intelligence, the Congress, etc. And this was going on month after month into years, and these Navy pilots were getting no support and there was no dissemination of the information, just the fact that this was occurring. So, we have lost a lot of precious time. And if you think about, say, 911, when the FBI and CIA were not talking and not sharing information they had about the terrorists in advance, this is in many ways, similar. And it’s very concerning from that standpoint. And still, to this day, we do not have a focused, aggressive effort to get to the bottom of this.
GB: Is this one of the reasons why we’re doing Space Force now? I mean, are they are they connected at all?
CM: If they’re connected, I would say very indirectly, in the sense that technology is advancing very rapidly. One of the reasons that we may be detecting more of these vehicles and having more incidents is because the sensors on our aircraft and other platforms are more capable, so we’re seeing more of this. But that didn’t lead to the space force. I don’t believe there’s any direct connection. I think it’s just a natural evolution as more of our emphasis, more of our activity, military activity, shifts to space.
GB: We keep landing here at 2004 and this is when we really started…but this has been going on since the 1950s, for sure. You know, the Roswell stuff. Do you believe that the first real evidence of this or that there was a technological shift or some. Why 2004? Why is this…is it different, is something changed in the last 20 years.
CM: Well, I’ll take a stab at this and Lue may want to comment as well. But in 2004, we had an incident in which the world’s most advanced naval radar verified what multiple naval aviators were seeing in perfect visibility, on a clear, bright sunny day. Which involved a vehicle that was white, that had no wings, it had no exhaust, it had no evident means of lift or propulsion and these were being tracked and observed for days by the Princeton and then ultimately observed at close range by F-18. pilots and their weapon system operators.
GB: And that’s that first 2004 video, we saw
CM: Correct. And after that was observed flying away at hypersonic speeds, confirmed by the Princeton, it actually went to the exercise rendezvous point the aviators have established and hovered at that precise location as though it had either been observing on our aircraft or reading our communications.
GB: Now, what that means is, if I’m not mistaken, please help me out. But what that means is, there is a place when we’re doing military exercises, there’s a place that we say, outside of this zone is kind of a safe zone. So it moved, it saw that we were tracking it and it moved directly in, just past that line for the safe zone to show it’s not a threat. Is that right?
CM: Not exactly. It moved to precise coordinates, that had been established by the aviators, where they were going to rendezvous in the air to conduct their air-to-air exercises and it went to that precise point and hovered.
GB: What are the odds of that?
CM: Yeah, it’s not random, obviously. There’s a message there. Yeah.
LE: I’ll jump in as well and add a little bit to that. The 2004 event, from our perspective, was pivotal because it wasn’t just the radar system, the highly capable radar system that you have: the Spy-1 radar on board the USS Princeton. Which is a, for those who may not know, it’s a Ticonderoga-class vessel. Looks a little bit like a like a cruiser of some sort. And it’s got this sea-based rate radar system that’s supposed to give you a common operating picture of the battlespace. But let’s also not forget that you had an airborne radar system at the time, too, which was your E -2 Hawkeye. And both radar systems, both seaborne and your airborne, both saw the same object, which, by the way, was backed up again by pilots, which I personally brought back several years ago, I won’t say exactly when. But I brought these individuals to actually testify before very, very senior DoD staff in the secretary’s suite. Because it was it was so alarming and there was so much data, so much information that we had on that one particular incident, it really became a bit of a gold standard from an investigative perspective, that later on, other incidents were able to kind of measure up to, whether it be with the Roosevelt or other ones and say, “Okay, does this fall kind of in line with what we saw with the Nimitz? Yes? No? And if so, what are the similarities?
GB: Let me just ask this. So, the reason why 2004 is important is…before it was an unidentified flying object, if you will. We didn’t know what it was, we couldn’t verify it was anything. But this is the first time that we had not only one, but three separate solid verifications. We had duty officers who witnessed it with their own eyes, coupled with aerial radar that could verify exactly what they said, and the ship based radar, all the highest technology we have. So we had three witnesses, if you will. And that’s a first, right?
LE: Actually, if you have more than four because you have a gun camera footage, you have the radar systems, both seaborne and airborne, then you have the eyewitnesses. And it’s not just one pilot. Let’s put this into context. You had two aircraft on station at that time, at that location. And in those aircraft, the way they are, they are sitting, basically in tandem. You have two individuals per aircraft. All four individuals flying these two aircraft at different altitudes. witnessed the exact same event, both the back seaters and the front seaters.
GB: And that’s a first I mean, we’ve never Anything like that, right?
CM: Actually, there are other cases somewhat like that, which are which are coming to light. Now, there was a Nike, anti-ballistic missile radar in Alaska, for example, that we now know. As a result of the publicity, people are starting to come forward, military personnel. But this case was unprecedented in the number of witnesses and the credibility and the independent technical corroboration by multiple sensor systems on multiple platforms. And ultimately, this case was too big to ignore and to sweep under the rug. Too many people.
GB: So when I heard this story, originally, I heard that it had gone to a safe zone to send the message: It’s not a problem. But what bothered me about that was it obviously had some way of hacking, what I would assume, is very sophisticated, encryption of all of our data of where we were meeting, what the zones were. But you just said, Chris, that, no, it was very specific on where they were going to conduct things. And you said, it sent a very clear message. What was the message do you think it was sending?
CM: Well, it was indicating, by going to the precise location, that it had either been observing us or had read our communications. And, you know, it clearly wasn’t a coincidence. It was a deliberate act by an intelligently controlled system. The pilots and weapon systems officers that engaged with this vehicle at close range, felt from the outset that it was in control. They were intimidated and impressed and they’re not people that are easily intimidated or impressed. Lue I have both interviewed both pilots, and they they use the term “dominant battlespace awareness.” It seemed to be in control and be able to…
GB: Which means what?
CM: It was, so if a pilot tries to get on the tail, for example, of a potential adversary in a dogfight, get the upper hand in positioning ,this object from from the get seemed to be able to dominate its engagement with the two F-18s. To dominate our top fighters.
GB: Luis, what you think that message is? Is that a hostile message? Is that just a message of, “Hey, we’re here and we want you to know we can take you…” What is that message?
LE: Sure. You know, it could be all sorts of things. It could be a demonstration of power. It could also be a demonstration of technological advancement. I think Chris Mellon is absolutely correct that when you have something, some sort of system, weapon system that can anticipate an enemies’ move before the enemy actually does it, that’s problematic. Because we spend again, once again, our government spentdsa lot of money collecting intelligence trying to figure out what our enemies are going to do. And if there is some sort of system out there, we’ll just call it a system, that has the ability to anticipate what they call the CAP point. That’s what you’re referring to, the CAP point: CAP. If there’s a system that has the ability to anticipate the CAP point of our pilots, before the pilots actually execute that plan, then you’re right. There’s some sort of exploitation going on somewhere, perhaps, in one of our systems. So now you have this this issue, compounded by the fact, potentially, that there is some technology that not only can outperform us, but actually can exploit our information and intelligence, ahead of us. And again, it becomes problematic.
But if I may, Mr. Beck. We talk about the Nimitz incident a lot but I think you’re going to be really surprised to see just how pervasive a lot of these events have occurred in the past and are continuing to occur. Up until, you know, weeks ago. The Nimitz incident isn’t an isolated incident. It is an incident that we can look at it and again, apply that gold standard to. But when you see the people we’ve been talking to: law enforcement, intelligence officers, Special Operations folks, you begin to realize, this is a much more comprehensive challenge for us than just the Nimitz or the Roosevelt incident. We’ve actually dedicated last year and a half doing a docu-series, getting actual people in uniform to provide this information.
GB: So, again, let me just go back. I mean, if they’ve been here for a long time and we’re just able to verify it now, it doesn’t seem like a threat. I’m trying to understand…is that something new or just new to us? For instance, all the people like, “I’ve been probed by aliens and they turn the cow inside out.” Is that part of this? Or is this new? With this kind of advanced technology, I don’t understand how we are even thinking we could thwart it, at this point. We would have to know, first of all… I think the first question is, do we have any idea if it’s hostile?
LE: Right, so, Mr. Beck, you’re bringing up exactly the question that we were asked a lot at the Pentagon. The bottom line, is it a threat? And in the world of intelligence, in order to assess that, you need two things: you need capabilities versus intent. Now we have seen some of the capabilities, we have no idea of the intent. So therefore, we don’t know it’s a threat. And I think an analogy I may have shared with you the last time we spoke was the fact that I think most Americans would agree that when you go to bed at night, you probably lock the front door. Now, nobody really expects anything bad to happen. But as a matter of practice, we usually lock our front door, maybe even check the windows and we’ll turn the alarm on. And you wake up one morning and imagine now, all of a sudden, you see muddy boot prints in your living room. Now, nothing’s been taken, no one’s been hurt. But despite you locking the door, and the windows and the alarm being on, there’s muddy blueprints in your living room. So the question is: Is that a threat? And my response is…Well, we don’t know but it can be if it wanted to be.
GB: And I understand that and I think that’s why what you guys are doing is so important. You have to assume it’s a threat, until you have more pieces involved because it could be a threat. I’m just wondering if it is shown anything that you would say, “Yeah, that appears, at least to us, as sending a message of, ‘Don’t screw with us.'”
LE: Yeah, absolutely. Chris can add in to this. But, Chris, why don’t you tell us a little bit about our nuclear capabilities?
CM: Yeah, well, probably what’s concerning here is the amount of activity that occurs in close proximity to the U.S. military, U.S. military forces and capabilities. Why the activity around carrier battle groups? Why the activity around ICBM sites in Strategic Air Command airfields? We’re not seeing overt hostility, thank goodness. We’re not suggesting that. We’re not suggesting people should be freaking out or panicking, but we can’t help but wonder, what is the reason for this activity in those locations? Why is there someone…
GB: Would it be fair to say it’s the same reason why we are trying to, you know, we’d like to get close to one of them, as well, to see, is it a possibility that they are seeing how – just looking at us, boy, we’d be insane to them – how hostile will we be? And what are our capabilities in case we decide to be hostile to them? Is that reasonable or not?
CM: Well, what it all points up is the need for more information. We urgently need to get a better handle on this because if there are malevolent intentions, it’s going to be extremely concerning. And there’s a lot we can do that hasn’t been done. It doesn’t require a lot of money. It really just requires a decision at a high level, for the first time, to get serious about this, and use the capabilities the taxpayer’s have already funded, tens of billions have dollars of highly capable, exquisitely sensitive sensors in orbit, airborne, ground based etc. So, that’s really where the emphasis needs to be is getting these answers and getting away from speculation.
LE: And Mr. Beck, honestly, too, I think it’s also important to note that one doesn’t necessarily need a gun pointed in your face to see something as a threat. I think when we look at, you know, even in today’s day and age, when you have a Russian reconnaissance aircraft flying off the coast of California, there’s no weapon systems onboard, but yet we still scramble F-16s or F-22s to intercept because it is perceived as a potential threat, whether it’s collecting intelligence information or whatever. So, again, to kind of reinforce what Chris is saying, we are not stating that these things are necessarily an overt threat. The fact that we have information gaps, that is for us, probably the biggest threat of all. The fact that We don’t know.
GB: Yeah, I mean, what you guys are doing and if the government will get involved more, is exactly what you should be doing right now. You should be asking these questions and you should be approaching it with, “I’d love it to be friendly, but I’ve never seen it before it might not be,” Have we ruled out conclusively or is there still a doubt that this might be an earth-based system?
CM: I think we have to approach it with a completely open mind and until we get more information, entertain all these different hypotheses.
LE: I agree.
GB: Chris, tell me what you were saying or what Luis was saying about the nukes? What is that? What do you mean>
CM: Well there’s been a lot of activity in and around U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, ongoing for many decades. We know this both from the testimony of personnel who’ve worked at these facilities, also from documents released as a result of Freedom of Information Act ,requests. It’s been quite a actually striking pattern of activity ,in very close proximity sometimes to ICBM fields, storage areas, nuclear weapons, storage areas and that sort of thing. And of course, that is the ultimate guarantor of our independence and freedom and security. Is that nuclear retaliatory capability. So any potential adversary getting close to those weapon systems, automatically is a severe red flag?
GB: So I know one of the things that you guys are doing at To The Stars Academy as one of the projects is…the acronym is SCOUT, which stands for…what is it? Do you guys know what it stands for? I thought I had it here , I don’t have it.
LE: So SCOUT is actually a mobile application that ties into a much bigger database we have that’s using artificial intelligence called The VAULT. And in essence, what you have is an ability to use very sophisticated AI algorithms to very quickly triage information to determine whether something you’re seeing on your smartphone is an aircraft, is it a satellite, a planet, a migration of birds, Ship to Shore, AIS…all the things that people often confuse as being something as being identified. This database is going to very quickly analyze wherever you are and say, okay, that is truly something anomalous, or you know what, it’s actually, let’s say, KLM flight, you know, 700 coming in to LAX, right? So that’s what we’re doing, working with some of the best minds in AI.
GB: So that’s that’s what I wanted to ask you because there’s a lot of people that are taking, you know, cell phones and recording some pretty amazing things we’re seeing over, I think, Phoenix and all over the world. Those the kinds of things that SCOUT will actually help you verify, but also, are you getting information from those things and are they connected to what we have verified with the the Navy, do we know?
CM: We haven’t deployed SCOUT, yet but one of the capabilities that we’re developing is an artificial intelligence set of algorithms that will work to identify and remove hoaxes. And just as you showed in the lead up to the show, the different layers of that fake video? There’s a lot of that stuff. And so right now, a lot of this data that’s coming in is almost useless because there’s not a reliable way to sort it and filter it. So this is going to help us do that. And then at that point, it’ll be, with more credible information, possible to establish patterns and connect the dots more capably.
GB: Can you can you help me out on one thing, I was reading a story from Popular Mechanics and there was this reference to…I’m trying to find it, was it Skinwalker Ranch? Something like that. Some ranch out in in Nevada. And it had a couple of really big name scientists and officials that said they witnessed something, a 3D object appear and change form and then disappear, etc, etc. And it seemed to play a role in getting the government to take some of these things seriously, I don’t know anything about this ranch and I know books have been written about it. Is it credible? What is supposedly is it or what’s happened there? And what role did it play with the United States government?
CM: I think Lue’s probably closer to this situation. Do you want to comment, Luu?
LE: Sure. So the ranch you’re referring to is in Utah, and it was a research facility that was being used to look at all sorts of strange phenomena. And I wasn’t really part of that program. That was part of a sister program that I belonged to. Most of my my focus and effort was in the AATIP piece, which is the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. One of the sister programs was something called AAWSAP. That was more involved in those type of activities. But you’re absolutely right. There were a lot of great minds and intellects, researchers, scientists, that were part of that effort. And what they reported was some pretty extraordinary things.
My effort in AATIP was more focused on the nuts and bolts, trying to look at the physics. We really only had two very simple missionsL What is it and how does it work? That’s it. Not, who’s behind the wheel? Where are they from? What are their intentions? We figured if we could just stick to those two questions, the rest would hopefully fall into place. But the ranch you’re referring to is a real place, yes. And there was a relationship officially with the U.S. government and that facility at one time. That’s absolutely true.
CM: What’s encouraging now is that there are some scientists who are using instruments that will enable other scientists to replicate their findings. They’re taking a really scientific approach or trying to. So that’s encouraging. There does seem to be some strange activity in the vicinity of that ranch and perhaps that’ll contribute to our understanding of the larger phenomenon.
GB: Explain strange activity. What does that mean?
CM: So they are actually getting videos of objects in the sky, they are getting high electromagnetic energy readings, microwave readings, levels that are that are almost dangerous, even very strong readings on occasion. So they are able to demonstrate that there are some strange phenomenon related to unidentified aerial phenomenon. They had video of these objects in some cases, lights coming on in the middle of the night, lighting up the entire side of a mountain. Various anomalies along those lines.
GB: And it’s credible?
LE: Well, the local Ute tribe…
CM: Well, what’s encouraging is folks are documenting this with video and other sorts of instrumentation. So that’s why it’s interesting.
LE: There is a long history of local lore by the local, indigenous people that have lived in the area for quite some time. The Ute tribes. But Chris is absolutely correct. There have been some very interesting, and in some cases, very compelling incidents that have been recorded at that location. I think at this point, though, we just simply don’t know what it means and how it relates to the bigger picture, if at all.
GB: But this is something that man hasn’t brought a bunch of objects in and experimenting on? It is a place, that, as you said, the Utes, they, the native tribe, believe this is a sacred ground, etc, etc, because it is had some sort of strange history to it. So it’s possibly a naturally occurring, maybe beacon or something, but it’s not man bringing something in and testing it?
LE: I’m not qualified to answer really any type of great detail about the efforts that have gone on and that are ongoing at that location. Again, when I was at the Pentagon, my primary focus, specifically as a program manager for AATIP, was to focus on the AATIP piece of it, not the broader, if you will, portfolio.
GB: Well, gentlemen, I have to tell you, I saw the Space Force thing and it just lit something up inside of me that I haven’t felt since the early 1970s when America was going to the you know, Moon and, and we were still really exploring. You know, the old saying is, “May you live in interesting times.” I think we have that in spades. And who knows what is going to be found in our lifetimes. But it is seriously intriguing and very important for humanity to do what you guys are doing and I commend you. How can we help you as people?
CM: You’re on the right track. The last time something comparable to this happened was 1957 with Sputnik. And the fact that we had been leapfrogged by the then Soviet Union, became public knowledge. The public took that on board, processed that, people understood the implications, understood that was unacceptable. Congress became galvanized and it led to the space race and our landing on the Moon and thousands of patents and all kinds of breakthroughs and developments of a very positive nature. And individuals like yourself who are helping to raise awareness of this subject, we hope will lead to a similar result in this case. New avenues of research and new insights that will benefit humanity as a whole.
GB: Strange we seem to do our best work when we fear something. It’s sad. But like in the 1960s, maybe we do these things because they are hard. And we’re the people to do them. Thank you so much, guys.
LE: Yes, sir.
CM: Thank you.
GB: You bet. We’ll talk again. I don’t know about you, but I have a whole different perspective of UFOs that I think is one of the first discussions that I’ve had with people that where it was…it didn’t go into any place – of course the whole thing was weird – but any place like really weird real where you were like, “Okay, okay.” The tinfoil hat stuff is important to separate from the verified stuff. And it’s good to have a couple of reasonable voices, with deep backgrounds, to be able to take us through that. I thank them for coming on. I think they got some heat for coming on. Oh well.