“Imagine everything you’ve been taught, whether it’s through Sunday school, or through regular, formal education in school, or what our political leaders have told us and yes, even maybe our mothers and fathers around the dinner table have told us or maybe at bedtime, about who we are, right? Our background and our past. What if all of that turned out to be not entirely accurate? In fact, the very history of our species, the meaning what it means to be a human being and our place in this Universe. What if all that is now in question? What if it turns out that a lot of the things that we thought were one way, aren’t. Are we prepared to have that honest question with ourselves? Are we prepared to recognize that we’re not at the top of the food chain, potentially?”
Patreon = https://www.patreon.com/ufojoe
PayPal – firstname.lastname@example.org
Venmo – www.venmo.com/u/ufojoe
Curt Jaimungal (CJ): During this entire interview, it’s best to read between the lines of what Lue is saying, as while ostensibly equivocating, he’s actually saying quite a bit. Breadcrumbs are judiciously dropped. Tweet the hashtag #UFOAmnesty, and I’ll retweet it @TOEwithCurt.
This is the second interview with Luis Elizondo, and his longest interview ever.
(The first TOE interview with Lue can be seen here)
CJ: Luis Elizondo is a former U.S. Army counterintelligence Special Agent, mostly known as the director of the now defunct AATIP, a program initiated by the Defense Intelligence Agency in order to study on unidentified aerial phenomenon, also known as UFOs. Thank you to Shortform for sponsoring this video and click on the timestamp in the description if you’d like to skip this intro.
For those new to this channel. My name is Curt Jaimungal, and I’m a filmmaker with a background in mathematical physics, dedicated to the explication of what are called theories of everything, from a theoretical physics perspective, but also delineating the possible connection consciousness may have to the fundamental laws, provided these laws exist at all and are knowable to us. Now this UFO phenomenon may seem tangential to the exploring of the variegated landscape of TOEs, that is theories of everything, however, if you watch episodes like the Kevin Knuth episode, you’d see that there’s an intimate connection between some of the deep mysteries of the Universe and this phenomenon. Thus, I’m interested and don’t view this enigma with the stigma that the majority of the scientific community has. If you enjoy witnessing and engaging in real time conversation on the topics of consciousness, psychology, physics, and so on, then do click on the link in the description for the Discord and for the Subreddit. There’s also a link to the Patreon that is patreon.com/curtjaimungol, if you’d like to support this podcast as the sponsors and the patrons are the only reason I’m able to do this full time, and it would be extremely difficult to explore topics like geometric unity or loop quantum gravity or even string theory, which is coming up without the sponsors, without being able to do this full time because of patrons like yourself. Again, that link is patreon.com/curtjaimungal. Thank you, regardless of your decision.
As for the sponsors, there are three: Algo is an end to end supply chain optimization software company with software that helps business users optimize sales and operations planning to avoid stock outs, reduce returns and inventory write downs, while reducing inventory investment. It’s a supply chain AI that drives smart ROI headed by a bright individual named Amjad Hussain, who has been a huge supporter of the TOE podcast since nearly its inception. In fact, Amjad has a podcast about AI and consciousness which will be linked in the description, so if you’d like to learn more about that, then you can subscribe to his content as doing so supports this content.
The second sponsor is Brilliant. Brilliant illuminates the soul of math, science and engineering. Through these bite-sized interactive learning experiences with courses that explore the laws that shape our world. The fundamental laws which elevate math and science from something to be feared to this delightful experience of guided discovery. You can even learn group theory, which is one of the most daunting mathematical theories, at least for newcomers, and it’s one of the main pillars behind the standard model that is quantum-field theory. So when you hear that the standard model is predicated on su two across su three across u one, that’s the same as…well those are technically called Li groups. Visit www.brilliant.org/toe for free and get 20% off the annual subscription. I recommend that you don’t stop before for lessons and I think you’ll be greatly surprised that the ease at which you can now grok subjects that you previously had a hugely difficult time understanding.
The third sponsor is joining us for the first time and that’s Shortform, which is a place that you can go if you don’t have the time or the inclination to read an entire book, yet, let’s say you want to know the gist of it so that you can be conversant as if you’ve read it. And I mean that in the best sense. More on short form later quick
Thank you and enjoy this conversation, one of the most revelatory conversations with Luis Elizondo to date. That’s primarily thanks to you, as this was an AMA, that his questions were gleaned from you. Thank you for watching/listening and thank you Lue for your generosity. Enjoy.
Luis Elizondo (Lue): Jennifer says hi.
CJ: Tell Jennifer, like…I know how much my wife contributes to my success. It’s mainly my wife’s success, so I imagine much of your success was your wife’s success.
Lue: Absolutely correct. Curt, it is, it is. Absolutely, it is, it is. You know, behind…I tell everybody, behind every great man is a greater woman, or a greater person. Obviously, I come from an older generation. But usually, the success of anybody is always dependent upon a close circle of trusted people behind them that are, you know, really helping make things happen. So, you’re absolutely right.
CJ: Okay. Anything you want me to be aware of before we go live, anything you want to say?
Lue: You know the rules, man. There are no rules. You know, you can ask me whatever you want.
CJ: How’s your day going?
Lue: You know, it’s going considerably well, versus the alternative, right? There’s an old saying: Any day above ground is a good day and I definitely subscribe to that.
CJ: I know that you’re in such a whirlwind. Primarily, what is it? Interviews, or what?
Lue: No, I wish. It’s a combination of many things. When I first presented those five slides on how we are having this conversation, legislative engagement, executive engagement, etc, all those take a lot of effort every day, a lot of care and feeding. They’re like children, really, that are constantly wanting attention. And so, you have to feed the beast accordingly, you have to make sure you give just the right amount of information to those specific silos, if you will, or pillars, to keep them happy. But, of course, therein lies part of the challenge, because you can’t give all sides the same information, necessarily, because, obviously, the information you talk to with the executive leadership, sometimes is classified and you can’t give that, necessarily, to the public, but you can still have the same conversation without providing classified information. And so, that’s how you have to thread that needle. And it’s a constant, I guess you could call it, spinning of plates. And hopefully, you don’t drop any of them. And so, it takes a lot of a lot of time, takes a lot of effort and a lot of a lot of coordination.
For each one of those…this is what I don’t think people understand: When you look at the collective achievements or accomplishments we, collectively, have made, all of us, over the last four years, each one of those bullets is is hundreds, if not sometimes a thousand hours, working behind the scenes to make things happen. It’s a lot, a lot of work. And I still have a day job and I’m still trying to do my best to have this conversation. Every time I have one of these interviews, and you can attest to this, Curt, I don’t get paid for this. Call me a liar but have you ever paid me to do an interview?
Lue: No, right? And I don’t ask for it and I won’t accept it, to do one like this. And so, it takes time away from my other stuff. It’s a lot, a lot of work, but I think it’s worth it, in the end. I think, ultimately, this is a conversation that needs to be had and I think we all have a part of it
CJ: Do these conversations make you nervous?
Lue: Uhh (Sigh). You know, conversation doesn’t make me nervous, people make me nervous. It’s probably just a product of my upbringing and maybe my choice of career, profession. I think dialogue and conversation’s great. It’s funny you should ask me that, Curt, because there’s a…my wife and I, my wife jokes quite a bit with me and she sometimes doesn’t know if I’m being serious or not, just because of my sense of humor. And I told her, I said, “After forty or fifty years around the sun, the one thing I’ve learned, it’s…you know, I love humanity, it’s humans I don’t like.” And there’s a difference. I love the idea of humanity, but unfortunately, individually, as human beings, I think there’s a lot of room for improvement for all of us, to be honest with you. And so therein lies the problem. To have a conversation that’s concerning humanity, I have to engage humans and that’s what I find challenging sometimes. Because humans are…we’re emotional beings, we can be fragile beings, and sometimes we can be violent beings to each other. And that violence can manifest itself, not just physically, but sometimes just in words and hatred. And so, that’s what I find so challenging. Just simply trying to have a conversation and there’s people out there that want to stifle that conversation, for whatever reason.
CJ: Okay, well, let’s minimize your trepidation by saying anytime you need to refill your coffee, or go to the washroom, people who are watching, just bear with us, because we’re going on for quite some time. So here’s a question from myself.
Lue: By the way, I have to ask: What do you think of my coffee cup? I know people are expecting like machine guns and tanks and whatnot, right? But I have flowers to celebrate fall, right?
CJ: I have hearts.
Lue: Ohh, you beat me. Okay (laughs). Damn you, Curt.
CJ: We’re conspicuous for so many reasons. Okay. Is there any evidence that these, whatever we want to call them, aliens, creatures, future humans, whatever we want, let’s label them X. Is there any evidence that these X can shapeshift, can look like other humans or other creatures?
Lue: You know, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you mimicry is something that is common in nature and it’s even common in what we do. There are species who defend themselves in the animal kingdom. Let’s take the coral snake versus, let’s say, the king snake. The coral snake is very deadly. The king snake has the same colors except for some of the color arrangements are in opposite order and these animals mimic other animals for protection.
Lue: Now, let’s look at it from a humanistic perspective. We, have something where we call light deception on, for example, Navy ships. In the old days, we would string lights in a way that would try, at night, to make a big, large destroyer appear to be a fishing boat, right? A trawler. And light deception is part of camouflage, part of survival. So, if there is a species that is far more advanced than human beings. it’s not inconceivable. Look, we can go to the panda exhibit in the zoo in China, and see that zookeepers will often wear these (laughs) kind of…it appears ridiculous to us, but not so ridiculous to the pandas. The zookeepers are required to wear a panda suit, a big, furry teddy bear suit so when they go into the enclosure to clean up the enclosure or whatnot and provide food, they don’t disrupt the local panda population, as least as possible. Of course, it’s entertaining to us to see a bunch of humans walking around in furry panda suits, but at the end of the day, it’s effective.
Lue: So, I don’t think it’s inconceivable. The problem is when we start going down the road of, you say shapeshifting and things like that, immediately we start going into the world of “woo,” quote, unquote and paranormal. And again, there’s nothing wrong with that, I’ve written articles on paranormal, right? Everything by definition in science is paranormal until becomes normal, frankly. But the problem is that we don’t have hard evidence, we have a lot of anecdotal evidence. A lot of people report seeing things, that these UAP can look like an aircraft, sometimes disguise itself like a 747 or that the occupants can make themselves look like human beings. I don’t really know, During our time at AATIP, we were focused primarily on the nuts and bolts of this and what our military eyewitnesses and collection capabilities were telling us. At the time, we didn’t really have any reports of quote, unquote, “shapeshifting.”
I submit that this absurdity of UFOs is not absurd (nonsensical, bizarre, ill-behaved)! This “absurdity” is merely a reflection of the cognitive mismatch or the Incommensurability Problem that is likely to exist between humans and the UFOs.
In this particular case, the UFOs are sending the message and we are the recipients. The message(s) they are sending to us are icons: icons fashioned by the phenomenon and sent to us via some yet to be determined sensory modality. The differences between our respective cultures, biologies, sensory modalities, histories, dimensional existence, physical evolution, models of nature and science, etc. are directly responsible for our total lack of understanding of the UFO phenomenon and what their message is. We cannot see what UFOs believe to be (iconical) similarities in the message that is intended for us. These stated differences directly impact our conventions of interpretation in such a way as to impair our recognition of the “similarity” between the sign and the signified contained within the icons of the UFO message, further impairing our ability to “see and understand” their message.
The difference between the sensory modalities of UFO phenomena and humans is responsible for our inability to properly detect the UFO message (icons) and correspond with them intelligently, or in their view, they are unable to correspond intelligently with us. This difference may also prevent us from correctly interpreting what their icons are if we do in fact recognize them. In this regard, recall that we will project our own species-specific experiences onto their icons (messages) thus manifesting the appearance of “absurdity” during the human-UFO interaction. UFO abduction cases could exemplify this such that the “absurd” activities (or scenes) concurrent with abduction events could merely be the iconical defense mechanism deployed by the UFO to protect itself from the victim/subject much like the way Spilomyia hamifera protects itself from insect eating birds by mimicry.
Kuiper and Freitas suggest that ETI probes visiting Earth would find it necessary to hide themselves from our detection mechanisms until they have assessed our technological level or potential threat and hazards. They would employ an adaptive multi-level risk program to avoid danger. Low observable stealth such as simple camouflage through mimicry, which works well in nature, may be the technique of choice used by visiting ETI-probes/UFOs already experienced in surveillance. Examples of mimicry techniques are ETI-probes/UFOs entering the atmosphere with either the look or trajectory of a meteor or hidden within a meteor shower, behaving like dark meteors without the associated optical signature, hiding within an artificial or natural cloud, behaving as pseudostars sitting stationary over certain regions, or mimicking man-made aircraft’s aggregate features, including perhaps the mysterious unmarked black helicopters (why should a shape-shifting UFO not be able to mimic a contemporary aircraft). Another possibility is mimicry techniques employed for the manipulation of human consciousness to induce the various manifestations of “absurd” interactions or scenery associated with the UFO encounter. This in combination with the mimicry of man-made aircraft and helicopters aggregate features was prominent in the Cash-Landrum UFO case.
The current ETI Hypothesis for UFOs is not strange enough to explain the facts of the phenomenon. However, there is no experiment that can distinguish between phenomena manifested by visiting interstellar (arbitrarily advanced) ETI and UFOs. In either case, the technology exploited by such intelligences would appear to the present human race as being indistinguishable from magic and appear nonsensical, bizarre and ill-behaved (or absurd).
Lue: Now cloaking, that’s a different story. We do have some information that indicates that these things do have an ability to try to evade some of our sensors. For example, radar, You get these nonsensical, what looks like spoofing or radar jamming occurring. You have the low observability portion of the five observables, that includes things like active camouflage and cloaking and again, low observability. It’s hard to see. And so, there is information that we have that pertains to that.
CJ: Okay, speaking about cloaking, Is there any evidence that suggests UFOs are associated with orbs, at least anecdotally? Firstly, what’s the reason for that? And then second, is there any evidence that you know that suggests that these orbs may be more plentiful than we think, perhaps around us, whether in homes or outside cityscapes, just cloaked?
Lue: Yeah, the problem with the word orb is you’re not going to get a common definition from most people. Everybody thinks an orb means something else. Some people think an orb is a little plasma ball, others say it’s much, much bigger and intelligently controlled. You know, orb is kind of a general catch-all. When you say, “Is an orb related to a UFO?” Well, by definition, it is a UFO. It’s unidentified and it’s flying, or it’s in our atmosphere, and it’s an object, it’s something. We don’t know what it is. So, by definition, an orb is a UAP, but the question is, is it a UAP in the sense that we’re talking about UAPs, whether lenticular-type shape or maybe a cylindrical shape or a triangular vehicle? I think the jury’s still out. There does seem to be some information that suggests that orbs, as you call them, are sometimes associated with other UAP sightings, that there are UAPs in the sky, and then you see these little balls of light.
The problem is, it’s a very generalized term. We now know for a fact that things such as ball lightning are real. Is that an orb? Well, yeah, at times it looks like an orb to me. Other times, when you have large amounts of energy being released into the atmosphere in the environment, let’s talk about tectonic movement, for example, where these titanic forces right underneath the surface of the Earth, creating this plasma effect in the atmosphere, where you get these different colors shooting into the sky, and again, orbs, if you will, being reported and seen and even captured on camera. But that’s an orb that I think we can all agree is probably being manufactured naturally. Now, are there orbs that are intelligently controlled? Well, we did talk about that at AATIP. You know, one of the questions was: When you look at the different shapes and sizes of vehicles, orbs tend to be almost like a, I guess in a vernacular sense, think of a UAV, think of a drone. They tend to be described as being much smaller, highly maneuverable, different colors, sometimes red, sometimes green, sometimes yellow, sometimes blue. Is it possible that those colors are indicative of mission set, right? Are the blue ones doing certain things where the reds are doing something else, and their purpose is something else, where the yellows and whites are doing something else? It’s certainly plausible. I don’t dismiss that at all. The problem is we just don’t have enough information because it appears that these orbs tend to be [so] small that it’s really hard to argue the case that they are being occupied by any type of biological organism. Now, it doesn’t mean that they’re not. It just means that we haven’t seen that yet. We don’t know what these are. Are these perhaps some sort of unmanned, reconnaissance capability that are kicked out, not much different than we use drones ourselves, right? To do certain types of reconnaissance missions. We don’t know, it’s certainly plausible.
CJ: The reasoning behind my question is that Tom DeLonge, I recall, was saying one shouldn’t do CE-5. I’m going to get you to explain what CE-5 is. But anyway. One shouldn’t do CE-5 and when one does it, often orbs are associated with it, and one thinks, “Oh, that’s great, because I’m inducing some contact.” And Tom said, “Be careful. One shouldn’t do that lightly.” So that to me implies that there’s something nefarious or potentially, nefarious about these orbs.
Lue: Well, I mean, look, I would say the same thing: Don’t mess around with electricity unless you’re a licensed electrician. Be careful because you can get zapped. That’s true with anything. That’s not just orbs, that’s electricity, that’s swimming pools, that’s everything. I can’t speak for Tom. I don’t know what Tom meant by that. But I can tell you that general word of caution, I think, is appropriate for just about anything out there. If you don’t know what you’re getting into, just be mindful. There are potentially things that go bump in the night and it’s not all necessarily good, or bad,
CJ: It’s not all sunflowers, like your cups.
Lue: Well, anytime you go snorkeling…look, I’m an avid scuba diver, I’ve been scuba diving my whole life. There’s always a remote risk, when you go scuba diving in some of these beautiful coral reefs, you know what? There’s a risk you’re gonna come up against a shark. Now, not all sharks are going to do anything but if you’re carrying a bag of fresh fish that you wound up spearing and are now bleeding out of this bag and dead, chances are you may attract a lot more attention than just a curious shark. You may be attracting a hungry shark and now you gotta kind of pay attention. So, I think that’s wise advice on just about everything that we do. I live here in Wyoming where a lot of people like to go spelunking, and adventuring into caves. But again, you have to have the right equipment. Be careful when you go into a cave, make sure you’ve got light, make sure you’ve got gear that can get you in and out and rope and whatnot.
CJ: Okay, now let’s get to some of the audience questions. This one comes from Stephanie: Is there information being recorded or being encoded into less mainstream information media channels that can be parsed out, John Nash style, like “A Beautiful Mind” that can help us arrive closer at the truth of this phenomenon?
Lue: So I’m going to need your help, Curt, kind of detangling that question because I’m not familiar with the reference. But, when you’re saying encoded, can you repeat that question one more time? I want to answer it and I just want to make sure I’m understanding the question.
CJ: Okay. Just deciphering. Essentially, what someone of sufficient intelligence can decipher that there are different drops being placed by, let’s say, disclosure people in the government.
Lue: Oh, I see what you’re saying! Breadcrumbs. What I refer to as breadcrumbs.
CJ: And that one can decipher it.
Lue: Umm, well, you know, I’ve always left breadcrumbs every interview I’ve ever do, for the last four years. I think people can now go back through a lot of what I’ve said in the past and come back and say, “Oh, so that’s what he was referring to. Now, we know.” Because certain people have come out, whether it’s Jim Lacatski and his book or other folks. I can’t speak on behalf of the government and other people. I suspect that…what I can say is, I think that we are at a point now where we don’t have to leave the breadcrumbs that we have been in the past. I think the time has come for us to be even a little bit more straightforward and a little bit more clearer. The difficult part is when you’re dealing with security clearances and NDAs, which everybody hates to hear. That’s becoming a three-letter word that I think is probably going to be etched somewhere on my tombstone and people are going to be throwing tomatoes at it from here to eternity because they hate it. But they hate it because they don’t really understand what it means and why you have them. Those NDAs definitely get in the way of having a complete transparent conversation but I also think that we are having it, I think…we’ve come a long, long ways.
And, as far as answering this specific question, as far as leaving breadcrumbs, I can’t speak for anybody else. I don’t know precisely what the government…because the government isn’t just this one huge, if you will, monolithic enterprise. It’s comprised of people and each of those people have their own interests and their own desires and their own agendas, and so, I can’t speak for them. I can only speak for me. I think, certainly, if people were to look at all the talks I’ve given and really look at them, and listened to them closely, they will see that a lot more has been said than might necessarily be acknowledged.
CJ: Okay, this one comes from Ross Coulthart. Since you left the DoD, have you been warned not to talk publicly about certain things? And if so, what?
Lue: Yes, I have been warned. I have been warned, first of all, not to discuss classified information, which I have heeded, thus far, and will continue to do so. I’ve been threatened. There are individuals in the Pentagon that did not like what I do, and how I did it. And so, once Secretary Mattis’ Public Affairs Officer, Dana White, left, they started to change the narrative a little bit.
May 2019: I was trying to speak to former Pentagon spox Dana White. I was setting up camera for a freelance interview with literally Katy Perry when White called me. I ducked into a dark hallway. White confirmed Elizondo ran AATIP. Blurry pic of me adjusting tripod: #ufotwitter pic.twitter.com/pHhwFVE3wX
— Steven Greenstreet (@MiddleOfMayhem) May 25, 2021
Lue: I was told that I would be labeled crazy, and that they would come after my security clearance, which they did. They actually did try to do that and they were true to their word. But fortunately, I had some some some friends and allies that knew exactly what I was doing beforehand and it wasn’t quite so easy for them to be able to do that. But to put it simply, yeah, I’ve been warned.
CJ: So you’ve been warned. Have you ever gotten in trouble? Ross has a sub question. Have you gotten into trouble for acknowledging that the U.S. has recovered non-terrestrial materials?
Lue: Well, they’re watching me very closely. There’s elements that are trying to get me into trouble, so that’s why I walk a very fine line. I walk right up to that line, but I won’t step over it, because they’re waiting for me to screw up. They’re waiting for me to say one word that I shouldn’t say, in order to use that against me and silence me. So yeah, I mean, I have gotten in trouble, they tried to come after my clearance, like I said, and unfortunately, I had to seek legal counsel to protect my constitutional rights to do so. It seems that they’ve backed off a little bit, for now, but I’m not fooling myself. I know that there’s wolves circling just beyond the limit of the fire that I’m standing next to, waiting for an opportunity. So, I’m very mindful of that. But, I will also say that there’s some really good elements. I’ve had an opportunity…sometimes through the worst of adversity, you get a chance to see people at their best.
And I’ve learned that there are people on the inside that really do want to have the conversation and that want to see things done right. And these are senior people. Some of these are very, very, very senior people, and they were willing to put their professional careers on the line to defend me and protect me. That means a lot, that makes me feel good. Because I’ve always been that way. I could have called people out by name three or four years ago just to defend my credibility, and I never did. People are now realizing that a lot of those people are now finally coming out of the shadows. And, you know, my life could have been a lot easier had I called them out to defend me, but I didn’t, because I made a promise to them that I would never reveal their identities until they were ready to do so. And that’s just the way I am. To me, principles mean everything. Either you’re a person of principle or you’re not. Doesn’t matter how bad the going gets, you gotta stick by your word. So, it’s been a mixed bag for me. Make sure Ross, we tell Ross here the full story, that even though I’ve had people coming after me, I’ve also had a lot of people rally around me and to me, I’d rather focus on those folks. Those are the folks that just makes you want to do this even more because they’re willing to get your back.
CJ: And are you allowed to say those folks’ names?
Lue: They haven’t come out of the shadows, yet, they’re in the process and we’ll let that play out. But I think it’ll be quite obvious when they step out, because people are going to go, “Oh, that person? Oh my goodness. I didn’t know that person was with Lue.” So I’ll leave it at that. Another breadcrumb, right?
CJ: Right, right. I have a follow up question to what you just said, which is there are wolves that are watching you like a hawk. Is there another reason outside of national security that they they don’t want you to disclose what you may disclose or they’re worried you may?
Lue: Yeah, I mean.
CJ: What is their worry outside of that?
Lue: There has been forbidden truths, we can call them, if you will. There have been forbidden truths in the history of not just our country, but many countries. Truths that could upset a balance. A balance that’s been around for a long time. Let me give you case in point. Let’s say there were some people that were doing their job by running a UFO program in the past but because certain things happened, presidents were no longer briefed, people in Congress were no longer briefed, who should have been, and now they’re running an operation that’s considered rogue, but it’s still an important mission. Turns out, all of a sudden now, let’s say, hypothetically, the cat’s out of the bag…what’s going to happen to those people when when the government realizes they were running operations, for better or for worse, without any oversight, without any legal oversight, right? Who’s gonna be held accountable for that? The fact that they did not brief, legally, like they were supposed to, certain members of Congress and committees and oversight committees and the chain of command. That’s potentially criminal action.
Let’s say, I’ve said this before, let’s say you have two competing companies, you have Aerospace Company A and Aerospace Company B. And Aerospace Company A, for whatever reason, gets a favor and some sort of really exotic, game-changing material is provided to that company to do this analysis. Meanwhile, Company B, who is competing fairly, doesn’t get that material. Turns out Company A now starts getting a lot of contracts, defense contracts, and becomes a multi-billion dollar company, while Company B, who never had the advantage of having that material, goes into bankruptcy. Hundreds of people lose their jobs and stockholders lose their investment. Keeping in mind that both companies are supposed to be treated fairly and have fair competition when it comes to U.S. government contracts. Now what happens? Where’s the liability? And, by the way, now these companies are doing good things for the United States, but they got there because they had an unfair advantage, competitive advantage, potentially. Again, I’m not…this is hypothetical, right? Where’s the liability there? You’re talking trillions and trillions of dollars worth of liability. And who made those decisions to do that, who’s going to be held culpable for that? The security exchange commission would not be very happy to know that two publicly-traded companies that were competing for a contract, one had an unfair advantage, the other went bankrupt. That’s a problem. That’s a real problem.
And so, you’re talking about big, big money interests. You’re talking about things that are going into that gray world that go beyond just government interest. You’re talking about banking. You’re talking about some of the biggest names on the planet that have a lot to lose. Or a lot to gain, in hindsight. So, I think we always have to be careful that governments have always had interesting ties to certain interests. And that’s true of all governments, that’s not just the U.S., that’s everybody. And we need to be mindful of that because you could be putting some people in a very uncomfortable position. And I’m aware of that and that’s why I’ve been very delicate how I approach this topic. I’m not trying to beat anybody up, I’m not trying to expose anybody and say, “Ah, ha, ha, gotcha! See there!” I’m trying to have the conversation in a collaborative, meaningful way where everybody wins, nobody has to get burned, right? It’s not a zero-sum game, I’m not…
CJ: Hypothetically, do they view it like that? Like, there’s a potential where everyone can win? Or do they view it somewhat a zero sum.
Lue: Well, I can’t speak for them, I can’t tell you what they think, all I can tell you is what I think and my approach. And my approach is to say, “Look, guys, we’re not trying to expose anybody. This is not a witch hunt.” Despite what you may see on social media, where everybody wants their pound of flesh, that’s not going to get us anywhere. We need to be adults about this and we need to have a conversation that, if you really want the truth to come out, you better be willing to compromise. We’re not going to sit there and put people to be eaten by the lions just to satisfy someone’s ego or beef that they might have with somebody else. The truth is more important than that. This is not about, “See, I told you so!” or being vindicated. This is about having a conversation that can affect all of humanity and we have to be willing to set aside some of that, if you will. And understandably so. You’ve got lots and lots of decades worth of people covering this up. I know there’s a lot of animosity and resentment as a result of that by people saying, “You’ve been lying to us for all this time,” but we got to be willing to put that aside if we really want to move forward, in my opinion.
CJ: You’re referring to animosity from the general public or animosity from some of these wolves?
Lue: No, the general public who want their pound of flesh because people have been covering this topic up for too long, knowing that it’s real and then lying to the American people.
CJ: Potentially, how long is too long, potentially? Is it centuries? Is it decades?
Lue: Well, there’s information that goes way back…I live here in Wyoming and I live next to members of the Crow Nation. And if you’ve ever had a chance to talk and really engage with indigenous people, first of all, they’re very, very private. Two, they have an incredibly rich history. Their oral traditions and oral history doesn’t go back a few 100 years, it goes back millennia. In fact, when Europe was facing its dark ages, and mankind almost went extinct in the European continent and we were burning books, indigenous people over here were experiencing a golden era. That wasn’t the case over here. And the way they look at nature, the way they look at this topic, UAP, is not like we look at it through Western eyes. In fact, they don’t view it as a threat at all. In fact, they don’t view it even as paranormal. They view it as normal, as part of nature, their natural environment, as real as the lakes and the sky and the trees on the mountains are. And it’s just accepted as part of the greater Universe. And I think there’s some beauty there. They’re not held hostage by their fears. In fact, they embrace it. And that goes to show that you don’t have to view this topic as an either or. It doesn’t have to be viewed as a threat, or as some sort of saving opportunity for our species. It could just be a natural part of our existence. Again, do I subscribe to that? I don’t know. But I certainly think it’s another way, another perspective that we should consider. If that is the case, and they’re right, then we’ve been dealing with this for millennia. I can tell you that having a chance to talk to some people in the Vatican, they describe these flaming Roman shields in the sky that would follow them from battlefield to battlefield, what they would they call a Clipeus, which is the shape of the Roman shield. That’s documented, that’s there.
Lue: In fact, I think, if I’m not mistaken – I haven’t read it from Jacques Vallée – but from my understanding, Jacques Vallée even wrote a little bit about that.
Lue: But I’ve seen that evidence myself. There is documentation of these strange things in the sky going back a long, long time. So, I don’t think it’s necessarily modern. Maybe our understanding is a little bit more advanced and maybe consider that modern, but I don’t think we’re dealing with a new phenomenon. I think we may be dealing with a new recognition, and perhaps, hopefully, at some point, a new understanding. But I don’t think this is a new phenomenon to mankind. I think we’ve been faced with this phenomenon for quite some time.
CJ: You mentioned millennia, which is thousands of years. I’m wondering, potentially, tens of thousands, potentially millions, or do you think it’s cut off around nine thousand or so (CJ was smiling as he said the nine-thousand part. Sarcasm)?
Lue: Well, that’s hard to tell because we, only as a species, Homo sapiens sapiens had been around roughly for 100,000 years. And we only really gotten into written language in the last five, six thousand years, really, and gone from hunter gatherers to more of an agrarian-type society, organized society. Which is, if you take 100,000 years, and you compare the last five-thousand years, really only five percent of our entire time, rummaging around on this planet, has been in somewhat of a civilized fashion. You know, and then if you look at that, to the context of it’s been, only in the last thousand years, two-thousand years, we understood the Archimedes steam engine, right? And we really didn’t even fully appreciate it until the Industrial Revolution just a couple hundreds years ago. So, now you’re talking about 0.2% of mankind’s time on Earth, we’ve been industrialized, we’ve been civilized. So how much of our own history do we really know? Well, we can go back 5000 years, pretty easily. 8000 years, things start to get a little murky, right? And anything much beyond that, we really have no clue about.
And the question is: Have we, as a species been aware of this phenomenon much longer? Well, let’s look at what we do know. The general consensus is that the American population, when I say American, I don’t mean United States. I mean North America, South America, Central American population, really began about 20,000 years ago during the land bridge when you had a migration coming over the land bridge and settling this part of the planet. But, in reality, it turns out now that a lot of scientists believe that there were many migrations, and many migrations before that primary migration 20,000 years ago. In fact, there may have been multiple migrations going back, perhaps even 100,000 years ago.
Lue: So, is it possible that our society was aware of these things, maybe even interacted with these things in a certain fashion? Sure, it’s possible, absolutely, it’s possible. I mean, most of our history we have no idea about. It’s like spending an entire day and having amnesia, except for the last five minutes before you go to bed. Where the hell was I? What was I doing? What did I eat? Who did I speak to? What did I say?
CJ: What I’m wondering is, what you’re referencing is written history and I’m curious about archaeological evidence that you’re aware of…that potentially exists.
Lue: Ahh. Interesting. So, let me give you a real-world example and I’m not going to either refute or defend it. But again, I live here in Wyoming and there is a legend here called the little people of the Pryor Mountains. And for generations, the indigenous people have reported what appeared to be this fearsome pygmy warrior tribe of humanoid type creatures that lived in the mountains. And for many, many, many years, it was completely considered myth.
CJ: Folklore, right.
Lue: Folkore. And it turns out that scientists began uncovering artifacts up in the mountains that, to some degree, reinforced the notion that there was some sort of small hominoid type of creature living in the mountains. They found small tools, they found small bones that appear to be coming from some human-like creature. (Not sure if that’s what Lue was talking about) I don’t know, I don’t know the details, thoroughly. I haven’t had a chance to really explore it or study it. But that part is true, that people are now beginning to look back and say, “Well, wait a minute. Is that possible? Because we’re starting to find archaeological evidence.” So, it’s interesting. Here, I can walk up into the Bighorn mountains, and they’re pulling out spearheads, spearheads that are 11,000 years old. Now think about that for a minute. 11,000 years old. If that spearhead could talk, what people did it come from, what were they hunting? What did this place look like? Environments change in a blink of an eye. Look at the Sahara desert in 5000 years. There was a lot of wildlife living in the Sahara region before it became a desert, and that was in recent human history, by the way. We were inhabiting the planet when that happened. There are drawings on the side of rock walls that illustrate how the alligators, crocodiles, if you will, and animals that live, not just on the savanna, but in the wetlands, all cohabitating there.
Lue: So this Earth is very dynamic. Every time we have a – for us, it seems like a long time – but every time we have an ice age, every roughly 10, 15,000 years, the entire topography of Earth changes, the climate changes, animals change, people change, right? I think it’s very possible that there is, potentially, some sort of archaeological evidence. The question is, would we recognize it if we saw it? And that’s another big, big question we have to ask ourselves. Let me ask you this as a scientist, Curt. If I said to you, “Curt, you have a task. You can make it out of whatever you want, any material you want. Your goal is to…in a million years, you have to create something now that will last a million years, to prove you were here. What would you do, how would you do it? Think about it, go ahead.
(Audio cut off but I believe on the livestream Curt said he would need time to think about it and answer it later)
Lue: No, no, no. No, I love you, man but we’re gonna we’re gonna have this mental exercise right now. I think it’s important. And by the way, it’s not a trick question and I’m not playing “gotcha.” Just, what would you give me…just some examples that you might throw out there to say, “Okay, I would make something out of this or out of that, or…”
CJ: There are some metamaterials that seem to be harder than diamond, so whatever is a hardest material, it would be made out of that. Also, just so you know, I don’t classify myself as a scientist. I’m more of a hobbyist, let’s say. So that’s what I would do.
Lue: So you’d find some sort of hard material that would outlast just about anything else on Earth, right? Where would you put that material?
CJ: Orbit, is one place
Lue: Okay. And hopefully a non-retrograde orbit, right? So geosynchronous and hopefully nothing would perturb it. In a million years, chances are something would, but okay, hypothetically in orbit, good. Here on Earth, it’s really hard to make anything that lasts more than a few thousand years. You can even make the pyramids and look at them now and say, “Wow, those things are 5000 years old and they don’t look so great and probably, in another 5000 years, they’re not gonna look good at all. And they may last, eventually, until you might have a hill of sand in 100,000 years, but that’s going to be about it. And that’s made out of rock, right? Mount Rushmore, same thing. It’s going to be gone in 10,000 years, you won’t probably even recognize it, it will be too worn. Even mountains, in millions of years, become deserts. Right? Time moves on. Then you have the subduction zones of Earth that eventually, if you wait long enough on the surface of the planet, it all gets recycled anyways. It’s all going to get sucked down into the mantle and get spit out the other end as new land.
So nothing is indelible on this planet, it’s constantly changing. And to create something that can last the the sands of time, so to speak, is a lot harder than one might think. The few examples we have here on Earth, that are manmade, you can look to the pyramids, you can look at things like Stonehenge, but that’s a blink of an eye. Those were just made a few thousand years ago, and they’re not going to be around for a whole long lot of time. That’s just not the way Earth is. So if we’re trying to find some sort of marker, chances are you’re not going to find it buried in the Earth unless it only happened maybe the last 5000 years ago or so, right? Even some of the most most dramatic examples of terraforming. Let’s look at, for example, the meteor impact crater in Arizona that happened 60,000 years ago. That’s already filling in.
Lue: In another 100,000 years from now, you might not even know anything ever happened because of the processes of Earth and what this planet does. It’s constantly erasing what’s on the surface, and it’s constantly burying what lies beneath, deeper and deeper and deeper until eventually, it gets recycled.
Lue: So, that’s a hard question. What would last long enough for us to go back and say, “Wow, this is an indicator of alien life on this planet 100,000 years ago?” What would you have to do to achieve that, to accomplish that? It’s a lot harder than one might think. And then again, would you recognize it?
One might say, well, DNA. DNA is a perfect example. If you wanted to do something that was enduring for humanity, that we could look back 100,000 years ago and say, “Yes, that was absolutely manipulated by an intelligent life form.” Well, deoxyribonucleic acid may be one way to do it. You can put coding and sequencing in there that will perpetuate over time and time and yes, you’ll have some big degradation over generations, but in essence you could do something that way. And basically, it’s a biological marker, right?
Lue: So, we have to be careful when we say we look for evidence because evidence isn’t just necessarily a spearhead found in the Big Horn Mountains from 11,000 years ago. It’s not necessarily a pyramid sitting in the middle of the desert. It could be far more sophisticated than that. You said put it in orbit, right? Well, what if we put that, rather than in orbit, we put it into the human body. So, anyways, I know it’s a very long-winded way to answer that question.
CJ: Yeah, let me ask a quick follow up and then we’ll get to Super Chat questions, audience questions and so on. Are there places that we should be looking for evidence that you feel like we’re not. So, for example, I mentioned archaeological investigation sites. The reason I brought that up is some people say craft were found. Okay. But you’re also saying there may be other markers, maybe possibly biologically, for example…
Lue: You know, near-Earth, celestial bodies like the Moon, where you don’t have atmospheric friction, you don’t have the tectonic processes that we have here on Earth that are constantly recycling. Someone might want to put something on the Moon, reminiscent of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” where you have these monolithic markers. That’s certainly one way to do it. You could put something where you don’t have those same processes occurring where maybe you might be able to extend your time twice as long for leaving some sort of archaeological evidence. The evidence could be right here, could be right in front of us, could be within genetic sequencing. It could even be more obvious than that. It could be the very fact that we’re alive and we’re on this planet, is an example of some intelligent life, somewhere, making a decision that life needs to exist on this planet. We need to be open to all of that, we really do. I think we need to cast a very wide net and this is why I always say, “All options have to be on the table until they’re not on the table.” Because, you may be surprised. Something that’s super, super intelligent probably isn’t going to build a pyramid that’s only going to last 20,000 years. They’re going to do something that’s far more enduring, something that will really be, no kidding, maybe a million years.
CJ: I understand. Alright, this question comes from Terry.
Lue: So I gotta ask, real quick, Curt. Forgive me, and I know I’m gonna get a lot of hate for this: What is a Super Chat? I hear it a lot. What’s a Super Chat?
CJ: Well, a Super Chat is when someone pays $5 ,$50, $100 sometimes.
CJ: Most of these or $5 to $10. You’ll get your check.
Lue: (laughs) Don’t even say that because people are gonna believe it! Curt, clear the record, man. I’m not getting paid a penny for this.
CJ: I’m kidding, I’m kidding everyone. And thank you so much for supporting this podcast. I appreciate it a tremendous amount. It’s not easy to do this full time and this is a place where I have almost no knowledge in, Lue, as you could probably tell by the sophomoric nature of my questions
Lue: Curt, I don’t think anybody does, you’re not alone, brother. You think I do? You think…if I had all the answers, you think we’d be where we are today? No, I’ve got more questions than answers, but that’s okay. My fears, when people say they do have all the answers, those are the people that I don’t trust, because I know they don’t. I’ve been in this for a long time for the U.S. government and I damn sure don’t have all the answers, so no, don’t worry about it.
CJ: Okay, let’s get to the Super Chat by Terry. Mr. Elizondo has called the UAP, “craft” multiple times and made comments about not knowing who is piloting them. This seems like an assumption, at least without proof. Does this mean there’s proof, let’s call that evidence because proof in science doesn’t exist, that these are craft with pilots?
Lue: Well, let’s break it down. Craft is a noun, it’s a physical object that allows the transportation of something from point A to point B. Whether it’s a hovercraft, right? Or a spacecraft, or an aircraft, it’s a vehicle. And so what defines a vehicle? Well, physical material. There’s something to it, nuts and bolts. I’ve made it very clear, already, my opinion about…my assertion that there is material that is related to this topic that has been recovered, in the past. That’s all I can say about that.
Lue: But that’s why I use the term craft. It’s maybe not the best term, but to me, it’s fairly accurate, at least until I can find another term that’s more accurate. As far as piloted or manned? I’m not sure manned is the right way to say because that means there’s a human behind it and I’m not sure that’s the case. But being piloted or intelligently controlled…well, the way they maneuver and the way they respond to us, think of in the scientific world, stimulus versus reaction. We can provoke and elicit responses from these things. So, Dave Fravor said, “When I came in to close the gap on this thing, this thing reacted to me. First of all, it pointed at me, and then it maintained a safe distance and mirrored my maneuvers.” So, there is some sort of intelligence behind it. That’s not random. That’s not Brownian movement, right? That’s a deliberate action by something…
CJ: There’s justification in calling it craft, other than there may be (inaudible)
Lue: Correct. And something or someone is making a decision how these things perform and react. So, I think it’s fair to say that they are intelligently-controlled craft of some sort. Now, much beyond that, I think that’s up for debate.
CJ: Are there potential photos that exist that show occupants in some of these, quote, unquote “craft”?
Lue: Well, there’s a lot of photos that show a lot of things. The question is, are they real, are they legitimate?
CJ: Are there potential photos that have [been] potentially deemed as legitimate, that have that quality?
Lue: Umm, there are very compelling photos out there that seem to show something inside, some sort of occupancy, and I’ll leave it at that. Because it gets really murky, much beyond that and there’s a lot that can can be speculated. And so I try to avoid speculation as much as possible. But yes, I’ve spoken to enough people, firsthand knowledge, that not only report the crafts that we know exist, but potentially some sort of intelligence inside these vehicles.
CJ: You mentioned it gets murky, murky as in low resolution or murky…what do you mean by murky?
Lue: I mean in every aspect. The source of the information, how the information was obtained, under what circumstances, resolution of photographic evidence, all of it. And so, that’s why we have to be very careful.
CJ: Okay. This question comes from James. Ross Coulthart said it would be good to offer a deal to those who kept the program secret. They get some immunity in exchange for getting us the truth. I think he referenced truth and reconciliation. Would you guys back a change.org-style petition for this? Do you think that The Others would like it?
Lue: Absolutely. I think Ross is 100% correct. I think we need to offer amnesty from criminal and civil prosecution if we want them to come out of the shadows. There’s a lot of pressure right now and I’m sure they don’t, whoever’s part of that cabal, doesn’t appreciate that type of pressure. And so, if we could offer some sort of truth and reconciliation, I think something to that effect would be very helpful in this cause and say, “Look, we’re not gonna label you. In fact, we’ll give you anonymity and confidentiality. What we’ll do is, if you provide us this information, we’ll make sure that…kind of like a witness protection program except no one will ever know you were part of this except for very few people. I think that’s a great idea. I think that’s what we should be doing.
CJ: Ross suggested, in the previous interview, a hashtag called #NASATellTheTruth and so we ran with that. And part of that was tongue in cheek. But then it had me wondering…well, what would be an effective way of getting this information disclosed quicker and more truthfully?
Lue: Well, NASA…look, you guys, it’s working. NASA is now starting to have conversations and the director of NASA himself is beginning to entertain questions about about this topic.
NASA chief Bill Nelson talks UFOs and ET life pic.twitter.com/LxliNkP76M
— Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena (@UAP1949) October 23, 2021
Lue: So I think that’s great, I don’t think that’s tongue in cheek at all. It’s working. I’d give yourself a big pat on the back because I just saw a headline two days ago where he’s talking with Avi Loeb, and they’re going to be having this conversation. So, don’t look now but you just achieved part of what you’re trying to achieve.
CJ: Thank you, Lue. What would you recommend? What’s another avenue? So Storm Area 51 is a horrible idea? Anything else?
Lue: You’re gonna get a bunch of young kids in trouble and potentially really hurt.
CJ: This person, James, recommended a change.org petition. Truth and Reconciliation is also recommended by Ross. What do you see as an efficient and effective plan?
Lue: I think we also have to start to continue to take an active role in our politics and voting people in who want transparency. We have been victimized too long by our ignorance. We have allowed people to get into the government that don’t have our best interests at heart, that are motivated by politics and not diplomacy. And where information is traded like a commodity. And so, secrecy is something that is abused for the wrong reasons and I think that’s problematic. There are some points of light right now in Congress, we see, between Senator Harry Reid, [who] is an absolute American hero. You have, on the other side of the aisle, Marco Rubio, you have Congressman Gallego and Tim Burchett, and Walker and some other folks now finally coming out and saying, “Hey, enough’s enough.” That’s fantastic, that’s how you make a difference. And, making sure that the general public goes to them and encourages them and tells them, “Thank you for doing this.” That goes a long way. These people are taking a huge risk to have this conversation and the more they hear from the public, that it’s okay to pursue this, the more willing they’re going to be to do it, and to have the conversation.
And it’s working, I just came back from DC myself. I’m not gonna say who I spoke with, but that goes a long way, that means a lot to them. And it gives them the motivation, and the top cover to start asking the hard questions and start poking the executive branch in the chest and saying, “Alright, what do we know about this? And oh, by the way, Secretary of the Air Force, Kendall, with all due respect, don’t come back and say, ‘It’s not a priority,’ just because we can’t prove it’s a threat or not. That’s like saying a submarine pops out of the Potomac River next to Washington, DC and because it’s not wearing an American flag, and you don’t know if it’s a threat, it’s not a priority. That’s the wrong answer.” Again, with all due respect to Secretary Kendall, lest we forget who you work for. It’s not up to you to decide what is of national priority. Let me remind you, it’s not your Air Force, it’s our Air Force and you’re doing a job we told you to do. And if you don’t want to do it, or you’re unable to do it, then we’ll find somebody else who can and you can go back to doing what you were doing before. That’s my word of advice. I paid my dues in the trenches and I know what I swore to do and uphold. Sometimes people in positions of power need to be reminded of that by the people, by the way. So that’s what you guys can do.
For those who don’t know what Elizondo is talking about and missed Kendall’s comments, here’s tweet 1 of 5 with the full text below if you don’t want to click on it.
I asked the new secretary of @usairforce, Frank Kendall, today if he has been briefed on UAPs and if he has thought about what the service’s role should be in defending American airspace against unidentified craft. 1/
— Bryan Bender (@BryanDBender) August 24, 2021
Bryan Bender: “I asked the new secretary of @usairforce, Frank Kendall, today if he has been briefed on UAPs and if he has thought about what the service’s role should be in defending American airspace against unidentified craft.”
Kendall: “I’ve given a great deal of thought to defending American airspace but not against UFOs. If asked to do that then we will do it. This is a thing that’s been around for a great many years. I’ve given a great deal thought to defending American airspace but not against UFOs. I know a lot people take it very seriously and I think we should take the phenomenon seriously and try to investigate it. I don’t consider it an imminent threat to the United States or the human race, these phenomenon occurring. But they obviously tweak a lot of peoples’ curiosity and encourage speculation. So if we’re asked to take that on, we will. I would have to see evidence that it was something worthy of the attention of the…Air Force as a threat. Our job is to protect…against threats. I have a lot of known threats out there that we’re working very hard to protect the [US] against. I’d like to focus on those.”
CJ: Okay, so right now we’ve covered some topics like consciousness UFOs, remote viewing, Skinwalker. All topics that would make the traditional skeptic scoff. However, it may be that there’s a paradigm shift coming. Shortform has compendious book summaries on the topics of UFOs, consciousness, science, philosophy, spirituality and the meta issue of anomalous data leading to radical reorientation of current scientific understanding, such as Thomas Kuhn’s, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Which is, by the way, the short form book I’ve read most recently. How many of your books on Kindle are left essentially unread? How many bookmarks or tabs do you have that you have to bookmark later, and those remain unread? Shortform makes learning what you’ve already wanted to learn, an eminently trivial tasks that can be done fairly quickly. Also, refreshing books that you’ve read in the past is efficiently done via their summaries. They even have exercises which prompt you for retention because there’s very little use in accumulating knowledge if it’s going to be forgotten later. To get a free, five-day trial, visit shortform.com/toe and you’ll also get 20% off the annual subscription, at least for the next 500 people. So perhaps you want to pause this video and visit them. Their extremely clean UI (user interface) makes it wonderfully delightful to read and I have ataxophobia which means that I find this to be an underrated facet, that I haven’t seen in virtually any other place.
Lue: Great guy, by the way, he’s doing a lot of great work. Great lead-in, by the way, because when you’re asking what can you do? That’s a guy who’s…and like what you’re doing, is exactly what you guys should be doing.
CJ: Great, great. AATIP focused on military encounters. Did you ever come across cases where people had experienced high strangeness similar to that found on Skinwalker Ranch? For example, have any pilots reported things like the hitchhiker effect (The alleged hitchhiker effect is when you visit a haunted location or location such as Skinwalker Ranch and something anomalous “attaches” itself to you. When you go home, it causes poltergeist-like effects and other phenomena to wreak havoc in your house and on your family. In the Skinwalker cases, many times, it was the wives who experienced the brunt of the phenomena after their husbands spent time on the ranch.)
Lue: You know, what a great question and I know (laughs)…oh my goodness, I’m gonna have to buy Dan a beer for that one. Great, by the way, he’s putting me on the spot and that’s a great question. I want to answer this as accurately as I can without without giving anybody the wrong impression. There’s a reason why the sixth observable is biological effects, okay? That, by definition, is high strangeness. People, after an encounter, experiencing certain physiological and psychological things. Again, let me…to put it succinctly, yes, but not the same as the Skinwalker Ranch.
CJ: Differences being?
Lue: Well, Skinwalker was looking at a lot of the paranormal aspects. As you say, in the vernacular, you know, shapeshifters and ghosts and you know, poltergeist, that type of activity, whereas AATIP was looking at nuts and bolts UFOs. But there were some parallels. Some people…and the problem is, we really don’t know enough about that, about the UAP issue to really speak cogently on that. People have had biological effects and that’s as far as we were prepared to go at the time because that could be quantified and qualified. You can look at physiology and morphology and you can look at things like that and you can look at tissues and things like that. You can quantify and qualify. The other stuff is a lot harder, especially anything dealing with a psychological episode. When I saw psychological, I don’t mean it in a bad way, not like it’s made up. I mean, everything we do is interpreted as psychologically right? There’s a mental process that goes along with the physical experience. PTSD is a perfect example. PTSD is very, very real but it’s a psychological response to a physiological and emotional-type situation. And very much the same way. People will will process data differently, just like PTSD, and no different in this topic. You have people, in some cases, I’ve talked to who, like Dave Fravor, just wants to get behind the wheel of one of these things and learn how to fly it. Then you have other people who’ve been deeply and emotionally impacted by this and still carry that with them. For whatever reason, they’ve come up close and personal and it caused some sort of conflict, internally.
I’ll tell you a great guy, a super, super guy. He was on one of the episodes of “Unidentified,” and he carried the secret around. He told his chain of command, he was up in Canada doing a maneuver with the United States and him and his buddy were situated fairly close to each other, guarding an ammo field there, like a depot, out in the middle of nowhere and encountered a UFO. Well, they go to report it, but his buddy recants the story and says, “No, it’s all made up,” because of the backlash that they received. And he always maintained the story, and he was left out in the cold, people thought he was crazy and he carried that around for a long, long time until one day, his buddy came out and vindicated him. He says, “You know what?” Because I talked to the guy. He said, “It was real, every bit of it. I was there, but I didn’t want to catch crap any longer. So, I recanted the story, and I left my friend out there to flap in the wind, so to speak.” And that caused, I’m sure, a lot of issues. Imagine being part of something extraordinary and then the person that saw [it] with you telling the world, “Nah, we were just kidding, we didn’t really see it.” And you know you did and have to carry that for twenty, thirty years only to come back later.
Lue: His name’s Dave Marceau. He’s a great guy. If you ever get a chance to meet him, I highly recommend you have him on your show. He carried that around in his soul for decades and you should ask him the type of emotional cost it took on him. People call you crazy, people call you a liar, people call you all sorts of things. Only at the end to find out that, you know what? You were right (laughs), it did happen. And the witnesses are coming out now and saying, “Yeah, it did happen.” You say hitchhiker effect. Some folks swear that once you have one of these encounters, there’s this hitchhiker effect and now, all of a sudden, all sorts of weird things start happening to you and your family. There’s an individual that I am very, very, very close to who was very senior in this effort who, at some point, when he comes out of the shadows, you should probably have this conversation with that person. Because he’ll tell you, absolutely yes. But again, I don’t have any data that can be quantified or qualified, so I cannot speak definitively on it. I think we have to remain open that there’s a whole lot of things that are possible.
Watch the David Marceau segment on “Unidentified” starting at 12:23…
CJ: I know you said you don’t have data that’s quantifiable, but I’m curious about this hitchhiker effect, or the sixth observable. Is that associated with proximity to the craft or length of time looking at the craft, like another variable? What is associated with this?
Lue: Damn. Great question! Man! Let me take a pass on that for now. That will be addressed. Great question.
CJ: Sure. We’ll get to Scott Larkin, who says, “Lue I believe your service to God and country will be understood more clearly in the history books. Are you aware of the CIA’s paper known as The Adam and Eve event? How much of what is going on is currently related to this pending event?
Lue: I’ve heard of it but I don’t know anything about it. I’ve always made it very clear, up until recently, I really haven’t done much reading on this because I never wanted to have any type of bias, even subconsciously. People get mad at me and go, “Well, didn’t you read this report, didn’t you read that report?” Look, I read government reports, man, that’s what I did, that was my job, and I didn’t want to muddy the waters by, you know, all these other things out there. There’s a lot of stuff that’s interesting there’s a lot of stuff that’s crap. There’s a lot of conspiracy bs out there that’s just nonsense and garbage, and then there’s some stuff that’s pretty accurate. So, I’ve heard of the Adam and Eve, if you will, but I’m not overly familiar with it so it wouldn’t be really good for me to comment because I don’t know the details of it. Now, if you can paraphrase for me, I can give you my opinion on it. Are you aware, Curt, of that?
CJ: No, I was going to get you to explain to the audience as well as myself.
Lue: Yeah, I wouldn’t be the guy to do that.
CJ: Someone, wants to know, for those who maybe don’t know: What’s the main difference between AAWSAP and AATIP? What involvement, if any, did you have with AAWSAP?
Lue: Well, now I can talk about it because the guy came out. So, Jim Lacatksi is a great guy, super smart. I’ve always said he’s probably the greatest rocket scientist our government had, at the time. Incredibly brilliant gentleman, and also was one hell of a risk taker. So, AAWSAP, think of Ford Motor Company as AAWSAP. And they make a lot of models. They make the Bronco, they make the Crown Victoria, they make the Mustang. Think of AATIP as the Ford Mustang. It is a sub-model built under/within the Ford plant. And it’s a sports car. It’s one of the many different lines of models.
CJ: There’s that word sports car again.
Lue: Sports car, right.
CJ: Bob Lazar reference. (I believe he meant Lazar Sport Model UFO.)
Lue: So what happens with AAWSAP, think of Ford Motor Company, eventually going out of business, for whatever reason, but the Ford Mustang is so popular that the Ford Mustang continues to be built under its own moniker and continues to be built as the Ford Mustang but there’s no other cars now being built by the mechanic, it’s just the Ford Mustang.
CJ: So it’s a baby of and the parents died?
Lue: Yeah. So it started off…look, there would be no AATIP without AAWSAP and without Jim Lacatski. That’s a fact. But when that program went away, AATIP continued. And that’s why you have all the videos out there from the Roosevelt and all these other incidents that will be coming to light and continue to come to light because a lot was done under AATIP. But it was military focused, only. We did not deal with civilian information at all. It was military focused and we did have funding. I’ll leave it at that. I’m not going to say anything to disparage my good friend, Jim. Jim is a good man and he’s done a lot for this country. But I can’t speak for AAWSAP and I’ve said that from day one. As you noticed, I’ve always said, “I can’t speak for AAWSAP [but] one day that guy will come forward and hopefully we can stand shoulder to shoulder and he’ll finally get the credit that he deserves.” But AAWSAP wasn’t AATIP and AATIP wasn’t AAWSAP. I was AATIP, he was AAWSAP and if you want to know more about the AAWSAP stuff, you’d probably have to ask him.
CJ: Okay, now, you mentioned the word “woo” quite a while ago and just so you know, I don’t…firstly, I don’t use that word because that word is used disparagingly. And also because much of what’s considered pseudoscience becomes science. And also, what you categorize as being paranormal depends on your assumptions of what normal is, and we don’t have a theory of everything, so it’s difficult to say. Given that, what’s your opinion on remote viewing, and I believe you dabbled in that. So I would like to know more about that.
Lue: Okay, so remote viewing is defined as a human cognitive capability to observe things separated by space and time, in essence. I’m not going to discuss what I’ve done in my career, I’ve done a lot of things in my career for my country. Most of it, as you probably agree, has never seen the light of day and it’s not really germane or relevant to this discussion of UAP. The UAP topic is only one aspect of my career and my service to my country, but the rest is private, unless it doesn’t need to be. I don’t think a discussion on remote viewing has anything to do with UAPs or my time in the AATIP program and I think it’s just a distraction. And I’ll leave it at that.
CJ: Okay, so this question comes from AWAF: With the phenomenon being so evasive, what level of confidence do we have that global disclosure will be a net positive for engagement with it? As an analogy, we know hornets exist, but poking the hornet’s nest is ill-advised.
Lue: Can you repeat that, Curt, one more time? I think that’s a really…getting it right, that’s actually a really, really interesting question.
CJ: With the phenomenon being so evasive, what level of confidence do we have that global disclosure will be a net positive for engagement with it? As an analogy, we know hornets exists, but poking the hornet’s nest is ill-advised.
Lue: Well, let’s define engagement. Is engagement the same as poking? I don’t think so. International engagement is getting everybody on the same sheet of music about the topic. It’s not necessarily being provocative, it’s not necessarily poking, quote unquote, “the hornet’s nest.” What it is, it’s an acknowledgement that the hornet’s nest exists, and that hornets exist, so we should probably understand them. I’m not at all advocating that we go and poke the hornet’s nest. What I’m advocating is that we need to study the hornet and we need to study where the hornet lives, and how it lives and its relationship to its environment and ultimately, its relationship to us, if any.
CJ: I think the last time we spoke about trans-medium, that it would go from water to air, back and forth. Is there any evidence of trans-medium with respect to rock? Can it move through solid material?
Lue: I’ve heard people speculate that. We haven’t seen that but there were some scientific models, specifically a couple of calculations that I was privy to the mathematics, specifically, that indicate if you can get a certain number below a zero, then, quote, unquote, “it can cut through through rock like butter.” But I’m not a math expert and I’m certainly not gonna validate or verify that because I don’t know. All I saw were a bunch of numbers and letters of the alphabet put in front of me (laughs) in a very long strain of what I presumed to be valid equations. But I don’t know. Math for me was a minor. I think I got up to Calc[ulus] III.
In the Vallee/Davis paper, “A Six-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena,” the second layer features objects that are, “described as physical and material but they are also described as:
Sinking into the ground (This would seem to include rock and solid material ~Joe)
Shrinking in size, growing larger, or changing shape on the spot
Becoming fuzzy and transparent on the spot
Dividing into two or more objects, several of them merging into one object at slow speed (Aguadilla? ~Joe)
Disappearing at one point and appearing elsewhere instantaneously
Remaining observable visually while not detected by rada
Producing missing time or time dilatation
Producing topological inversion or space dilatation (object was estimated to be of small exterior size/volume, but witness(s) saw a huge interior many times the exterior size)
Appearing as balls of colored, intensely bright light under intelligent control
Lue: And, true story, I’ll share this with you. I appreciate math and love certain aspects of math, but I’m not necessarily great at math. And finally, I was going up to Calc III and my professor failed me the first time around. So I had a chance to make it up and I go back to the same professor. And, by the way, my professor really didn’t like me very much and really, I didn’t take it as seriously as I should. And so, time and time again, I’d come in and I wouldn’t do good on the test. And finally, I told him, I said, “Look, I’m having trouble here with this class.” He says, “Yeah, you are.” And he said, “Look, I don’t think this is for you. You’re not a great student in Calc III.” And I said, “No, I agree with you. But you got to pass me because I’m making some decisions in my life and this is really the last class I need to graduate.” And he said, “Well, you’re just not making the standard.”
CJ: And you intimidated him with their muscles?
Lue: No, on the contrary, what I told him is that I…I said, “Listen, I don’t like being here any more than you want me being here and I’ll make you a promise: If you fail me again, I promise you I will continue to be here and take your class every single day until you retire.”
CJ: Oh wow.
Lue: And he looked at me and he said, “So I guess we have mutual understanding (laughs) that you’re just gonna barely pass.” And I said, “Sir, that’s all I need. I’m not looking for an A, I just need to pass this class and I’ll be out of your hair forever.” And he said, “Okay, we have an agreement then.” And I just barely passed that class. And yeah, it was either Calc II or Calc III, and we made an agreement. I wouldn’t take Calculus anymore for the rest of my life and, there you have it.
CJ: That number that was less than zero, or could be less than zero, do you happen to remember if it was mass?
Lue: I have no idea, brother. I know who gave it to me, I don’t want to reveal that person right now.
CJ: Okay, let’s forget about that.
Lue: Honestly, by the time they got through the whole…my eyes had rolled in the back of my head about three times. And they were obviously very excited as they were writing these formulas down and said, “Bam! There’s the answer.” And I’m like, “Huh? What? Where?”
CJ: See, for me, math is what turns me on.
Lue: I love it. No, don’t get me wrong. I wish…I absolutely love math, it’s just doing it that, for me, is kind of kind of challenging.
CJ: Okay, so Alien Alcoholic asks: Potentially, have there been biological samples recovered from craft?
Lue: Let’s rephrase that question. Have there, potentially, been biological samples recovered? Yes. I’m not going to expound any more on that.
CJ: Right. Right, so let’s forget about the craft.
Lue: And be careful when I say that. I’m being purposely very open and vague at the same time, right? What does that mean? Well, it means what it means.
CJ: Senzu Bean: Has he ever considered that when the UAP changes direction or speed, it may actually be warping space time…like certain warp drives I’m sure you’ve heard of? That way, the space time around the UAP is warped and so it’s not technically moving, and thus, the biological entities, if there are one, or any, wouldn’t feel g-forces. Have you considered that?
Lue: Yeah, it’s right on the money, except for it is moving but the principles of what the question is are right on the money. Yes.
CJ: And then, I just want to say…I always love when people say this at the end: “Hopefully my question makes sense, as I’m not a native English speaker. Kind Regards.” Hey man, your question makes complete sense.
Lue: You know, he speaks better English, or she speaks better English than most most English speakers. So congratulations. I understood the question perfectly and it’s a great question. And, yeah.
CJ: Okay, so this question comes from Steve Cambian of Truth Seekers, and I’ll put a link to his podcast in the description: Given the debate about your involvement with AATIP and your actual role., would you be able to prove your leadership role by releasing tax forms? In short, could you simply release your tax forms to prove your employment, leadership role and your salary for those years?
Lue: (laughs) Of course I could but tax forms just tell you were working at a particular office, that’s all it does. And, of course, then, people start looking at your salaries and start making all sorts of inferences. The bottom line is that the government has already validated and verified that I work within the USDI. Senator Reid has already validated I worked on AATIP. You had the spokesperson for the Pentagon, Dana White, under Secretary Mattis, already verify that I was working AATIP.
Lue: You have Jim Lacatski verifying I worked and ran AATIP. I mean, the list goes on and on and on. No, I’m not going to get into a tit for tat. Either that or I’m the world’s greatest clairvoyant, because everything I’ve talked about has come to fruition, to include the release of the videos that are on the 1910, with my signature on it.
CJ: Both are remarkable.
Lue: I mean, at this point, if people still question that, then, I don’t know what to tell you. Go get a hobby. No, I’m not gonna sit here at this point in time…there’s an IG evaluation and investigation specifically because of how they mishandled this. And then they come out and they say, “Oh, by the way, we deleted all Lue’s emails.” I mean, if you’re that much of a sucker, and you actually, still, at this point, are at all questioning what my role is, then I don’t know what to tell you. Sorry.
CJ: Okay, this question comes from Ena: What can we do, personally, to prepare ourselves, and perhaps even others, for a post-disclosure world?
Lue: You know, hold on a second.
CJ: Are we taking a break? You need to…
Lue: No. No, actually, I was trying to find an email that…never mind. I had an email that I’ve never shown but I was about to say, “Here, boom! How’s that for proof?” But no, don’t worry about it, I don’t even want to get into that. You know what? I’m not gonna satisfy anybody’s, at this point, questioning. All that is…and by the way, as time goes on, even more evidence is coming. So, you know,
CJ: You find it to be a distraction and a waste of time, we have much greater issues?
Lue: Well, and at this point, it’s just insulting, It’s like, dude, I can’t think for you at this point. I mean, if at this point, you’re still on the fence on that, then find something else to do, because it’s…yeah, it’s…
CJ: It would be like seeing Obama’s birth certificate and then saying that he’s still from Kenya? You’d be like, “What more do you want from me?”
LE: Yeah, it’s like, dude, what more do you want? You have the guy who ran the program, the senator himself saying I ran it. I mean, you have the Pentagon saying it. Now you have “60 minutes,” who, by the way, backed it up with General Mattis himself. I’m like, “What more you want?” I mean, you want a video of me going in and out of the office when I was there? Well, you’re not going to get that, you know? Sorry. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of people out there that are still…I consider agent provocateurs. They’re just trying to confuse the situation and for whatever reason. I mean, rather than looking at the last four years and saying, “Wow, look how far we’ve come!” they’d rather go back and, it’s…
CJ: Have you heard of Anjali?
Lue: I have.
CJ: Okay, see, people keep telling me to look her up and then many other people keep saying, “Don’t bother, she’s way out there,” which also makes me want to look her up even further. And I think I’ve been on some polls and you’ve been on some polls as who should she take with her as a representative or as one of several representatives for the planet Earth.
Lue: Well, I never said I’d go with her, first of all, so I don’t know why someone’s using my name in a poll, without my permission, saying that they’ll take me anywhere. No one’s taking me anywhere unless I want to go somewhere. Two, the old saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing would make me happier if she can take somebody to a magic cave underground and have communication with with another life form. But, if that’s the case, then what are you waiting for? Why not go now? Just bring a camera crew and go now. You don’t need to make a big deal of this, just go and do it and prove it. We’ve seen this in the community so many times before, with people making these bold claims. And, you know, man I really hope I’m wrong, I’d love to eat my hat. I’ll be the first one…there’s an old saying we have, “If I’m wrong, I will kiss her butt in front of Macy’s window.” Nothing would make me happier than [for] that to be true. But everything about how this is unfolding, doesn’t seem legit to me. It seems showboat. When you have someone sitting on a chair with…well, any ways. Look, I don’t want to be judgmental. Enough people are judgmental about me, I know how it feels. I want to give Anjali a fair shake but you better produce, because if you don’t, you got a lot of people riding on this and all you’re going to do is hurt the cause with some outlandish claim like this. If you can’t prove this outlandish claim, all you are gonna be responsible for is being another one of those people that are tinfoil hat and the reason why this topic was never taken seriously. So, add yourself to the list if you can’t deliver.
CJ: When I looked at her – and I didn’t look at her much, I just saw a couple videos – I didn’t sense any dishonesty. But I didn’t have anything like a close gander, let’s say. So, you sense some grandstanding or showboating?
Lue: No, no, look, I’m not gonna judge anybody, I’m not, I’m not. I’m just simply saying that if you’ve got extraordinary claims like that, you’ve got to deliver, you’ve got a responsibility now and you better not have an excuse not to deliver that.
CJ: Alright, so this question comes from Ayna: What can we do, personally, and even societally, to prepare ourselves and others for a post-disclosure world?
Lue: I’m not sure we need to prepare at all. I think we’re perfectly prepared. I have faith in human beings that we will look at this from a rational perspective. Our paradigm is challenged every day. We just had, in the media, China launch a hypersonic cruise missile around the world. That’s a change in the way we see ourselves, especially with potential, foreign adversaries. We have our paradigms change every day. People are told that they have cancer every day. People are told that spouses are cheating on them, every day. People are told that they’re pregnant and are gonna have kids, every day. People are told about the death of a loved one, every day. We’re human beings, that’s part of life. I think…I’m not sure there’s anything we can do to prepare. I think just be ourselves and be willing to ask the hard questions and have the patience to find the answers. Let’s not be so quick to jump into some sort of preconceived narrative just because it makes us feel good, right? Because we all want to understand things that we don’t. We all have this natural fear of things we can’t understand. We must be tempted not to create an artificial narrative, just so we feel better. We need to really explore this for what it is and have the courage to do so. That would be my advice. By the way, you do some really good questions, I really appreciate that. Questions that people haven’t asked me before. Yeah man, really good. By the way, let me also caveat here. You’re gonna get…I do have some people that really don’t like me and I’m sure they’re going to take out that hatred on you. So I apologize ahead of time. If anybody is screaming at you, I get some haters in my camp that tend to be rather vocal, so I hope they’re not driving you too crazy. I’ve got a nice little vocal, I almost consider…I call them my chorus, because I know, every time I come out and say anything, like on your show, that chorus is going to come out any minute now. And I can already hear them warming up their voices.
CJ: The last time we spoke, there were two comments that you said that stood out to me. One was the somber, the somber heard around the world, in a sense.
1 CJ: "If the general public knew or saw what you saw, what would the next week look like? How would the public react?
Lue: "(5 seconds of silence, including a breath) Somber. Uh, I think there would be this, uh, big exhale, for about a day. And then this turning inward & trying https://t.co/wQBGNxNK9z
— Joe Murgia (@TheUfoJoe) June 22, 2021
CJ: And then you clarified that or you added to that by saying sobering. I was wondering, we can get to that. And then also, you mentioned that the charlatans of the world will be shown to be charlatans. And I, again, don’t know much about this UFO community but people in the comments were saying, “Did he mean Steven Greer?” So, why don’t you comment on that? You can be as diplomatic as you like, I know that you’re relatively a diplomatic person.
Lue: Yeah. Let me start with somber or sobering. Imagine everything you’ve been taught, whether it’s through Sunday school, or through regular, formal education in school, or what our political leaders have told us and yes, even maybe our mothers and fathers around the dinner table have told us or maybe at bedtime, about who we are, right? Our background and our past. What if all of that turned out to be not entirely accurate? In fact, the very history of our species, the meaning what it means to be a human being and our place in this Universe. What if all that is now in question? What if it turns out that a lot of the things that we thought were one way, aren’t. Are we prepared to have that honest question with ourselves? Are we prepared to recognize that we’re not at the top of the food chain, potentially? That we’re not the alpha predator, that we are maybe somewhere in the middle? It’s interesting because I was having discussion with a friend, not too long ago. A really, really…we call them gray beards in the government. A really, really smart guy. I’m not gonna mention his name, but I was talking to him probably a couple months ago. And this is a guy who was always paid to solve the hard problems for the U.S. government. Cold War. How do we solve that, right? How do we do these big things? How do we go in and beat the Russians at their own game? So this guy I respect tremendously and we had a conversation, and he said, “You know, Lue, mankind’s been around for a little while and for most of that time mankind’s been around, we’ve been smack in the middle of the food chain. We ate a lot of things and a lot of things ate us, and that’s just the bottom line. And about 70,000 years ago, something fundamentally changed, something changed, and our species was instantly catapulted to the very top of our planet, as far as predatory animals.” And now, all of a sudden, we became the most feared, we were the most lethal and the most successful. In fact, most of the large species that existed on this planet went extinct because of us, believe it or not. because we started eating all of it. There were a couple species that did very, very well with our ascension, our immediate ascension. And we brought a couple species with us, the dog is an example, where the dog species benefited greatly with mankind’s ascension as the alpha predator and wound up succeeding very well off of that. That changed the entire global landscape of our planet, almost overnight. Large animals went extinct because of us.
What if it turns out that there’s another species that is even higher on that ladder than we are? Do we need the social institutions that we have today? Will we need governmental and religious organizations that we have today, if it turns out that there is something else or someone else that is technologically more advanced and perhaps, from an evolutionary perspective, more advanced? Have we been wasting our time, all this time? Or, are we doing exactly what we’re supposed to be doing? Does it turn out that mankind is in fact, just another animal in the zoo? Or…because we thought ourselves as a zookeeper before, but maybe we’re just another exhibit inside the zoo? What would that mean to us? So, when I say sombering and sobering, I mean that there’s gonna come a point in this conversation where we’re gonna have to do a lot of reconciling with ourselves, whatever that means, from whatever philosophical background you have. This is going to impact every single one of us the same and yet equally and yet differently. And I think that’s important. You know, do we find ourselves in a situation where history may have to be rewritten? So that’s what I meant.
Now, as far as the charlatans, I’m not going to give any attention to individual charlatans because they already have enough attention. They know exactly who I’m referring to. These are individuals who have made a cottage industry, a career, of taking people’s hard earned money and deceiving them. And not only deceiving them, but having them sign non-disclosure agreements to make sure they don’t tell the world that they’ve been deceived. And preying upon people who, for whatever reason, believe in them. People who say, “My narrative is the only narrative, and anybody else who tells you otherwise is trying to hurt you. I have all the answers. I have the solution.” Anybody who says that, I think is a charlatan and I think we need to be very, very mindful of that, they’re very dangerous. And they’re dangerous for several reasons. Because if they’re lying to you about that, they’re probably lying to you about other things in their life, their past life and their current life. Which may or may not come to light at some point. These are people who have taken advantage of people for a very long time and you have to be careful.
CJ: What else are the motivations of some of these charlatans or potentially could be their motivation, other than financial or influence?
Lue: Well, look at any religious charlatan, it’s the same thing. It’s a cult of personality. It’s somebody who, for whatever reason, thinks it’s all about them and they manage the narrative. It goes to the basic core of pride and ego in human beings and narcissistic behavior. Real, true, deep psychological issues. Some sociopathic, to be honest with you.
CJ: Is there any gold in that rubble?
Lue: I’m sorry?
CJ: Is there any gold in that rubble, as in, is all of what they’re saying, some of these charlatans, we don’t have to name names.
Lue: No, I think there’s always fibers of truth in a blanket of lies because that’s what holds it together. There are some aspects of truth. The problem is, when you take that truth and you distort it. There’s people in history that were very good at convincing large amounts of people that they have the answer, right? I don’t need to go back into history to say which ones those are but you have characters like Jim Jones, Heaven’s Gate is an example. Even Hitler, to some degree, where they were very charismatic people who got people in this web and they didn’t realize it until it was too late. And I just think when you’re creating all these shell organizations and pass throughs, and paying people off to do things for you to deceive other people, I think is problematic. Again, I’m not gonna say…I’m not gonna mention names, I think most people are smart enough to see through it. My concern are those people who are already sucked into it. It becomes a cult and it becomes brainwashing and manipulation and that’s my concern, because it gives a terrible name to the effort. And making false accusations…I think is…there’s an old saying and I’ll see if I can remember it: Ye be careful of the knife ye uses to stab at the back of others, for surely that knife will be used against you in the future, or at some point. Anyway, being just, you know, right karma. Karma is a bitch (laughs), be careful. Mother Nature has a vote and she’s got a way of always squaring things up at the end, and that’s what I’ve seen, anyways.
CJ: Remember earlier, I was asking you, “What can we do as a culture?” I think, based on some of your statements, what we can do is something like we’ve already been doing, which is, keep talking about it so that we can de stigmatize it. I know that I don’t particularly like the word destigmatization, I think it’s been taken by certain people but essentially to destigmatize. However, there does seem to be the tendency from those who are believers in or who are part of the UFO community, who deride people like…see… Neil deGrasse Tyson and other skeptics deride the UFO community and I don’t think they should do that.
— CNN (@CNN) December 21, 2017
CJ: But then I also don’t think that they should be met with condescension as well because I think that that comes back at you. I think that love and extending an arm and an olive branch is what will…
Lue: Curt, you’re right, you’re absolutely right. That’s a good point. Let me talk a little bit about Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. First of all, he’s one of the few shows that I used to watch a lot. I loved his perspective. And let’s talk about his background. This is a person who was a bit of a maverick. He cut his teeth and became…really made his bones by supporting and defending a theory that really was a hypothesis at the time, an outlandish hypothesis. And that was, there were these supermassive objects in our Universe that were so dense that they created a gravity well, they created a black hole in space time where light itself couldn’t even escape. And although we can’t see it directly, we can’t prove its existence, we think they’re there, right? Now, a lot in the scientific community said, “That’s hogwash! It’s a theoretical anomaly that isn’t real.” And yet, Neil deGrasse Tyson did exactly that. He supported the hypothesis and the theory that there are these things you’ll never be able to see with the naked eye but they fundamentally…they’re there, and they’re hundreds of millions of light years away.
Well, it’s funny because that same spirit used to prove something you can never see, that is there, for some reason, he seems to have forgotten that in this topic because we’re talking about the same thing. We’re talking about something that is hard to see directly, sometimes, but we can see its impact on the environment around it, and to some degree, maybe warping space time. But it’s not hundreds of millions of miles away, it’s right here. And I don’t understand how you can support, on one hand, the scientific study and research into something called a black hole and not be open minded to something like UAP. To me, it’s the same thought process. Now, going back to what you say, as far as ridiculing them? No, we shouldn’t ridicule them. What we need to do is help them see the contradiction in their argument and not in a mean and spiteful way, either. I think we need to have a conversation because we need people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, we need people who are very smart to look at this problem and not just reject it because of stigma and taboo.
Lue: But the problem with the scientific community today is that they’ve rejected science in favor of scientism and scientism is no different than any other religion. It’s where you are so married to the scientific methodologies, that you no longer can accept new hypotheses and theories, and you reject them flatly. And I think that’s problematic because, as I’ve said before, every single principle of science today, whether it’s a theory, or a law of science that we accept as just a normal part of everyday life in science, started off as someone’s wacky, zany idea, way back when. Everything! And so, I don’t understand how we continue to find ourselves in the same hole every time. We keep saying, “Well now, that’s impossible. But, dammit, every time you say that, we get proven wrong. Haven’t you learned your lesson? Haven’t you taken your notes from the U.S. Patent Office when they said that bold claim that now everything in the world has been invented in a few years and there’s no need for a U.S. Patent Office anymore?
CJ: Right, right.
Lue: I mean, how short sighted can you possibly be? That’s the antithesis of scientific pursuit and endeavor. And, I think, if you were to ask me my true feelings on this, which again, I don’t offer very often: Science and religion, when you are standing at their base, they could not be any farther apart. Think of a pyramid. Go into The Great Pyramid of Giza, and standing on one side of the pyramid and say, “This is science!” And then, walking around all the way through this other pyramid and say, “This is Faith, this is religion.” And the two could not be further apart from each other. And yet, when you start to climb that pyramid, on whichever side you go on, they start to get closer and closer together. In fact, at some point, at the very top, the difference between science and religion are indistinguishable. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are together, they’re one, they’re one in the same. And in fact, I think part of the problem is that in science and in faith, we’re asking two fundamental different questions. This is why the two don’t get along down at the base of the pyramid. This is why they seem so opposite. Because one is asking how and the other is asking why and they’re two different questions. And that’s why the two don’t seem to comport with one another. But ironically enough, the further you go up the ladder, the more you realize they actually require each other, they actually lean on each other, they actually support each other, and at the very top, there’s no difference between science and religion. They become one and they support each other, I think, anyways, that’s my perspective from from what I’ve seen in life.
CJ: You know, you mentioned a phrase, it’s a phrase I don’t particularly like.
Lue: I say a lot of things that people don’t like so I apologize, Curt, ahead of time.
CJ: No, no. I apologize if I’m about to offend you. It’s, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The reason I don’t like that is because people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, any skeptic will say that any claim that they’ve already deemed as being untrue. And even Dr. Bryan Keating, who is a friend, and he almost won the Nobel prizes. He’s an experimentalist physicist. He said, “I don’t ask my graduate students, ‘Go find the extraordinary evidence,’ it’s not a different class of evidence that’s called extraordinary. Also, what’s the extraordinary evidence that any of us are conscious? There’s actually zero evidence that you can point to, scientifically, outside of what people say. And then, well, what are you gonna take what people say? Well, you could just ask a computer, ‘Are you conscious?’ and so on and so on.” So that’s why I don’t particularly like that phrase.
Lue: Well, I don’t disagree with you, I think that’s a really good point. I think I was taking it more in the vernacular, right? So, if you’re going to say something has been substantiated by observation, over and over again, multiple times to substantiate x equals three, right? And now you’re going to come out and say, “No, actually, x equals four,” then you are going to need evidence that is beyond what it currently is available to prove that, because all the evidence right now is suggesting x equals three and yet now you are claiming x equals four. Well, it is, by definition, extra-ordinary, the ordinary claim being x equals three, right? In simple algebra. But now you’re making an ex-tra or beyond ordinary claim that x does not equal three, it equals four. So therefore, you’re going to need beyond ordinary evidence, beyond what showing x equals three, to prove now your theory that x equals four. And so, from my perspective, when I say extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence, I don’t necessarily mean perhaps the way a lot of people mean it. I just mean it’s beyond, just like the word normal versus paranormal, by definition, extra ordinary, extraordinary. But I see your point, and I think you’re right. I think part of the problem is that we get too comfortable in the current understanding of our current paradigm and we’re not willing to challenge, sometimes, very simple things.
Case in point is I just had this conversation not too long ago, publicly, about fractals. They’ve been in front of us all along, ever since we were living in caves. And yet, it’s only recently realized that that may be part of the secrets of the Universe, right? That fractals exist everywhere. They exist physically, they exist even from a psychological perspective, the way we relate to one another. And it’s been in front of us all…it’s obvious, it’s not really extraordinary at all. It’s actually blatantly obvious, and we just never saw it. So yeah, that’s a good point. I think you’re right, and maybe I need to rephrase that in the future. I’ll consider that because I think you may be right. Maybe that’s not entirely a good way to go about it. You know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Maybe we’re beyond that in the conversation. So great, thanks for sharing that with me. And no, by the way, you did not insult me at all. In fact, I appreciate that a lot.
CJ: Okay. Thanks, man. Rooter Router says, “Great show! Can you ask Lue the following? Based upon what you’ve learned, Lue, would you consider yourself to be an idealist or a materialist? And if you are unsure what those words mean?”
Lue: No, I know what they are. Is there an Option C (laughs)?
CJ: Which would be what? A mix?
Lue: Can it be both? Or neither?
CJ: That’s something I’ve been wondering. Is there a duality between those two? There’s plenty of dualities in math and physics where you think it’s the option between two but turns out that they’re equivalent ways of describing a system.
Lue: Yeah, exactly. I’m not sure it’s an either or, I’m not sure they’re mutually exclusive. My background was science. In science, I found my solace, which I enjoyed.
“I fell in love with science, because where there’s science, where there’s mathematics, there’s truth. “I often tell people, there’s a whole universe around you, and if you know how it works, it will give you a better appreciation of what life is about.”
Lue: I grew up kind of an angry young kid, had some some tough times since a kid. But science to me was unwavering. She was always there for me, she never lied to me. And so, I get lost in science. And I do believe in the scientific method. It works. Is it perfect? No, but it’s the best thing that we got right now that we know to test and apply theories. But at the same time, there’s something more, you said about human consciousness, you can’t prove it. There’s no mathematical formula, no physical evidence to prove consciousness and yet here we are having a conversation. So, I don’t think the two are mutually…I don’t consider myself a materialist or an idealist. Like I said, I make fun of the fact that I love humanity, it’s humans I don’t like, right? How is that possible, right? Because humanity is a collective of all the humans and yet. But, I’m probably a little bit of both. I think there’s an indelible aspect to a human being that transcends physicality. We have a body, obviously, and we have a brain, and our brain is inextricably tied, for metabolic processes to survive, to the body. The heart has to pump blood to get blood to the brain, otherwise the brain dies. And in the same respect, the brain is regulating all the autonomic processes for the body. So breathing, which is automatic, thank God for most of us, anyways, and heartbeat and temperature and whatnot.
So the brain is a biological organ that is inextricably tied to the overall vehicle, which is the body and that’s organic as well. But there’s probably something more to the human being. There’s probably something more that is not necessarily physical. Because a computer has a processor, a computer has a body, right? The laptop I’m talking to you on right now, it’s got a processor that’s thinking, if you will, for the computer. But it’s not a conscious, living being, it’s not a sentient being. So the question is, what is that extra component, that extra ingredient that makes us human, that makes us a living, breathing, not only animal, but truly human? What separates us from everything else on this planet? And there’s that third ingredient [that] can be described potentially in cultures as the soul or the id or the chi or, you know, put your nom du jour you want on there. But I think a lot of people agree that there’s something different.
Case in point, the notion of love. You can’t really describe it, it’s hard to describe. You can’t see it, you can’t touch it and taste it. But it’s there and it motivates a lot of people’s actions. In fact, love, to some degree, actually works against individual survival, and yet, a mother’s instinct to throw herself in front of a train to save her child is almost reflexive. There’s something there that recognizes the value of human life, human dignity. I could be in a car accident and lose use of my arms and my legs but I’m still Lue Elizondo. I could suffer a traumatic brain injury and have a severe TBI (traumatic brain injury), and be mentally impaired, but I’m still Lue Elzondo. What makes Lue Elizondo, Lue, is something a little bit different, something that you can’t really put your finger on. And so, back to this duality, materialist versus idealist. I’m probably a little bit of both because I believe in science but I also know that there’s limitations to science, and there’s limitations to human beings. And there’s limitations to you and me and everybody else. And that’s okay. And they’re aspects to being human that are probably, potentially, more human than human, to use an old cliche.
So, great question. If I can ask you, Curt, a question I never asked you, just take a break here for a minute and ask you: What got you into this? Why did you want to get into this topic and have this conversation with your background? I mean, I suspect you have your reasons, but I’d love to know why?
CJ: Originally, I was what people would categorize as an adamant atheist, and that was recently, too, just a few years ago. And I’m not saying I’m a theist now but I’m not an atheist. And just so you know, some atheists will say they don’t believe in God because, well, the concept of God is velutinous and amorphous, how do you pin it down? Well, then technically, you can’t say you’re an atheist because you can’t be anti, what’s cloud-like, you find yourself being cloud-like. (I’m struggling to hear if he really said cloud-like but that’s what it sounds like).
Lue: You can’t be against nothing (laughs).
CJ: So, either way I was speaking with someone who told me. “You know, aliens exist” and I gave him my standard spiel, which was, “Well, why do they look like us? It’s too human. It came out, the reports of aliens spike every time there’s a movie, so it seems culturally related.” The standard skeptic response.
Lue: Yeah, anthropomorphism, etc., yeah.
CJ: Right. And also, look, given our exponential curve for technological progress, why do these craft seem all alike? Now, of course, they’re varied in terms of shape and size. But still, they’re recognizable as craft. And let’s say you’re coming from a planet far away, then even if you were to travel there, time is…you can travel there almost instantaneously but thousands of years may have passed, and so then your technology would have increased.” But I had the standard, skeptical response. And then he said, “Curt, just watch this.” He sent me a few videos and I watched them and then I was…I think I’ve said this before…if I have any skill, it’s not math or physics, it’s body language. I watch people’s body language like a hawk, and I can tell when they’re insecure about a certain aspect of what they’re saying, when they don’t feel intelligent enough, when they feel intimidated, when they feel like they have to…well, you can continue on the list. And I didn’t see deception in what I saw. And so that got me interested and I decided to speak to Jeremy Corbell because I was a filmmaker. I still categorize myself as that. And he was one and still is. So I was like, “Okay, let me speak to Jeremy, he has a movie on Bob Lazar.”
And since then, well, I’ve been interested in it because of the physics, but I’m also interested in the deep mysteries of the world. And it seems like UFOs tie in to them. And even if they don’t, it’s still incredibly informing. So, that’s my interest in it. And luckily, or unluckily, I don’t have a scornful, despising mind like most of the scientific community. I don’t look upon the subject with ridicule. In fact, I don’t particularly like when people ridicule other people. I think that’s an indication they should examine themselves for what they’re holding to be a self-evident truth and question their own motivations for believing in it. Because if there’s an emotion attached to it, then there’s some unconscious motivation for holding that belief that isn’t purely a dispassionate assessment of the evidence. So that’s my reason.
Lue: Very well said. Let me ask you a further question, if I may then. Not that I’m interviewing you. This is actually a question for your audience, too, but I can’t talk to your whole audience other than addressing you, so, I’ll address you. We look in terms of everything from a humanistic perspective, and we want to make sense from nonsense. It’s just kind of in our DNA, right? When we are talking about the topic of UAP, I think everybody deep down inside has this innate desire for it to quote, “make sense.” Put it in a neat little box and it makes sense to us. The problem is, the more we talk about UAPs, the more we exchange ideas, and then the more we begin to formulate our own opinions about UAPs. And so, what happens when the topic of UAP, the truth, doesn’t comport? Because we’re all doing this, right now, subconsciously. Subconsciously, every person does it. We are creating these little boxes that we want to check off, regarding this topic of…it’s from outer space, it’s from inner-dimension, it’s this, and they want this and they can do that, and they can do today.
CJ: I see what you’re saying.
Lue: And we are building those boxes without even realizing it. So, when we ask the questions, we’re actually asking the questions in a way to check those boxes that we’ve already made up, psychologically, in our brain and in our subconscious, right. We have to avoid doing that. And it’s so natural that we don’t even realize we’re doing it. How do you avoid the temptation to ask, really, the big question without being tempted to fill in the little boxes? You know, a lot of the questions your wonderful audience has asked, may not even realize, but they’re trying to check those boxes that they’ve made for themselves in their brain. They’ve preconceived these little boxes that they must have an answer to this box. Because this box then relates to this and this and this and this gives me a bigger, overall picture and the answer that I’m looking for. But, what if this is even far more bizarre than that? How do we ask a question to something we don’t even know what questions to ask? Meaning, maybe it’s not even in the realm of our ability to really get to the root of this because we’re looking at everything from a human perspective, human motivation, human interest, human desire, fears. You know, what if it’s something completely different?
And so, in essence, we need to avoid creating these little boxes, prematurely, in our mind. Which is hard, because that’s what we do as a species in everything that we do, right (laughs)? Take dating, for example. When you go on a date with somebody, what’s the first thing you do? Do I like them? Are we compatible? Do we like the same things? Do we like to eat the same dietary? Am I a vegan? They’re a meat eater. You know, these little boxes that we put in our brain, you know, already, before you’ve even asked the question. We have these these little voids that you want to fill. And the question is, how do we avoid that temptation? How do we pull ourselves out of a human paradigm to ask the questions that maybe aren’t human questions at all? I don’t know. I just offer that up to you because…
CJ: That’s a great point. There’s a term for that, it’s called enthymemes. Have you heard of that?
Lue: No, no, please explain.
CJ: It’s just an unstated assumption. You don’t realize you’re making it when you’re asking a question or putting forward a statement. So, for example, let’s imagine worms. They see humans and they just conceive of humans as godlike. Then they would ask, “Well, they must eat the best dirt. What dirt do they eat?” They don’t realize they’re asking the wrong question.
Lue: (laughs) Exactly! Precisely what my point is! So, what do you call it, enthymeme?
CJ: E-N-T-H-Y-M-E-M-E. If you want a fun physics one, which I could say in like twenty seconds, Ed Witten, so one of the world’s greatest physicists, said…no-go theorem. So you can’t have a particle that is massless and has greater than half spin and also carry a charge. That’s Lorentz covariant, which means it follows Einstein’s equations. Okay. Which seems like it means there’s no such particle as the graviton because graviton has spin, too, and is mass-less. Okay. However, this unstated assumption, that you don’t realize and even Ed Witten didn’t realize he was making it, was that the graviton is in the same space time.
Lue: Yeah, absolutely. Sure. Sure, I follow them.
CJ: Because it seems like, well, there’s a correspondence between CFT, so, Conformal Field Theory, and then having gravity on the boundary of that, or vice versa. So gravity could be somewhere else and there’s a correspondence between those…
Lue: Correct, Correct, Correct.
CJ: But it’s actually extremely tricky to extract that from the statement that you can’t have a particle that is of greater than spin 1/2 and massless and so on and so on. It’s difficult to see the assumption in that statement. So that’s what an enthymeme is.
Lue: Yeah, that’s fantastic. Yeah, I appreciate that, thank you, Curt, for sharing that. If anything, that was worth, totally me being here (laughs). I really appreciate that.
CJ: Oh, man. I feel so relaxed with you and I’m so honored that you’re spending some time with me, man.
Lue: Well, it’s collective, right? I mean, you’ve got a great audience, you’re asking great questions and I almost feel like this is like a fireside chat. If we could all just be sitting together out here in Wyoming and eating around a fire, this is exactly what I’d be spending my time doing. I wish I could do this more often, I really do. Unfortunately, much of my time is committed to other endeavors within this effort. But I think this is important, because ultimately, look, we’re going to solve this mystery together, all of us and this isn’t going to be up to Lue. It’s not going to be up to Curt. It’s not going to be up to, you know (scoffs), Greer, or anybody else. It’s up to all of us and that old saying…what was it? I saw it recently, somebody, a couple things. I saw one really neat on the internet with somebody who was being angry and someone said, “Come, let us share smoke by the fire.” It’s an old, kind of an indigenous proverb, right? Saying, “Hey, let’s share smoke at the fire. Let’s stop grinding the axes. Let’s put our differences aside and let’s come together.” I like that.
Another thing, too, by the way…I don’t know who does it…it’s completely off topic and random but I’m going, since I’ve got a little bit of time here, I’m going to say it anyways. There is an artist that has been drawing me and I gotta tell you, I don’t know if he likes me or hates me (It’s mostly negative. ~Joe), but man, it is amazing artwork, man. This person has somehow managed to capture…it’s kind of like a comic-book style and he usually draws me with these tiny little beady eyes.
— joe (@a01744) November 10, 2021
CJ: What’s their name?
Lue: I don’t know! I don’t know. I’ve seen it a few times. I don’t know if it’s like a Japanese anime style but it’s really neat, though. And again, I don’t know if they’re if they hate me, or they love me or indifferent.
CJ: I’m pretty sure it’s a positive feeling. They wouldn’t spend so much time…
Lue: But man, I gotta tell you, [a] really really talented artist man. I actually screen grabbed a couple of those and just saved them and showed my wife. I said, “Man, look at this. This is really clever.” One of them is, it’s (laughs), I guess, jokingly, you know, all the work I’ve done in the government and then all of a sudden now I’m being assigned a UFO program and there’s this kind of, you know, reaction, which actually wasn’t too far from the truth (laughs). But, just really, really talented. So a big shout out to whoever you are out there. Again, whether you’re a fan or a hater, know that I’m your fan, either way, so you’re very talented at artwork.
CJ: If you find the person’s name or person if you are watching this, just leave some comments and I’ll put your link in the description as well.
Okay, I got to get to some more SuperChat and audience questions. They’re eager. Do It Yourself Craft asks: What’s his take on the alien abduction experience?
Lue: Interesting, they’re fascinating, but they’re just that. They’re an experience. And with every person who talks about how these things may be here for peaceful purposes and, you know, just because they’ve never attacked us, means that they’re benevolent, there’s just as many people who are terrified and report the opposite experience. I’ve said this before, for [the] record: Look, if you take a member of my family against their will somewhere, that’s kidnapping. And God forbid, if you touch them, now that’s assault. Both are criminal offenses, from my perspective. I don’t care what your intent is. Bottom line. So, if abductions are happening, well the word of abduction itself is a criminal act, right? It’s kidnapping. It’s not taking you on a date, it’s abduction. If that indeed is happening. The problem is, it’s very hard to quantify and qualify that aspect of the conversation because at the end of the day, you’re just relying on eyewitness testimony. There’s no gun camera footage, there’s no radar data to suggest that. It’s just someone’s personal experience. And when you do that, you have to consider all sorts of stuff. You know, you have to…you’re now talking about aspects that involve psychology, aspects that involve sociology and aspects that involve philosophy.
Excellent article by Ralph Blumenthal
Lue: You know, we all interpret data differently, as human beings. Processes occur differently in our brains, and biochemically, even. So it’s very hard to do anything with that data from a military perspective, from a DoD perspective, because eyewitness testimony is one thing and even that’s tricky sometimes. But when you start talking about experiences, physical experiences from people, and they vary so much, in some cases, in some cases they’re similar. There’s not a whole lot I can do with that data. So, although it’s extremely interesting, fascinating, in fact, it was never really a core part of our research in AATIP. Again, because scientifically, it’s very hard to quantify and qualify, and there’s nobody else that can that can say, “Yes, I saw this person…” Now there’s a few, small anecdotal examples here and there where people say, “I saw the person disappear,” or something like that, but that doesn’t help us. We need more information or more data. I will tell you…. (long pause) No, actually, no, I’ll wait (laughs). Sorry. Next time. Yeah. It’s interesting.
CJ: Someone asked: Why is it that we have cattle mutilations, predominantly? We don’t hear much about sheep, and chickens, and so on. Why is it not on other livestock? Well, I’m sure there’s a minor amount, but why is it predominantly on cattle? Or at least, predominantly, we hear about it on cattle?
Lue: Yeah, we don’t know why. It could be something as simple as just, you know, the bovine genetic sequencing. It could be the fact that you can put a genetic tracer in an animal and follow the natural mutations of the genetic sequencing, the genotype and phenotype manifestations over time. You know, if I were to, let’s say, in the 1950s, put a marker, a specific marker in a specific herd of cow or head of cattle, and then watch as that genetic marker changes over time, there’s all sorts of things you can find. It could also be that certain animals are like canaries in a mine. They seem to be more sensitive, [for] whatever reason, to environmental changes or something to that effect. And so, you know, that is the animal of choice. We don’t really know and there’s still a lot of debate on what that is, what cattle mutilations are. Some will speculate that it’s UAP-related, some will speculate that no, it’s some sort of secret government program for tracking biological weapons testing, others opine that it’s something completely unrelated, it’s natural, it’s caused by coyotes and natural attrition of the herd. We don’t really know, but assuming, let’s just assume for a moment, I hate to say that word…let’s presume, because you know what assuming does, right? So we’ll presume here instead of assume. Let’s just presume that it does have some sort of relationship to UAP, for example. Why would we, why would anybody, why would anything be interested in one particular species? There’s all sorts of reasons why. It could be that there is a special susceptibility to certain things. Again, going back to the canary analogy, right, that for whatever reason. It also could be that they’re widely available. I’m living here in Wyoming, there’s more head of cattle here in Wyoming than are people. That’s a true statement. We have more cows than we have people.
CJ: That’s one of the hypotheses I was thinking about. Have you heard of The MacCready explosion? If you look at the amount of any animal, by mass, which one is most plentiful on the planet, it’s not humans, it’s actually cattle. Or cattle is second to humans. So I’m wondering, how much of it is just because there’s so many of them that…just by the law of numbers?
Lue: Well, there’s a lot. Huge numbers, and they’re all over the world and a lot of them that are really remote. So, if you wanted to get in and get out and do something, a cow is a pretty easy target. Cheetahs run really fast, right? And alligators bite (both laugh).
CJ: Those are great points, yeah. Okay, so before I rudely interrupted you, you were saying there was the reason of being plentiful, of being, perhaps, susceptible, like a canary in the coal mine, and then you were going on. What was the next?
Lue: Yeah, it could also be that they have been…so cows are one of the few species that have been specifically manipulated by human beings. You know, there was a time where our species hunted something called an Aurochs and Aurochs was predominant all over the planet, and we hunted them, frankly, to extinction. What you see now in the domesticated cattle is really a crossbreed. It was made by, it was invented by humans. It’s kind of the animal that never was, to some degree. We’ve crossbred a lot of stuff so we now have this domesticated livestock that we used as a food source. Maybe there’s something in that? Maybe there’s something significant or specific, as it relates to that? We could go on and on, frankly, we could spend another two and a half hours just speculating on, why cows. There’s a lot of different reasons why, potentially, you know, the fact that it is a primary food source for a lot of people on this planet, does that have something to do with it? Is there something relevant to that, that is of key interest?
Lue: “I had the privilege of speaking to a veterinarian, up here in Montana, of all places. And he was a former official, and he’s a veterinarian, and he’s called a lot of times to these cattle mutilations. And he is absolutely, 100% convinced that it is something that is not natural, and that is being done. Farmers will report lights in the sky. Later on, they discover these animals with what appears to be cauterization of the wounds. A lot of sexual organs, particularly, removed. And then some really other unique pieces to the puzzle where, you know, maybe one tiny bone is missing in the entire animal. And that’s it. Like it was just removed for the sake of removing it and studying it. And so, yeah, I mean, it’s something that’s interesting that’s been around for a while. A lot of people have…you’re not the first to ask me that, that’s for sure.
CJ: SR asks: Not sure if this has been asked: Has Lue ever heard of Zimmernacht Whistleblower, or under any other name appearing on Reddit? And if yes, is there any truth to it at all?
Lue: Well, I don’t read Reddit, very often. Again, if I want to abuse myself, I’ll just get on Twitter. They do a great job doing it, I don’t need any more (laughs). And then second of all, no, Zimmernacht, I’m not aware of. I’m not familiar with that unless there’s some sort of vernacular that is also referencing that. I have no idea about that.
CJ: Stojan Carlosic asks: What does Lue think of the set of documents named Allies of Humanity?
Lue: I’ve read a lot of documents. I don’t necessarily know about “Allies of Humanity,” what that is, unless it is something that involves different species that have been alleged to exist. I don’t know, I don’t know what that is. (Lue shared a panel with Marshall Summers this past summer. Summers wrote/channeled The Allies of Humanity series of books. You can read a full transcript of that very interesting discussion. Lue probably didn’t recognize the name.)
CJ: Matt wants to know: What are…this goes back to the worms asking which dirt demons eat.
Lue: (laughs) Great analogy, by the way. Only the very best dirt.
CJ: So, what questions should we, as the audience, as myself, perhaps even as you, which questions should we be asking that we aren’t?
Lue: Man! Well, you’re doing it. This is it! This is exactly why we’re having this conversation, right? To figure that out.
CJ: So when you were saying that we have some unstated assumptions and we have boxes, you’re not saying that you’re immune from that?
Lue: No! No, I need your help, too, to break out of that. No, absolutely I’m not immune to it. No, absolutely not. I have the same bias as everybody else. No, this is something we need to figure out, collectively. No, this is not a trick question I’m asking and then say, “Ha ha! I have the the answer.” No, no, no, I’ve got the same challenge you do, we’re in the same boat. We need to figure this out. And this is why I say we need academics and scientists and everybody else on board and philosophers and everybody, because they’re the ones that are going to help us figure out how to do that. I’m just a dude, I’m just one guy. I might not be super dumb, but I’m not necessarily the smartest guy, either. I don’t have the answers to all these things.
CJ: You’re extremely, extremely…you’re extremely bright, man. It’s humbling.
Lue: Oh, no, no. I appreciate it, but no, I can assure you… (laughs)
CJ: Speaking about humbling, when you mention the word sober and somber, to me, the reason why is not because we’re more special than we think we are, but we’re much less.
CJ: So then I was wondering…Is perhaps another motivation for people, that wolf pack around you, not just a financial motivation, not just national security, but also perhaps self preservation? Because…
Lue: Absolutely, self preservation! Yes, that’s a huge part of it! In fact, it also goes to pride and ego and self preservation. I mean, these are innate components of the human psyche and we need to be aware of it. And a lot of people don’t even realize they’re that way. You know, it comes from a place of self preservation, ultimately, survival. Control, and to some degree, even resources. It’s almost part of our character. You look at any any type of society, whether you have a society where you have a monarchy, a king or a queen, making authoritative decisions, or even to some degree, presidents or, you know, popes. And again, I’m not against any of this, I’m just simply saying that we, as a species, we always want answers, we always want someone to have the final say and narrative because we like our life to be defined. When you look at the way an average city organizer…the reason why they make our streets and grids north and south, east and west is, because subconsciously, it helps us know where we are, at any given time. We do have a compass, right? Even a watch tells us where we are in time, right? We are a species that doesn’t like…we fear the unknown. And when you look at Carl Sagan’s pale blue dot for the very first time, and you realize that everything in existence that we know of has occurred on that tiny little, pale blue dot, which is, three pixels large in the vastness and vacuum of space, in just one ray of light from the sun, that makes people pretty uncomfortable. The fact that, you know, other than towards the center of the Earth, there’s no such thing as up or down. There’s really no such thing as left…if you go left, far enough, you come back right again. Up is relative. Up just means I’m moving away from the center of the Earth. That’s all. There is no real up or down. We don’t know if we’re flying sideways somewhere in the Milky Way, in the Universe, or if we’re upside down. There is no upside down.
My point is that when you really look at the Universe for what it is, we have no idea where we are. None. We are spinning in an obscure, spiral arm of some obscure galaxy we happen to call the Milky Way that’s on a collision course with another galaxy called Andromeda, in the next 250 million years or so. But in reality, we have no idea where the hell we are or where we’re going or where we’ve been. And so, we build these anecdotes and histories and whatnot because it helps us make sense from nonsense and that’s what we like as human beings. That’s why when you put people in a solid white room or even the furniture’s white, most people will report not only being disorientated but being uncomfortable because there’s no relativeness within the room. In fact, that’s why death is so scary for so many people because it’s the great unknown, and it’s something that, as a species, we fear a lot. Nobody wants to know that they’re lost. That’s why safety and security is so important in a lot of relationships, right? People always say, “I just want safety and security, that’s all. I want to know that that person is going to be there for me and I can rely upon them,” right? They want stability, they want an anchor. And that’s not a bad thing, that’s who we are. But we also have to realize there’s a lot of things in this Universe that are gonna force you to reevaluate. And that’s really, really uncomfortable. Once you really realize that you are truly, we are alone out here in the Universe, from a human perspective, right? I’m not saying from a living thing. I’m saying from a human perspective. That’s scary for a lot of people.
To the best of our knowledge, we are the only humans in the universe. And of course, we have a bunch of animals we can play with on our little planet that we call Earth and it kind of makes us feel good. But, it’s looking more and more like every single day that there’s more out there. It’s just not human. And then the question is, “Okay, well, what are their intentions? What are their motivations? Do they want to work with us or do they want to subjugate us? Or, are we going to be tomorrow’s dinner menu, right? All these things go through the minds of people. And they’re good questions, and questions, frankly, we don’t have an answer for yet. And that makes people really, really uncomfortable and unsettled. And I think we need to be aware of it.
So back to your question: Am I subject to the same box bias that you are and everybody else? You’re damn right I am! Yeah. And we need to figure out how to look at this topic…look at, potentially, a non-human topic, through non-human eyes, is what I’m trying to say. We may have to take our human glasses off that kind of filter everything in human terms.
CJ: How do we do that?
Lue: Well, that’s my question, right? How do we do that? This is exactly why we’re having this conversation. What could people be doing? Having that conversation. Exactly. That’s exactly what we could be doing, and we are doing.
CJ: Can I add to what you said, if you don’t mind, like a thirty second…it’s on point, hopefully. This Pale Blue Dot, which I imagine is something…I don’t know about it. I imagine it zooming out and seeing how insignificant we are relative to…
Lue: So let me tell you about the Pale Blue Dot. There’s a couple of pictures that have really, really…if you really want to look at something that’s pretty amazing. The first image is called the Pale Blue Dot. Carl Sagan, I think it was the Voyager – it might have been the Pioneer…I think it was the Voyager spacecraft [that] was leaving Earth’s orbit, by somewhere around Moon and then it turned around and took a picture of the Earth.
Lue: And then, as it was billions and billions of miles away, as it’s about to leave the solar system, so to speak. It was actually the inner solar system, but to the best of our knowledge at the time, it was the solar system. This is before the heliosphere and whatnot. He had a great idea and said, “Why don’t we turn that spacecraft around and take one more picture of Earth and see what it looks like?” And so, he did. And NASA turned it around and took a picture of Earth. And at first they couldn’t find it until one scientist pointed it out and said, “What’s that?” And you should look it up on Google. It’s pretty amazing. Look at it with the original photo, not zoomed in. And you all of a sudden get this sense of vastness and most will agree, maybe even a little insecurity because you’re like, “Whoa, that’s a fragile little tiny ball in the middle of nowhere.”
Lue: And then another picture is taken by…it was the Lunar Orbiter. It might have been the Apollo 11 mission where they’re rendezvousing with the lunar lander. And in there, there’s a picture of the lunar lander, with a picture of Earth behind it.
Lue: And in that picture, you realize, for the first time, that all of humanity, everything that has ever existed, everything that anybody had ever hoped, dreamed, or wished for…every war, every famine, every crisis, every human being that ever lived, and animal and living thing that we knew of, was all contained in that one picture, except for one person. And that was the one human being taking that picture from the Lunar Orbiter. And that’s very humbling, because then you realize, you know, wow, we really are all in this together. And, you know, for better for worse, we’re family, we’re a community. And those are the two pictures. I would recommend people take a look at those. For me, that was very impactful. You know, they say a picture’s worth a thousand words. Well, in this case, a picture’s worth five billion people. Pretty interesting.
CJ: Let me play with that, if I can do so for a little bit and let me see if I can say this. I haven’t articulated this out loud. There are some YouTube videos that show the vastness of space, how immense it is, you just keep zooming out and out and out, and outward. And then some people feel dread and meaninglessness. But, to me that seems like a relic of territorial domination, when we used to tell a country’s power or stature from how much it owned? Because what difference does it make if we’re 1% of 1% of 1%, spatially or temporally of the galaxy? All of what matters, maybe that’s not what matters at all, maybe space and time and being located in it, isn’t what matters. If it was, then we could go to the Holocaust and say, “Well, it doesn’t matter because look at how small of a region it is, and how temporally bounded it was,” and say, “so it doesn’t matter.” But it matters. The birth of your daughter matters, the death of your son matters, every single thing that matters, is bounded, temporally and spatially. So perhaps what matters most isn’t how much space do we take up, but maybe it’s our heart, maybe it’s our capacity for pain, maybe it’s the ability to show love, despite being hurt, and to trust again? Maybe that all from another realm is something it’s huge, maybe it’s vastly huge in the way that we look at ourselves as small, maybe it’s huge. And to make an analogy in the realm of consciousness, if it’s a space, like space and time. But we don’t know. And in fact, all that we do know is what matters isn’t…like, your favorite piece of music is not, it’s only three or four or five or ten minutes long. It’s not an infinite amount of time.
Lue: Well, Curt, the value of the human being, again, may not be what’s up in here (points to his head), and the body, it may be that that piece that we talked about before, right? That that indelible part of the human that is hard to define. Whether you call it a spirit or whatever you want to call it, you know, a soul. You’re right. I think there’s…that’s the value of a human being. It’s not that $2.03 worth of carbon that my body is worth or the nine pounds or so of my brain. Or maybe, in my case, much less weight (laughs). But there’s something else that creates the value for a human being. But I’ve said this before, and let me reiterate this for anybody who hasn’t heard this yet: We talk about the human being occupying this small moment of space in this infinitely vast, you know, 92 billion light-year Universe, across from side to side. And yet, and yet, within every single human being, Curt, is almost an equal amount of space. What do I mean? Well, let’s look at an atom. One times 10 to the negative 26. When you compare that to the human body, we are that universe, we are that vastness, we are to the atom, we are the Universe, and we are just as big.
CJ: Interesting, interesting, right.
Lue: And so, we really sit right in the middle of the scale of the Universe. And that’s important because it as big as the Universe outside is, it’s just as big inside. And we’re just now beginning to explore the realities of that and what that means. And so, you know, there’s beauty in that. But, of course, for a lot of people, there’s a lot of discomfort, right? And uncertainty, right? And insecurity. So yeah, I get it, man. I understand it’s one of those things that, ultimately we’re wrestling ourselves. Why are we so insecure? And why does this topic make us so insecure? Well, because we’re forced to look in the mirror and question ourselves, and reconcile the fact that we really don’t know where we are and we really don’t know where we’re going. Despite the best and the brightest in our governments that we appoint and say, “Yes, we are giving you the authority to tell us things,” right? But in reality, it’s kind of an illusion. It’s just like money. The only reason why money means anything is because we’ve all made a moral contract to agree that yes, it’s valued. But it doesn’t really have value, it’s a piece of paper. There’s no real intrinsic value behind it, other than we’ve all agreed to the illusion that yeah, it means something. Well, it’s the same thing with governments and authority and some religions that we have invested this authority to tell us, as a species, give us answers, give us meaning, right?
CJ: So you think those at the top feel insecure that they may not have the answers?
Lue: Oh, well, they don’t. A lot of them don’t have the answers. It’s not that they don’t feel…we know they don’t. And I think if they were to be true to themselves, they know they don’t (laughs). You know? I mean, look at politicians.
CJ: Do you think they do? Do you think that they think that they have the answers, or do you feel like they know they don’t?
Lue: I don’t think they think deep enough to even recognize it. I think they think they have answers for the paradigm for which they are living in. They don’t understand that there’s a much bigger reality there. For their little reality that’s been conceived and painted for them, yes they’re coloring within the boundaries of the lines. It’s like me when I take notes in this book, you know I’m confining my notes only to the boundaries of the paper, right? That’s all I can have to write with. Some people have bigger paper…
CJ: Are those notes classified and you just revealed some classified…?
Lue: No. No, no, no, never classified.
CJ: Screenshot that and zoom in (both laugh).
Lue: I think, you know, that’s…for me. You know, I look at it that way. Some people just have a bigger notepad to write notes. You know, but maybe we get to a point where we realize that even that we need a notepad is – now I’m getting very esoteric – and maybe the fact that we’re even using a notepad is limiting us.
CJ: The limitations of language?
Lue: Maybe the key here is that, you know, maybe we need to get rid of notepads altogether. It doesn’t matter how big of a notepad you have because, you know, you’re never going to be able to contain all the information in a notepad.
CJ: That’s one of the claims of Añjali, is that we need to get past the limitations of language, for whatever reason the aliens have told her this, and that we need to start communicating telepathically or realize the limitations of language. Just as an aside.
Lue: Well, I’m not sure you need aliens to tell you that. I think that’s something age-old man has known for a long time. You know, that old cliche, right? Well, I love you beyond words. Well, what does that mean? We’re limited by language. Language is the closest we can get, right now, to reading each other’s minds, but, at the end of the day, we’re still limited. But I definitely don’t need aliens, necessarily, to tell me that, that’s just kind of a reality for us, I think.
CJ: Kevin asked: Given the clues, Lue, DeLonge and others have been laying down, it seems like we’re dealing with cryptoterrestrials, not necessarily aliens. Is this what Admiral Byrd found during Operation Highjump?
Lue: It’s absolutely possible that this is something that’s been on this planet for a very long time. And it’s just as natural to Earth as we are. It could very well be its own, you know, crazy as this may sound, could be its own animal kingdom, just like the hidden world of protozoa and whatnot of the microorganisms and that animal kingdom that was invisible to us until just a couple 100 years ago. Could be, you know? The likelihood of it, I don’t really know, but it’s def…I mean, it is a possibility, you can’t say no.
CJ: Umix asks: Can you ask them about Project Crystal Knight, aka Project Serpo, which was featured at the end of Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters? (It wasn’t featured at the end of Close Encounters. That scene showed military folks (who had apparently been abducted/taken decades earlier) being returned by the aliens, without showing any signs of aging. ~Joe)
Lue: I am not familiar enough with it to speak in any type of authoritative way. It’d be pure speculation, so I’ll leave it, unfortunately. I wish I could answer it for you.
CJ: Matt asks: Have you, Lue, had any holy shit moments, where you learned a truth about something so over the top that it wasn’t even on your question list? Speaking of question lists.
Lue: Oh yeah (and then he laughs). Yeah.
CJ: Okay, let me continue then, so you have more to riff off of. How many times have extraordinary revelations occurred to you as you were learning about this phenomenon?
Lue: So, as it relates to UAP, there were a few. I’m beginning to put my thoughts down on paper. There were quite a few. And, you know, each time it challenged my perspective on things, it challenged my understanding of the Universe and our place in it. But not quite yet prepared to have that conversation. But I will have it at some point.
CJ: Did you ever lose sleep over it?
Lue: All the time.
CJ: Gus asks: If Lue is under NDA, how can he write a book with new and definitive information regarding the UAP phenomenon? I don’t think this question is meant to be snarky at all, I think it’s genuine
Lue: Yeah. It’s gotta go through a security-review process and my intent is to put everything I can down there and then whatever the government decides…no different than Lacatski. Whatever the government decides to redact, and you’re going to know what parts are redacted and what parts are not. And, you know, you gotta try, but it’s not my call, I’ve got to get it reviewed. So, how can I? Well, I can by going through the right processes, and that’s how you do it. There’s a right way and a wrong way to do it, so I intend to do it the right way.
CJ: How long does that process take, when you give them a book and then you have to…
LE: Well, it’s not up to me. It can be a while, but that’s what I’m gonna do. And I’ve got a great partnership with Harper Collins, who is willing to take this journey, so. And by the way, there’ll be a very specific reason, very obvious, when that book comes out. A lot of people are making presumptions and assumptions of my motivation. They haven’t a clue. They have no clue what I’m doing. It’ll be very clear.
CJ: What will be obvious?
Lue: It will be crystal clear of why I’m writing this book, when it comes out. People are gonna go, “Oh, wow!” So…
CJ: Jesus is the Light asks: One question for Lue. I’ve never heard this one asked: If UAPs are trying to prevent us from nuclear war that supposedly may happen in the future – now this is predicated on the future-human hypothesis – when was this supposed to take place? Is it less than 10 years from now? Obviously, we’re in wild, speculative territory.
Lue: Yeah. I mean, we don’t know they’re trying to prevent a nuclear war. That’s, again, a presumption by some people. Let’s not forget that, in Russia, they actually turn them on. So that, you know, I don’t know if that’s preventing a nuclear war. And by the way, if that’s the case, they didn’t prevent us dropping a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, you know, there’s already flawed logic there that they’re trying to prevent anything. We don’t know that. We are presuming. So, we need to be very careful with that. As far as any type of future war? Your guess is as good as mine. That’s a whole different territory that I’m definitely not qualified to answer.
CJ: Okay, this is a question that I’ve thought about. Wiley Lafferty asks: Who are the government people that come to confiscate cameras and data, threatening witnesses to remain silent about their experience? This has happened to military and civilian witnesses. He says, “AATIP?”
Lue No, it wasn’t AATIP. I mean, no, it wasn’t AATIP. But yeah, there were people who definitely tried to intimidate people. And, you know, all I gotta say is that wouldn’t be wise to do it with me and my colleagues. I don’t get intimidated very easily. You know, we’re kind of the people who, if you poke us, we’re gonna poke you right back. I don’t know why people got intimidated in the past. The only way I would ever shut up from this, is if someone really came in and said, “Lue, we need you to be quiet, this is hurting national security.” But that hasn’t happened. I’m the kind of guy, if you try to intimidate me, you’re making a big, big mistake. And I’ll leave it at that. Because, my background is specific enough where you better come at me with everything you got.
CJ: Is there any truth to Men In Black?
Lue: Well, I mean, sure. The question is: Who are they? You know, there’s been elements in the past where U.S. investigators…I mean, the truth is, we wear black suits sometimes. I mean, I have three of them, you know? The problem is that Hollywood has kind of portrayed it a certain way. For us, you know, black suits were fairly functional. Look, I mean, this is gonna sound silly, but you wear them because they’re like wearing jeans but formal attire because you can spill food on black suits and all that kind of stuff and kind of wipe it away and you know, it’s a little bit more forgiving than another type of suit. So, and historically tend to be more of the cheaper suits, just because they’re black, they’re not really fancy material or stuff like that. So, historically, black suits have always been synonymous with government and what people refer to us as government stiffs. There’s always been Men In Black, I was one of them. I was a counterintelligence special agent, but I never intimidated people like that. And so the question is: Who’s doing that, and why are they doing that and under whose authority are they doing that? That’s my problem. If they’re operating without any authority, then, you know, you’ve got problems, because we had to all operate under rules and authorities and if you’re not, and you’re running rogue and you’re going around intimidating people, you know? I can’t stand bullies, man. I don’t like bullies. I’m not that guy. Anybody who knows about the way I was raised and what I had to go through, you know, I tend to be a bit of an anti-bully. I tend to try to… (laughs)
CJ: Bully the bullies?
Lue: Yeah, you know, that’s kind of…
CJ: Or put the bullies in their place?
Lue: Yeah. They weren’t going to be bullies much longer, I can assure you. I’d love to keep talking about this, I had a fantastic time with your folks. Hopefully, I didn’t waste anybody’s time. I know you’re gonna get people saying, “Oh, Lue didn’t answer my question and Lue avoided this and that.” I’m sorry in advance, they’re going to do it. They got some haters, they’re gonna nail you on it. But, you know, I’d love to do this again with you and if there’s anything I haven’t addressed, let’s do it next time.
This was Lue’s answer to Richard Dolan on May 20th, 2021, when asked about intimidation.
Richad Dolan: So, I believe that you have said in interviews – and this is going off of…I’m not exactly 100% sure, but I’m pretty sure that you might have said – that someone mysterious and unidentified from elsewhere in the DoD beat you to the punch a couple of times, collecting records of radar or optic data, or electronic data, or even physical debris as evidence of UAP encounters, before you got there to investigate. Now, the fact is, if you did say that…that M.O. is identical to what Project Blue Book investigators, years and years ago, said many times. So who were these agents? Where do they get the authority to supersede yours, if this happened? I mean, your authority came directly from the Secretary of Defense, so how would that have been the case? And, I’m wondering, what might have been reported in the interactions with these beings when you…I’m trying to think how I want to ask this. Do you have any evidence that these operatives were in fact…what can you say about this?
Lue: I will tell you that, in my experience, there were some elements that were interfering with our capabilities to collect and analyze data and information. This kind of goes to the whole, I guess, the speculation of some sort of secret government society or Men in Black or whatnot. I haven’t had any encounters. Now, I will say without going into much detail, I did have a very, at one point, a very close colleague of mine, that told me emphatically that that body exists but I haven’t had any encounters and I suspect if it does exist…
RD: Wait, that there’s a mysterious like, let’s say, quasi, Men In Black-type organization that is out there that is acquiring UFO data?
Lue: You can call it whatever you want. Another organization that’s doing some type of similar work and maybe on the black side of the house, black operations. I don’t want to feed any more conspiracy theories because, frankly, I don’t really know. But I did have a colleague share with me that they were convinced that there was an element within the government that did do that type of stuff and would intimidate people. I haven’t had any personal experience. It’s probably because either, one…I’m considered too reckless and they know that I would completely and probably, if they came into my front door, I’d shut the door behind him and try to interrogate them. Or, I’m too stupid. Maybe I’m too much of a loose cannon, possibly, maybe. I don’t know why. If there is that secret organization, again, I’ve never come across them, they’ve never tried to intimidate me, personally. But again, that that could just be because maybe I’m not worth their time? If it does exist.
CJ: Thank you, man, I appreciate your generosity, again, immense generosity. And as well as for what you’re doing.
Lue: Well, and I appreciate what you’re doing, and I appreciate what your audience is doing because you guys are making the difference. You know, you keep asking me, what can you do? You’re doing it. This is exactly what you can do, and you’re doing it better than anybody else. So, thank you.
CJ: Until next time.
© Joe Murgia and www.ufojoe.net, 2018-2022. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Joe Murgia and www.ufojoe.net with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.