Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Lue Elizondo Speaks With Curt Jaimungal

Episode Date: September 4, 2024

As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: https://www.economist.com/toe Lue Elizondo is a former U.S. intelligence officer who led the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which investigated unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). Lue is now a prominent figure in UAP disclosure efforts, advocating for greater transparency on the subject. YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/Rh7umwJln38 Links Mentioned: ⁠- Lue's book 'Imminent': https://amzn.to/4cTwvIJ - Lue's 1st Appearance on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAmFlLfsZKM&t=4280s - Lue's 2nd Appearance on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wULw64ZL1Bg&t=5694s - Lue's 3rd Appearance on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g5e9UzEDkw&t=2205s - The Shepard Tone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzNzgsAE4F0 - Iceberg of String Theory Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4PdPnQuwjY Become a YouTube Member Here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) Join TOEmail at https://www.curtjaimungal.org Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 00:11 - Letter of Resignation 06:05 - Greatest Threat to Humanity 10:39 - Lue’s Current Security Clearance 13:06 - ‘Paranormal’ Activity 23:32 - Universal vs. Personal Truths 24:21 - ‘God’ is Within 27:52 - Lue’s Experience with Orbs 38:34 - The Hitchhiker Effect 39:31 - Lue Going ‘Dark’ 44:40 - Is the Phenomenon Centuries Old? 54:38 - Why is this National Security Issue? 01:01:06 - “It’s Ruined My Life.” 01:05:17 - Disclosure is a Process 01:09:30 - Scientific Evidence 01:20:55 - Is Lue a String Theorist? 01:23:44 - Does Lue Meditate? 01:24:08 - Remote Viewing 01:31:43 - Physical Implants 01:38:25 - Do Humans Have a Soul? 01:40:33 - Outro / Support TOE Support TOE: - Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) - Crypto: https://tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE - PayPal: https://tinyurl.com/paypalTOE - TOE Merch: https://tinyurl.com/TOEmerch Follow TOE: - NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: https://www.curtjaimungal.org - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theoriesofeverythingpod - TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theoriesofeverything_ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs - iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 - Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP - Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e - Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverything Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join #science #ufo #uap #philosophy #elizondo #aliens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hear that sound? That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout checkout making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms. There's also something called Shopify magic. Your AI powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly

behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklynin. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase. Go to Shopify.com slash theories now to grow your business no matter what stage you're

in Shopify.com slash theories. Paramount Plus. We come to you from the mountain of entertainment to tell you what's streaming on Paramount Plus. Blockbusters like A Quiet Place Day One. Originals including Yellowstone. let the world know we're here And hits like Dexter you're decent and good. I'm not Paramount plus your eyeballs

equals entertainment stream Paramount plus from 699 a month I Wouldn't wish this on anybody. What does that disclosure look like? I always believe that America can handle the truth and not just us. I think the world does I wouldn't wish this on anybody. What does that disclosure look like? I always believed that America can handle the truth and not just us, I think the world does. Lou Elizondo, the most difficult letter that you had to write was addressed to the office of the Undersecretary of Defense, if I'm not mistaken.

And it ends with, I quote, I encourage you to ask the hard questions. Who else knows? What are their capabilities? And why aren't we seeing more time and effort on this issue? So Lou, I'd love to know. It's been seven years since then, almost to the date, actually. What answers to those three questions do you have now that is different than what you had back then?

Wow. So first of all, excellent, excellent question. I've never been asked that before to two points of clarity, if I may. Uh, my resignation memo was written to the secretary of defense, not the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. It was actually just directly to the secretary of defense, which is, I mean, it's a technicality to some people, but it's a little bit different position. Uh, and that was because of my previous relationship to him. And then also as being the most difficult letter I've ever had to write, um, it is

the most difficult, it is the most difficult professional letter I ever had to write. But truth be told, it is not the most difficult letter I've ever had to write because I've written many letters to my wife and to my children when I was deployed during times of war. And those were by far the most difficult because I wasn't sure if I was going to be coming home. And so those were definitely the most difficult letters I ever had to write. But from a professional perspective, yes, what my resignation memo

in 2017 was one of the most difficult, in fact, I'll go further, one of the most difficult professional decisions and personal decisions I've ever had to make. Now to answer your question. Did we, did we satisfy, did we answer the last line? Um, yes and no. Yes and no. Hear that sound? That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of

an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms. There's also something called Shopify magic, your AI powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition.

No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Albers, Rothes, and Brooklynin. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase. Go to Shopify.com slash theories now to grow your business no matter what stage you're

in. Shopify.com slash theories. Let me start with yes. We have now since that letter has been written, and let me also caveat here, I cannot take full credit for where we are today at all. In fact, I'm a small piece in a much bigger cog and wheels and gears. I had a piece. I did not have every piece of this.

We are here only today because of the work of people like you, the work of your audience that's interested in this topic and mainstream media, the people in Congress, the people in the executive branch, people like Chris Mellon who have worked tirelessly for years behind the scenes getting Congress to encourage them and motivate them to write some of this historic and landmark legislation that we now see. It's also the congressional staff that actually had the courage to take this up and bring this forward to their representatives. It's also the representatives. It's also, look, where are we now? We have a former director of national intelligence, a former director

of the CIA, and a former president of the United States all saying for the record, yeah, this stuff is real. There's something to this that we need to look at. You have the establishment of an official UAP office within the executive branch, which by the way, when we started retuning our radars, guess what? We started seeing Chinese surveillance balloons over our country, right? Just wafting over after we said, no, we have complete air domain awareness. We know it's in our skies. Oh, you know what? We don't. So we've come a long way in trying to posture ourselves to begin to answer some of the questions, my call to action and my resignation memo. So that's what we have done collectively and everybody deserves credit for that.

What we haven't done yet is been truthful with ourselves and fix the underlying problem. And that is the problem that the bureaucracy itself has been responsible for keeping this topic in the shadows for so very long. There is a way that our government here in the United States is supposed to work, where you have checks and balances and you have people in Congress that are supposed to be notified and you have people in the executive branch that are supposed to make decisions. That didn't occur.

This program and the programs preceding it have been kept in the closet for so long that there were even presidents who were not briefed into this topic. There were organizations that were not informing Congress about how money was being spent. That means, Kurt, somewhere along the chain of command, someone made a unilateral decision to not report this information through the various channels and oversight channels that it was supposed to go to. And that's problematic, because that means the system is broken. And you can't have a democracy and say you're a democracy when somewhere along the chain, someone's making a unilateral decision to circumvent law and the constitution.

So it's a two part answer. In some cases, yes, I think we've come a long, long way in this topic and this discussion. But on the other hand, we haven't come far enough where we've actually fixed the problem. We're now starting to address the problem We haven't fixed the problem if that makes sense. I'm from Toronto So we don't have a Constitutional Republic here But on Joe Rogan you mentioned something you said something I can tell I want to be careful that I don't disclose anything Inappropriate because you still consult with the government. You still have a security clearance because you still consult with the government, you still have a security clearance.

So does that mean you're still on good terms with different parts of the government? Is it a branch of the government that you're not a fan of? Is it a program within it? Is it a department within it? Where's the breakdown? Is it somebody in the government hijacking? I'm going to, if I can digress here for a minute

and share a story with you. I've shared it a few times already, only recently. And what you may or may not know is my father recently passed away. He had cancer like my mother. And my father, however, you know, he was an old soldier, man. That guy, he never told me he was sick. I knew he was sick because I could see him starting to That guy, he never told me he was sick. I knew he was sick, because I could see him starting to fail, but he never told me.

And so I was very fortunate about a month before he passed away, I was fortunate enough to go on a road trip with him. We were driving from my home in Wyoming down to South Florida, where he lived and he was staying with his sister. And we're driving and you know, we got three days to catch up on conversations.

And I asked my dad, and probably a bit flippantly, I said, Dad, what is the greatest threat to humanity? And I was thinking to myself, maybe it's some sort of pandemic or disease, or maybe it's, you know, who knows what, terrorism, right? And my father looked at me and he thought for a second and he said, corruption, corruption, like financial corruption. He said, no son, corruption.

Corruption is the act of when you give up or trade one's own values in exchange for something else. That corruption, whether it's moral corruption, religious corruption, governmental corruption, corruption means you, it's a trade. You're trading your own values in exchange for something else. And when you do that and you're in the government, that begins to erode the very pillar of what democracy is. And my father said to me, and he was right, he said, son, it's a very slippery slope.

From that, from the moment you start chiseling away at the pillar of democracy to totalitarianism and tyranny. And it happens very quick. And my father would know because he was a revolutionary in Cuba. My father was in the Bay of Pigs. He fought along with Castro initially when Castro fought against Batista. But then when Castro turned communist, my father joined the now famous CIA brigade 2506. In fact, if you type in my name and type in Bay of Pigs, you'll see my father's prisoner number that he was assigned. And he lived through that tyranny. And he came to this country and this country gave us opportunities that no other country would or

could offer. And so my father was very loyal to this country. And he taught me at a very early age, you know, what freedom actually means and what someone has to do to preserve it. The problem is our country here is so great and it's so rich that people can get away with being corrupt in some cases because the system can absorb it. The problem is you reach a critical mass where someone begins to, for example, the UAP topic, let's get specific here. When someone in our government decides to unilaterally make decisions and not inform our Congress and not inform our president of efforts and expenditures that they are

entitled to know, that person is now making a decision that actually corrupts the entire system. It circumvents our Constitution. And at the end of the day, our Constitution either means something or it doesn't. And part of my quest is to ensure greater transparency and accountability for the American people on this topic and any other topic too, by the way, that the government has hidden for so long from the American people. I don't want to be confused with trying to say, well, we should tell the world about all our national secrets.

I'm not saying that. I never have said that. In fact, if I ever had to choose national security over disclosure, I would choose national security. I am a patriot. I love my country. I love my government. What I don't want are people making unilateral decisions that short circuit the legal process because that puts everybody at risk. That puts everybody at jeopardy because then people don't have faith and confidence in their government anymore. So this is what drove me to do what I did. Again, I know this is kind of a long-winded explanation, but you asked me, asked me a few things in there and I wanted to try to tie them together.

What specifically I'm looking for is you mentioned you still consult with the government and so the government is quite large. So what's meant by that? Also, consultation is quite a general term. So what's meant by that okay yeah so uh i still maintain my security clearance with the united states government and when asked i have consulted it will continue to consult on a as needed basis uh on a variety of issues whether they're let's say counterterrorism or uap related it doesn't really matter i'm here to serve. As far as what capacity that it is, mostly it's a consultant. So within the consultant arena within US government, you really have three types of government

people, you've got military personnel, men and women in uniform, then you have military, I'm sorry, you have government contractors that do a lot of the work for for the military, then you have civilian service. And so civilian service and military service are pretty co-equals. And then the contractors are there to provide those, the support to both government civilians

and government military personnel in various branches of the government. It doesn't have to just be executive branch, it can be legislative branch, judicial branch. That's kind of how it works. As for me, my consultation has primarily been in the executive branch when asked and I will continue to advise the government when asked to do it. I don't actively look to do it but if they need my help I will do it and I have done it. As a consultant it

is a contractor. In the capacity of a consultant, you're coming in usually as a contractor. It means you've got a task, you're the government boss, you say, Lou, I need your thoughts. What's the best way to write a national level strategy on the counterproliferation of nuclear weapons? Okay. While I happen to have a background in the counterproliferation of nuclear weapons. Okay, well, I happen to have a background in the counter proliferation of nuclear weapons and chemical biological weapons.

Let me see what I can do. And that would go ahead and you, let's say this is not a real scenario. I'm just giving you an example of a scenario where consultants can help. And then they come in and they put some ideas together and say, these are the areas, the highlights that you're gonna wanna hit.

These are the organizations you're gonna wanna bring involved under the tent to create the strategy. This should be the scope, the highlights that you're going to want to hit. These are the organizations you're going to want to bring involved under the tent to create the strategy. This should be the scope of the strategy. This should be the policies that come as a result of the strategies. That's how a consultant works. You're consulting. You're providing advice and assistance to the government.

Christopher Mellon in the forward to your book, Imminent, said something akin to, when I first met Lou, we faced a prevailing establishment mindset that associated the UAP issue with irrational beliefs in subjects such as poltergeists and astrology. That to me implies that subjects like poltergeists and astrology are not to be associated with the UAP issue and many people do do this. Do you see them as being distinguished? And what else is ordinarily associated with the UAP issue that you think is irrationally so? Great question. Wow. Well, first of all, if you want to expound on that piece, you'd probably want to talk to Chris Mellon. But when

you read that forward, if you read it carefully, he's not necessarily saying he agrees with that irrationality. He's just simply saying people make that comparison. But I don't think Chris, if you read that sentence again, Chris, I don't think is diminishing it at all. He's just simply saying people wrap the UFP topic in other areas that consider irrational, like poltergeist and things like that. But I don't think you're hearing him actually say that they're irrational. What he's doing is just making a comparison to the topics that most people look at one topic and wrap that with everything else and say it's pseudoscience or whatever. Look, I can't say my focus was more on the nuts and bolts aspect of the UAP phenomenon. Now, that doesn't mean much because in my book, I talk about these green diffuse orbs.

We're going to talk about that. Okay. So, you know, could those be natural phenomenon? Sure, absolutely. It was just weird that it was happening at the same time. Myself and even other folks in ATIP were looking into it. But, you know, look, Kurt, this is a huge and vast universe.

And a lot of things that we have considered para, actually, I give a briefing. You know what, I'll just go through it real quick with you right now. I have a briefing where I start the briefing by defining the word para. In Latin, it means above or beside. And so when you say the word

Parachute what do you think of and then I have a picture of a parachute and you know person, you know Coming down slowly and hope hopefully hitting the ground with with with a third and not a thump, right? And then I say the word and I show the word Paramedic what does that mean to you? And usually means a first responder. And, and I show a picture of ambulance and, you know, some people there smiling and, you know, a lifesaver. And then I say the word and I showed the word paranormal.

And I paused for a moment and you can see around the group. When I give this briefing, they kind of look at you like this and they might snicker a little bit and do what you mean, paranormal. I just said paranormal. And the reason why people have that reaction is because we have been socially engineered, we have been conditioned to think that the word paranormal is weird and is occult, occult relating to the occult. In a reality, by definition, everything in science as a scientist, everything in science is paranormal until it becomes normal. This cell phone, 50 years ago, absolutely paranormal. Now it's routine and mundane. In fact, there are many examples where, for example, the tribes in the rainforest in South America

took a picture and they thought you were stealing their soul and they'd get very, very upset by that, right? That was paranormal for them. Seeing a photograph, that was paranormal. Even as when I was a young guy in microbiology and immunology, even at the university level, we were taught that acupuncture is nonsense. It's Eastern medicine,

and it's a waste of time and could be considered paranormal. Now, the Department of Veterans Affairs actually prescribes acupuncture for some of our wounded veterans. It's no longer in the realm of paranormal. It's actually therapeutic. So we have to understand that when we say things like poltergeists or whatever label de jour we want to put on something, it's just a word we use to try to explain something we don't yet have a full explanation for. Right? Keep in mind one of the famous quotes that, you know, technology in 20 years from now would look like magic to us today. Right. It's just technology.

So I'm always very careful to, you know, try to say people, well, that's that other stuff is nonsense. This is what we need to focus on. I don't believe that. Is there a relationship? There could be. I mean, everything is related when you're a human being. I mean, you can relate anything. Literally, you can relate a light bulb and a fish if you wanted to. Yeah. So, you know, I'm very careful not to jump to any preconceived conclusion. That was in The Simpsons, by the way. The light bulb and the fish. Was it? Then it became Homer's face and then...

Oh, I had no idea. ...Homer's was wondering why is it that his face is on this Japanese cleaning detergent and it turns out they just took a fish and put it with a light bulb. Oh, how interesting. So, just to push back respectfully with the etymology of paranormal. So just because we have a prefix and it works in some cases, it would be a category error to say that when we apply it in other cases, if it doesn't work there, then there's a contradiction. Not necessarily because a parachute or a paramedic is still

within the class of whatever normal is. And then paranormal is another class. But what's your definition of normal? That's really my root question here. What is your definition of normal? Because I can cite multiple examples throughout history where we saw things that we thought were not normal. Turns out they're extremely normal. Right? Let me give you a case and point. There was a discussion some time ago, just going to adjust this a little bit, was a discussion some time ago, just going to adjust this a little bit, that it was impossible for things to, that the Earth, there was a cover over the Earth and that it was impossible to break the speed of sound. And yet there were meteorites coming into our atmosphere regularly and routinely that were not from from Earth. We're obviously penetrating

whatever cover somebody thought was there and we're coming in beyond the speed of sound. They were breaking the sound barrier, right? And it was right there in front of us. So when we say things that something is not normal, I think we have to challenge ourselves because most of life isn't normal. Most of life is, you know, it's nonlinear.

It's not to digress here, but... Sorry to interrupt, Lou. I just want to be clear. The difference is not abnormal equals paranormal. And then also that paranormal is a word that was invented in the early 1900s. So we can't look back at how tribes, firstly, tribes don't have that word paranormal. And some people would say God, which with the supernatural, but Christians would say God is actually the most natural.

Okay. So let's go back to paranormal. When that term was created, was it intended to describe things with a negative context or was it simply a word that was created to try to explain the at the time the unexplainable. Because don't look now, if that's the case, that's religion. No difference. And all due respect, I'm a deeply religious person. So I'm not making a connection that religion is paranormal.

What I'm simply saying is that both are involved with the supernatural. Supernatural just like paranormal. It's just beyond natural, right? So I'm not sure I see a comparison. I mean, with all due respect, I may be not understanding the question very well. But I don't see the negative connotation with paranormal other than what we've given attributes saying it's negative. I reject that notion, just like I do with the supernatural because by definition all religions

are supernatural. It doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them beyond our current understanding and I don't see the issue with... Oh okay so all of the examples given of beyond our current understanding with the cell phone or with a ship and there was some tribe and they Couldn't understand what that was those examples are technological So the implication here is that whatever is paranormal today? Whatever is the magic of today is a technology of the future. Yes, absolutely But the issue is that who knows who knows if it's a technology, right? We're calling it a tech we don't know we don't know. But understand from the, we're all individuals and we all look at

things through the various lenses of our upbringing, whether it's Sunday school or someone was raised this way or that way, what mom and dad told you about the dinner table. So by definition, we are biased. Every single person has a bias. You can pretend that you don't, but we all do. Whether it's the flavor ice cream or what type of book you like to read. So we all have a level of bias. So when we look at something,

especially as it deals, I think, in the spiritual world, there are things that we will consider normal and there are things that we'll consider not normal. I don't think everything is based technologically speaking. I think there's a lot about human psychology, human sociology that probably could be considered a little bit abstract, maybe a little bit abnormal. And yet it's a very real, real part of our life. Let me give you a case in point, very just super simple. Kurt, do you have a family? I don't need to know specifically. Do you have a family?

Yes. Okay. Do you love your family? My wife saves my life on a daily basis. Let's say that. Mine too. So let me ask you this. Do you love your wife? I hope I do. And I think I do, yeah. Prove it. How do I know? How do I know the way you feel love

is the same way that I feel love? And how do you, and how, if you can't tangibly touch it, I can't see the love you have for her. You can express it in certain ways, but I can't see it, I can't feel it, I can't smell it. Right? It's an emotion and yet it's very real. And so this kind of goes to the discussion

of a universal truth versus a personal truth. There are two types of truths in this world. There are universal truths like gravity, right? That's all that's whether we like it or not. Then there's a personal truth that can be as real as a universal truth, whether it's religion or political affiliations where this is the way you feel

and this is the way the universe should be, but that truth is not shared universally. Right. And so this kind of gets to that discussion as far as, you know, when we go into the esoteric of what it means to be human and paranormal and, you know, some would say love itself is an expression that doesn't make sense. It's not logical and yet there it is. Everybody can recognize it, but we all have a little bit different explanation for it.

It's very elusive. What does possible sound like for your business? It's having to spend to power your scale with no preset spending limit. Redefine possible with Business Platinum. That's the powerful backing of American Express. Terms and conditions apply. Tolstoy was once critiquing his socialist friend as saying, look, I love society and blah blah blah, whatever it may be. And Tolstoy said, look, you claim to love society, you don't know society.

You know John and you know Peter and you know... I was going to say another biblical name by the way. You know Clarence. So you know these people. You don't know society and you claim to not like corporations. You don't know corporations. You know Kellogg's and so on. It wasn't back then but you get the idea.

Then the friend of Tolstoy said, okay, so what you're saying is that we shouldn't be abstracting and we should look at the specific instantiations, but you, Tolstoy, claim to know God. Isn't God the most abstract? And then they were walking and Tolstoy stopped and turned to him and said, put his hand on his chest, on the other guy's chest and said, you have it backward. God isn't the most abstract. God is what's the most intimate to you. God is that love that you feel. What we think of as making sense makes

sense because of love. The reason I'm saying this now is that there was the statement embedded in there that, look, love escapes understanding. I don't know if that's the case or love is something that is illogical. I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if logic is embedded in love and I don't know what that means. I can feel it at times. I don't know how to make that explicit. I concur, right? It's there. We all can know it's there. We feel it. We express it. A mother is willing to, you know, be run over by a car or a train to protect her child. That maternal love and instinct is there.

It's real. We all feel it. And yet it's so elusive because none of us have an appropriate definition for it. And all of us will explain it slightly differently and maybe even feel it a little bit differently. And so my point being is how do you prove something that we know is there, but lies beyond explanation, right? We'll put a pin in this, because I don't want to harp on this, but what I was getting at is that the whole argument

that what's paranormal seemed to be associated with what's outside the normal, but that's not necessarily the case. And then the examples that were given were technological. And to me, that sounds like it's based in physicalism. It's based in like technology is something physical. So anytime we see something we don't know how to explain, well, ghosts are an advanced civilization's technology.

And so I don't think that's the right inference or the right example. Well, acupuncture is not technical. Acupuncture is medical and it's physiological. So the others are technical advancements, technological advancements. Acupuncture is not. But remember, I use acupuncture is medical and it's physiological. So the others are technical advancements, technological advancements. Acupuncture is not. But remember, I use acupuncture specifically as one of the examples. That's a physiological thing, not a technological thing.

It depends on what we mean by technology. We can think of a leaf that aspirin was derived from as a technology. And also in the case of acupuncture, it's my understanding that if you do sham acupuncture, that the effects nullify. It's you thinking you have acupuncture done on you that works. Well, some people would disagree. Some people would say there's actually

a physiological effect where you can actually short circuit. You stop the neural pathways from firing. You stop the synaptic responses between neurons from connecting. You're basically short-circuiting the system and you don't feel pain. Now, I don't know that to be true. I never had acupuncture. I'm just telling you what some people say.

Again, I'm just giving you a counter-argument to that. It's not a hill I die on anyhow. Right. Me neither. So let's talk about one of the most fascinating chapters in your book, the one about orbs. Why don't you give the story about the orbs? Why don't you bring the audience up to speed, please? And by the way, this is in the book named imminent.

Yeah. So let me first preface. My family and I, to include a couple of neighbors, experienced something very odd over the course of a period of time while I was associated with the AITSIP program and there were these diffuse green luminous balls of light with no hard edge. Think of like a neon sign how it kind of glows. This was the size anywhere between the size of a volleyball to the size of a little baseball and they were seen not only by me, and I wouldn't have said anything if I wasn't one to see

them, but my wife and my children saw these luminous balls float down the hallway, in some cases of our home, and pass right through a wall or through a door. Now the only congruency I can say definitively is that when we had experienced these balls of light, whatever they were, it was during a time that I was involved in the ATIP program. It turns out other individuals who were also involved in that program also experienced similar encounters. That's their story to tell, not mine. But definitively, we had that encounter since going back to like 2010, um, very

early on now, let me preface this could have been ball lightning. Sure. Could there be an electrical glitch in the wiring problem in my house that was creating some sort of St. Elmo's fire effect? Sure. Could it have been some sort of plasma energy because there was a storm 20 miles away that did something with the atmosphere.

And now because of the electrical conduit in my house, ball lightning was experienced in static charge. I don't know. It is possible. Absolutely. I can only relate to you what actually occurred and whether or not there was a connection between that and the UAP phenomenon. Some people say yes. Some people say definitively, yes, there's a connection there. We the UAP phenomenon. Some people say yes.

Some people say definitively yes, there's a connection there, we don't know what they are. Maybe they're drones, maybe there's some sort of unmanned vehicle, surveillance vehicle, ISR type capability to monitor things. I couldn't tell you. I just know it did not seem to be technological. And then when you talk to other people,

like indigenous people, they ascribe that to being spirits, right? It has nothing to do with UAP. It actually has to do with spirits and ancestors coming to visit you. And then you talk to some other folks that have a different explanation for it. You talk to scientists, they say, well, it's just ball lightning. But it was very strange. And so I decided to put it in the book because I don't know what it means. But I wanted to be transparent in the book because I don't know what it means, but I wanted to be transparent and share that with the reader. And when you say your wife and your children also saw it, you saw it at the same time or

they also reported it, but at different times? Both. Sometimes we all saw it together. We were in the living room watching TV and from the kitchen right down the hallway, it just kind of floats by. And it actually to the point where it illuminates, I don't know if you can see behind me, the wall here, but kind of like the ambient light here is illuminating the wall behind me.

It would actually illuminate the surrounding sheetrock, the drywall. It was, it was, there was definitely a, it was luminous, but you couldn't see anything in the middle. Okay. So it was emitting light. It was emitting light. It was emitting light Did you feel anything when it would come by other than the maybe the fear or anxiety associated with something unknown? Did you feel something like nothing? No, and some people report feeling like a static charge or something nothing at all But to be truthful with you. I wasn't necessarily gonna go up and touch it either. Oh, how about psychologically?

Like dread? No, no, no fear. I think a wonderment, curiosity from my wife and my kids. My kids had a lot easier time. They sometimes giggle about it when they were young. My wife was more curious as in, you know, what is that? And did you all see that? Yeah, we're sitting right here. We all saw it too. Um, no, no fear. I, and I don't, you know, if you'd have to ask my wife, I don't, I don't think she had a sense of

fear at all, uh, which looking back, maybe it's kind of bizarre. I think, you know, if I were to tell you, Hey, you're going to have a green orb of light in your house today or tonight, people might, there might be some element of fear, but if you're just to have a green orb of light in your house today or tonight, people might, there might be some element of fear. But if you're just sitting down, watching TV, not expecting it, boom, it just goes by. I'm not sure

there's even time to have fears kind of just as Oh, how quick was it then? Slow, maybe. Gosh. Let's say this this phone fuel rod is it? Boy, it's hard to huh, like that all the way down the hall. I mean, enough where like Let's say this, this phone fuel rod is it, uh, boy, it's hard to, huh? Like that all the way down the hall. I mean, enough where like walking speed, sometimes like a fast walking speed, like kind of a brisk walking speed. It never, so interesting.

It never hung around. It didn't loiter. It didn't come up to your face. It didn't scan anything or he was just in the house and it would go right through a wall to right through a door without making a sound without disturbing anything. Like, like it was cotton just right through really weird. And was there any correlation between time of day? No, well, no, that's not true.

It happened in the mostly in the evenings, early evenings, late evenings, we were mostly asleep. So I couldn't tell you if it did happen. Of course. We were sleeping, but anywhere between five to eight o'clock at night, and it would happen randomly different parts of the house. It was, you know, some people laugh because, oh, well, you got a cemetery nearby, We, which we did in the cemetery nearby the house, uh, probably about half a block away. Uh, but I don't think the two are related at all. I don't think it was, I mean, some people said there, I mean, so turn out original people say there's a connection between, you know, these luminous balls and, and potentially, I guess, ancestors and spirits, but I,

I never came to that conclusion. Did they zigzag or was it a smooth motion or a straight motion? Very smooth, very straight. Uh, there was no erratic, it was literally like taking a balloon and letting it just kind of float down the hallway. Um, it wouldn't zigzag. It wasn't trying to evade anything. It would just kind of float right on through.

Um, If you saw one in a day, you would not see it was usually just one a day they didn't come in pairs they didn't they didn't seem to be coordinating they would just it would just appear and just or sometimes we go a little slower sometimes a little faster in the kitchen in the hallway in the Yeah, very, very perplexing. My phrasing was quite ambiguous. When I said one per day, I didn't mean every day you saw it. I meant if you saw it, you would not see a second one

in the same day. Correct. So how frequent would you see it? Once per week on average, once a month? No, no, once every couple of weeks. Once every two to three weeks. From 2010? Oh, all the way through, oh no, once every couple of weeks. Once every two to three weeks. From 2010? Oh, all the way through, oh no,

all the way till probably 2015, 2016. But so it's only really, it would kind of, there'd be moments where you'd have increased frequency and then maybe for a month or two, you wouldn't see it. And then all of a sudden, four days in a row, you'd see it and then it just would be gone. Was it blinding to look at? Not at all, no, not at all.

It was, you know, like when you look at the sun, your eyes hurt and you see spots, not at all. This is- Exactly. This was like looking at your TV, you know, I mean, or like I'm looking at this monitor right now, it's bright, but it doesn't hurt my eyes. It's like a passive illumination. It wasn't like a,

it wasn't like a, it was glowing. It wasn't like an act of spotlight in your eyes. It was just a diffuse green ball and as you got closer to it, it got, it seemed to get thicker and thicker in the middle. Were you able to see the interior of it? There was no interior that I could see. It literally looked like a neon light where it was more brilliant in the center and it just became more diffuse. I could not, there was no hard edges. There did not seem to be any technology behind it. There wasn't a device, if you will, inside. It was like, you know what, probably best way, like a plasma ball, but not as intense, not as violent if that makes sense. Did you ever set up cameras? So no, we didn't have cameras inside the house.

We had cell phones but back in 2010, I was using a BlackBerry, a government issued BlackBerry where we did not have cameras, the cameras were disabled. So I did never, and also we couldn't, we couldn't predict the frequency. It wasn't like I had a camera next to me all the time. It's like when you're sitting down and watching a TV show with a family,

I was like, whoop, there it goes. I just mean the home is set up camera, like cameras in the corner, monitoring a room or the outside. No, no, we did not. We didn't even have cameras externally. We had an alarm system, but we did not have cameras set up in the house.

So many people may say, look, if there's a burglar that taps a suspected burglar that taps on my window perhaps I'm paranoid but I would set up in the next day 10 cameras all around my house inside. I would too if it's a burglar. That may be an overreaction but. Well let me ask you this when when there's a thunderstorm in your neighborhood do you set up cameras to look at the lightning? No, it's interesting. But most people just look at it. That's curiosity, right?

That's interesting. It was the same thing with us. There wasn't necessarily a desire to set up a bunch of cameras because you never knew where it was going to appear. I could put 10 cameras in the hallway. It didn't occur to you to set up cameras. And then you said no, it just never occurred to you. Because it wasn't that it wasn't alarming to us. It didn't occur to you to set up cameras and then you said no it just never occurred to you the thought because it wasn't that it wasn't alarming to us it was curious it was curious we were curious about it but you didn't

know where it was gonna appear right sometime in a hallway sometimes in the kitchen I mean I can't put a thousand cameras around the house and hope that I'm gonna you know have every single one of them on all the time hope to capture something it wasn't that big of a deal to us. It was just, I'm curious. Why do you think they no longer appear? Unless they do. I have no way, no, they don't. And I don't know why.

And I couldn't tell you why. And it was episodic. It's, again, it's bizarre, but it could have a completely natural explanation. That's why I'm very careful not to assume or presume anything What I can tell you is that it was witnessed by a lot of people and it wasn't just us There were other people that were involved in ATIP at the time that also experienced similar things. And again, I don't know the relationship Could it be coincidental?

Doubtful, but it could be I guess. In chapter of imminent, you reference something called the hitchhiker effect. So for those who don't know, what is the hitchhiker effect and how has it affected you? Sure. That was a term coined by Jay Stratton, I believe. He was the first one to coin that description that people that were involved in this portfolio and I was warned earlier on by Jim Lukasky, he said, this is a sticky portfolio. A sticky portfolio.

Yeah, a sticky portfolio. And I don't understand what does that mean, sticky portfolio. And only realizing later they were referring to this hitchhiker effect that a lot of people that were involved in this effort with the government would experience strange weird things and phenomena encounters. As for me, I can't explain it so I don't really expound on it very much because I don't know what it means, frankly. Why don't you talk about what have you been up to in the past couple years? Why does it seem like you've gone dark? I did go dark.

I didn't seem like it. I did. It was a self-imposed. There was a lot of work that needed to be done. As most people know, I don't like the public attention. For people who really know me, they'll tell you the truth. And I've always been very honest about it. I'm introverted, very introverted. You know, when guys are

going out to, you know, the sports bar, I'm in my basement writing patents. That's, you know, it's a reason why I live in nowhere Wyoming, in the middle of nowhere. I enjoy my privacy, I enjoy my solitude. There's a difference between being alone and being lonely. I like being alone. I'm not lonely. And that's just my character. Most people who know me very well will say the same thing. Similar. I think the proof of God, by the way, is that there exists excuses in life. So when someone says, hey, can you meet up and I have to go to the airport? I'm like, Oh, thank God that I can thank God literally that I have to go to the airport and I have a legitimate excuse.

I'm the same way. I'm the same way. So, you know, being in the public eye for me is not enjoyable. A lot of people love it. They thrive off of it. They love the attention. They love that, that adrenaline to me, I find it exhausting. Um, the sooner I could just fade off into the sunset, the better. So when I have nothing to say, and I'm working on something behind the scenes, I don't say it. I'm just very quiet about it. So from my perspective, I was writing this book, took me three years. It took almost a year review process through the Pentagon. I wanted it to go through the proper process. So then when it got approved, I could talk about it. And people say, well, why did you write a book? Very simple. Writing, when you write something down,

those words are indelible, right? I can have a conversation all day long on mainstream media and it gets converted to ones and zeros and digital and people forget about it. It's the reason why the ancient Egyptians wrote the Book of the Dead on papyrus. It's the reason why the Magna Carta was written on parchment. It's the reason why our constitution was written down because written word is indelible. It lives

forever. And so when I was able to write this book, I was able to put my own experiences down that I knew nobody would ever be able to take away. This was my experience for the record. And more importantly, I knew then I had to go through the Pentagon for security review. And that's important because remember, I do have a security clearance. I'm not out to violate my security oath. But I knew that when it came back from the Pentagon, I would actually be able to talk about it without fear of going to jail because that is also a very real fear that I've had that if I step over, I know there's people watching every day, every word I say. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. If I say something that I'm not supposed to,

I will be in big trouble. So I'm very, very conscious about what I can and can't say, probably almost paranoid about it because I am very, very conscientious about that. And also I don't want to compromise national security. That's never been my intent. But my point being is that once it comes back from the Pentagon, not only these are my words and my experiences, but now it's an endorsement by the government to say, I can actually talk about it. Now, did they still redact information? They did.

Even though I made every effort to try to make this book completely unclassified, there were still sections that the government found was too sensitive and they redacted. But I left those redactions so that people, anybody reading the book can see there are sections there, they're just black lines that the government has written. So you know that the government doesn't want you to know that. It's just fine. I respect that. That's the question I had when I was reading it.

I noticed the black lines and I was thinking, look, if an editor told me you have to remove this section or this word, for whatever reason, I would just remove it. I would reword around that. No, that's a Pentagon. It was as if you were signaling to the reader. Absolutely. Because I want the reader to know, look, there's still portions of the story

that the government doesn't want you to know about. And I'm not gonna put it in there, but you can see exactly the length and the part of the conversation where things got a little bit too sensitive for the government's liking. Yeah, I did that. I made that deliberate decision on purpose. Was there ever a time where someone from the government said, you're not supposed to talk about X, but X was unclassified. And so you continued to talk about it.

You didn't get in trouble. you continued to talk about it, you didn't get in trouble. There are specific examples where a certain letter, certain email exchange that I've had with seniors about the ATIP program were, even though they were unclassified, the government chose to redact certain mentions of certain words and programs, even though there was unclassified

because it contradicted the false narrative that some of the government have already perpetuated. So by having this email come out the way it is, it shows an opposite of what some people in the government have said for the record. So they remove certain portions of it, and you can see it. It's pretty blatant that the government

is still uncomfortable with me having conversations about certain things. Does the government believe that they, I have to be careful because I don't want to hope that you and people know what I mean when I say they, as vague as that term is, does the government believe that they have been around for longer than centuries? So great question. There is no they, okay? The government is comprised of people

and the government is really a, it's a quilt patchwork of different fiefdoms, okay? So you have the intelligence community, you have the national security community, you have the folks that are working international politics and state affairs. There are these little kingdoms under the bigger umbrella of the US government. And they don't always share information with one another. They don't always agree. It's a reason why 9-11 happened. You had pockets of information by the FBI being withheld from pockets of the CIA, which were withholding information from the DOD.

And that's why we had the 9-11 commissions occur after 9-11 because we had enough information potentially to thwart that 9-11 terrorist attack. The problem is elements in the government weren't sharing information. So when we say they trying to keep this quiet, the they is not a single organization. There's just few pockets of interests, whether it's the military industrial complex or it's elements within the intelligence community that have chosen not to share information with one another,

more importantly, not to share information with the US government, i.e. those who need to know in our Congress and in our executive branch. So there lies part of the problem. When they are uncomfortable with me talking, they isn't just a single group of people. There's a lot of interest in this. Now, there's also people that want me to have this conversation. There are people that are okay. It's the reason why I still have a security clearance

and why I'm still on good terms with a lot of people in the government, because they want this conversation to happen. They believe that we've kept this under wraps for way too long. And it's now actually working against our national interests because other countries have stepped up to the plate and they're investigating UAP openly

and they have no problem with it. Whereas before in 2017 when I first became public, I think the vast majority in the government did not want me having this conversation. I think a lot of that has changed partly because of people like you and mainstream media and people like Chris who've got people in Congress involved, where it's now a little easier to have this conversation. You don't have to whisper the word UFO in the halls of the Pentagon. You can now just talk about UAP, the Pentagon freely without worrying about losing your security clearance or having a forced psychological evaluation.

So I think it's getting easier. I have a lot of support when I go to the Pentagon now, people before who would never even wanna look at me, when one associated with me, people are coming up and shaking my hand in some cases and saying, hey, thank you for having this conversation. It's very important. It's important that we remove the stigma and taboo.

So I do see there are other elements that are becoming increasingly forthcoming with their interest in this topic within the US government. So I think the tide is changing. There's two elements that, let me just make this clear, there's two elements that don't like me at all. I mean, if I get into a car accident tomorrow, they're not going to shed a tear. They're not coming to my funeral. Um, that is very true. I still deal with, with that as well. Now, let me be clear. There's a quote from you that says disclosure. That's the realization that UAPs are real. So what's meant by UAPs are real. And that's the they that I was referring

to have they, the UAPs are real. Ah real been around for centuries. Gotcha, okay forgive me I thought you meant my mistake. So UAP are real the government has already said it officially what they are where they're from what the intentions are that hasn't come out yet but they have already said yes they're real whatever these are there are things in our skies that are not our technology. We're pretty sure it's not foreign adversarial technology, but they're there. They're real. So that's what that means when people say UAPs are real. Correct. And then there is another layer of that where there's some individuals in the government who have been exposed to previous efforts, UAP efforts that the government was

involved in who go beyond that and have informed certain members of Congress. And this is why it's so important with this new legislation that's being drafted. It's really important that it passes because it provides additional layers of protection. People saw what happened to the last whistleblowers, right? They came out, we've got this whistleblower protection law out there. People started coming out. And what did Arrow do? The former director start poo-pooing every one of them. Oh, they're a bunch of crazy, a bunch of whack jobs. Well, what whistleblower

is going to want to come out? And they said, Oh, but we'll still listen to you. No one of the right mind is going to talk to Arrow because they don't trust Arrow. So this new legislation that is being proposed provides extra sense of security and protection to these people where they can have a conversation with a member of Congress or somebody who's in the need to know without fear of retribution. Look, I'll give you an example. Here's a perfect example. I had a DOD, I had an IG complaint with the director of national intelligence and one

with the DOD. The DOD told me, come on in, we want to talk to you. This is going to be all confidential, right? And this is what we call protected communications. What happens? They release my entire transcript out to the public of this supposed protected conversation. Now, it didn't hurt me any, because I've always stood by my word. The problem is that was a very clear signal to any other whistleblower that wanted to come out that, oh, we're going to release all your stuff. So you can come talk to us, but people will find out because we're going to let people know. Now, that's a complete contradiction of what the DODIG is supposed to do. They're not supposed to

release your transcripts and your information publicly, but that's exactly what they did because they're trying to send a signal to other people. We don't want to hear this. We don't want to hear your story. Keep it to yourself. Keep it quiet. And if you do try to make an issue of it, we're going to go ahead and publicly release it. Now think about that for a minute.

Think about who is making that decision to do that in violation of their own policies. By the way, if this is any other organization at DOD, it is IG's job to go ahead and investigate that and basically make a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense how to punish them. And yet they're the ones guilty of doing it. So have they been here for centuries or millennia? There's a lot of information to suggest they've been here for a very long time. I've had conversations with chief academics at the Vatican. I've had conversations with other individuals associated with other religions, I won't say

which ones right now, that have a long history of UAP reports. The problem is they did not have the context to understand what they were seeing. So in the, the vernacular of the time, they would explain these things. So there is, um, there's an example of a communication between a Roman soldier and a general where they describe what they call Eclipse. Eclipse is, think of Eclipse, right? It's a Latin word for, yeah, like the sun. That was the shape of the Roman shields. And so they described these flaming Roman shields that were following them from battle space to battle space.

You have, of course, in Germany, in Nuremberg in the 1500s, the famous incident where the entire village witnessed what appeared to be some described it as a dog fight. Now, is it really that with about between UAP? Now, is it really that between UAP? Now, is it really that hard to grasp? Well, look, the Vatican, I always joke, is the oldest CIA in the world. It's the oldest intelligence collection capability in the world. Because for 2,000 years, they have people reporting to priests about experiences that they've had.

And some of those were described as miracles, and that information gets funneled up to the Vatican and archived. So there's a huge history of information regarding UAP in the Judeo-Christian religions of modern day, and continue, because some of that was reported as a miracle in the sky and visions, right? So there is some anecdotal information to suggest that this has been reported for a very long time. And now the question is, are we seeing an increase in frequency? Are we seeing an uptick? Or do we just happen to have more technology and populations are bigger? So we're seeing them more, right? So the metric we don't know yet. What we do know is that there seems to be a connection, a definitive connection between

our nuclear capabilities or nuclear equities and also our military capabilities and even to some degree water. And so that is probably as close as we can get right now to identifying real trends as it relates to UAP. Now the problem that I see with the whole Roman Shields examples, and some people have phantom ships and dogfights in the sky is that one would need to conduct a thorough textual analysis on a document examining all terms and ideas and descriptions 100% out of place or nonsensical. Absolutely. And if only a small fraction of them can be linked to UAPs then it suggests that it's possible we are imposing a modern interpretation onto ancient reports like seeing patterns on a Rorschach test. 100%

We have to be careful of that. We have to be cognizant of that. You're absolutely correct. I could not agree with you more. So let's assume that they have been here for thousands, even tens of thousands of years. Why all of a sudden is it a matter of national security? Well, it might not be depending what hat you wear, right? So right now, let's say I'm wearing a hat for my national security. So I'm going to, Kurt, I'm going to go over a, for your new listeners here, an analogy

I like to use a lot. Now I know you've heard it before, but just bear with me for a second while we go through it. So Kurt, you live in Toronto and I'm sure you live in a wonderfully safe neighborhood. Do you lock the front door when you go to bed at night? Yeah. I do too. And I don't expect anything bad to happen, but just a matter of good measure, I'll lock the front door.

And some days I might even go a step further and I'll just make sure the windows are locked and turn on the alarm system before I go to bed. Let's say one Sunday morning you wake up, come downstairs and have a nice hot cup of coffee or tea. And as you come downstairs, you see up, come downstairs and have a nice hot cup of coffee or tea. And as you come downstairs, you see size 11 muddy boot prints on your living room carpet. Now nothing's been taken, nothing's out of place, no one's been hurt. But despite you locking the doors the night before and the windows and turning on the alarm, there are now muddy boot prints in your living room carpet that were not there the night before.

My question to you is, is that a threat? My response to that is, well, it could be if it wanted to be, so we should probably figure out how it's getting into the house. It's the same analogy with this conversation. If you have something that can come into controlled US airspace and over sensitive military installations and interfere with our nuclear capabilities and is interested in our military equities, wearing my national security hat, I have to say, even if there's only a five percent, hell, even if there's only a 1% chance,

this thing could be here for bad reasons, that's 1% chance I can't afford to take. So it is my job, in fact, it is my responsibility to investigate this to make sure it is not a threat. Now, what is a threat? Well, from a national security perspective, the calculus is super simple. It's capabilities versus intent.

Well, we've seen some of the capabilities. We have no idea the intent. So we don't know if these things are a threat. We do know that they're interested in our nuclear equities. Now, taking off my national security hat and putting on my Lou Elizondo hat, no, I'm not sure there is enough information to suggest that these things are a real threat. Now when you talk to people in what they call the experiencer community, some who have claimed

they've been quote unquote abducted, well, now I've got to put my national security hat back on because as a former special agent and a special agent in charge, if you told me that you've been taken somewhere against your will, well, guess what? That's kidnapping. Okay? That's a felony offense. And by the way, God forbid you were touched without your permission. Well, that's assault. Okay? So we can start racking up the felony charges here, right? That's not a good thing. So to go back to your question, is this a threat or is it not a threat? The fact that we don't know, that means we need to find out. And in order to find out, we have to treat it as a potential threat until we know that it's not, if that makes sense.

If they have been around for tens of thousands of years, maybe even longer, why doesn't that factor into their safety? So for instance, Richard Dawkins is known for the parasite theory of religion that it's a mind virus, but he becomes more and more incorrect the longer time scale that a particular religion has been around. Because if it's been around for millennia, then there's something mutual about it. If there's a virus and it kills your host, it's not good for the virus. So if these beings or whatever powers these crafts or whatever is behind them, if they've been here longer than predates the written word, like let's say longer than 4000 BCE, then why can't

a similar argument of symbiosis be made? It can be made. No, it can be. This could be a symbiotic relationship or it could be a non-parasitic relationship. It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship. It could be, look, we fly over the Serengeti all the time in a helicopter and we track our herd of wildebeest, we dart one. Once it's tranquilized, we take some blood and we test its O2 levels and its migration patterns. Then what do we do? We get back on the helicopter, fly away. The wildebeest wakes up and, you know,

wanders over to the watering hole, right? And goes to a friend and says, Bill, you're not gonna bleed this man. I was there and all of a sudden this thing came down in the sky and I'm lying down, people are touching me and I wake up and now my butt hurts, right? So, I mean, I don't mean to make a joke out of it, but in reality, we don't really talk to the wildebeest.

We don't negotiate with the wildebeest because the wildebeest doesn't have the capacity to really understand what we're trying to achieve. Could this be the same thing? Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely it could be. And so, you know, this is why we need, this is part of my argument, Kurt, when it comes to this conversation.

I don't want my government, as much of a patriot and loyalist I conversation, I don't want my government as much of a patriot and loyalist I am, I don't want my government from a national security perspective involved in certain aspects of this conversation. Because this conversation involves us not just from a national security perspective, but it involves us from a psychological perspective, a philosophical perspective, a theological perspective, a sociological perspective that frankly, I don't want some three-star general telling me how I should feel about this.

Maybe this is a conversation for your priest or your rabbi or your imam or maybe your friends around the dinner table. Maybe this is a conversation to have with academics and scientists. And so from that perspective, this is why people like you are so valuable in this space because you can open up the aperture, right?

And now you're bringing this conversation to the street. You're bringing this conversation to the people, which ultimately is where this conversation belongs, not with some decision maker at the Pentagon saying the people aren't ready to have this conversation. They don't get a vote. That's not their decision to make. vote. That's not their decision to make. So this is why, this is why I think having this type of conversation is so important and why people like you and in your position play such a vital role, because your audience, ultimately your audience and your listeners, those are the ones who need to make the decision. Not even me or you. It needs to be everybody. This has to be a collective conversation. And this is why I think we're finally making some headway here, because we're not relying on a few talking heads to think for us. I don't want the government to

think for us. I want the people to think for us. Does this weigh heavy on you? Oh, my God. Dude, I mean, Dude, I mean, kid me. I mean, yeah, man, it's ruined my life, man. It's yeah, I've ruined my family's life. It's been terrible. I'm not going to cry on your shoulder know, I wouldn't wish this on anybody No way what I do it again Absolutely. I wouldn't want to it's been been terrible, you know, it's

Yeah, it's awful, you know you I'm not gonna I'm not gonna even sob story, but, but let's just say there's easier things. I'd rather have birthed an elephant than have to experience what I experienced. There's multiple reasons for that, but the fight's not over yet and I don't have time to sit down and feel sorry for myself or anything like that. So, you know, put my boots on, tight my belt and go in every day and do what I got to do. If you knew what you knew now, would you still have had kids? Damn, Kurt. You know, I love my children.

My children are the greatest achievement and accomplishment of my life. There will never be anything I will ever come close to than that achievement and that accomplishment. But my love is so strong for them. want to protect them and insulate them from some of the badness of this world. So do you make the decision and not allow someone to exist because you love them so much and you're trying to protect them or do you bring them into existence knowing that they're gonna be exposed to a lot of pain? But then again, they have a chance to explore

and experience the beauty and the love that this world has to offer. I think I would choose to always bring them into existence because I think it's important. I think it's important that people have an opportunity to learn and maybe, you know, Kurt, maybe one day we'll stop killing each other. Maybe we'll stop gossiping about each other. Maybe we'll stop trying to tear each other down and work together to build each other up. You know, I spent a good portion of my career destroying other human beings.

It's called warfare, right? You do it in one way or another. I'd like to spend the rest of my life helping put people back together. That's probably one of the best questions and most difficult questions I've ever been asked. Now I would choose to bring them into this world because I think they have a lot to offer and I think they're very good people and they can help balance out some of the inequity and some of the badness in this world.

At some point we are going to talk about beauty and love, but you also mentioned badness and pain. What pain and badness are you referring to other than the archetypal pain and badness of life? Uh, currently, that's, that's another three hour conversation, brother. And honestly, you're, you're, I don't think your audience really cares or is, you know, wants to hear that. And, and, you know, nobody wants to hear a sob story.

So, you know, I'd rather focus on the positives. You know, with anything worth doing, there's always sacrifice. That's just the bottom line. And, you know, I chose to do this, because I believed and still believe it's the right thing to do. And I'm not asking anybody for pity or mercy or anything like that. You know, I do what I do because what I do it, I'm going to continue doing it until the job's done. Disclosure is a process, not an event. Explain what that means. And how does that cohere with you're going to continue what you're doing until the job is done? Because that sounds like an event. I think when I first came out, a lot of people were waiting for the government insider to

say, yes, not only are you a P real, but the government's been investigating that. Well, they had that. Then they said, well, it's not really disclosure until somebody senior like the government says it. So you have a former director of national intelligence, a former director of CIA, and a former president all saying it. And yet people say, yeah, but it's still not the same. And so the bar keeps moving. And I've told people that, but it's still not the same. And so the bar keeps moving.

And I've told people that this is a marathon, not a sprint. Disclosure isn't an event. It's not you wake up one morning, haha, here it is. No, it's a conversation. It's a lengthy conversation. It's a process. And like anything else that's serious, there's a process to it. And it takes time and it takes sensitization. You have a choice. You can jump into the pool, a cold pool, and risk shock if you don't know what temperature the pool is, or you can dip your toe in first and say, okay, that temperature is pretty good. It's not too hot, not too cold.

And you put your foot in and then you put your knee in. And it's a slow gradual process. And you do that to avoid a shock to the system, a shock to the body. If you jump into an ice cold pool or something that's really hot and your body doesn't have a chance to adjust to it, it's more difficult on the system.

And so I think we've come a long way. As far as when my job is done, I don't know what that looks like. I pray every day that it's soon. I don't want to be a torch bearer for this. I shouldn't be the torch bearer. I did what I did, but now it's time for other people to take the torch.

I am not, you know, I was very, I had a really good purpose and use early on, but the longer I wait, the more I worry that we could start losing traction. Because look, I'm just one person. I'm just a human. And I make mistakes all the time and I forget to brush my teeth. Normal, right? Probably drink too much coffee. There are people out there that are far more qualified

than me, far better than me, more effective than me to have this conversation. I'm just a blue collar guy, man. Just was in the army for a little bit and went to college and served my country, but doesn't make me special. People say, oh, Lou, you're a hero. No, I'm not a hero. I know what a hero looks like because I served with a lot of them. Some of them didn't come back. Those are heroes. I'm not. I'm just doing what anybody in my position who took the same allegiance and oath that I did would do the same thing. I'm not special and I'm not I'm not even particularly good at it to be honest with you. I'm just

Trying my best. So Yeah, I don't know what the end looks like, you know I would love it if one day someone came to me and knocked on my door and said hey Lou, we'll take it from here You know, hallelujah Thank you. I can you know change my name and get weird and disappear you know, hallelujah. Thank you. I can, you know, change my name and get weird and disappear. You know, I don't know. But until that, I think we'll know. I think we're getting there.

I think more people are coming out of the shadows. I think we could get some real good whistleblowers coming forward this year. We'll definitely help that process. You know, hopefully I become I become completely obsolete when people stop asking me for interviews. I know my job is done because because they don't care. I'm now boring right? So that's that's that would be a great indicator. So any of you out there that want to interview with me, stop calling. We'll be done.

I'll try not to take that personally. I'm just having fun with you, Kurt. The sooner we can get more people out in the open, I think the better. So I think what people, the vast majority of people who, even people who are on the believing and whatever that means of the UAP spectrum, I think what they mean when they say, I would like disclosure, is that sure, disclosure is a process, everything is a process, events then you transform and that's a process to another event, but some events are more critical than others or more significant.

It doesn't matter how many whistleblowers come out, it could be 3,000 whistleblowers. What people want is some tangible verifiable evidence especially given to the scientific community in the open. So at what point, and this is a respectful question, respect I mean this respectfully, at what point does the UAP playlist on this channel, the theories of everything channel, how can people distinguish that playlist from another playlist with the same videos but titled cool story bro? Well, first of all, the fact that you have people of the caliber you do listening to

this conversation right now is different than check check out this cool video, bro. I think your audience is a little more sophisticated than that, right? Let me be blunt, a lot more sophisticated than that. That's why they listened to your show. They are interested in your approach. Your approach is intellectual curiosity. Be mindful of the click bait that's out there because the world's full

of it, right? Likes and click this and, you know, you seem to have a very honest debate about this topic and other topics. And that's the discourse that needs to occur. You know, people listen to theories of everything because they're not interested in, hey, check out this UFO video, bro. Because that's not how you have disclosure.

You have disclosure by having an intellectual, honest conversation about this. And as we just started, do you remember how we started our conversation? Do you remember that? So we started talking philosophically, it wasn't even about UFOs, right? We're having just a philosophical conversation. That intellectual curiosity, people that involve themselves in that. Look, I've told you this before, but I'll reiterate it again. The old saying, small minds told you this before, but I'll reiterate it again. The old saying, small minds talk about people, strong minds talk about things, and great minds talk about ideas. That is your

audience that you have. Those are the intellectually curious people out there that want answers. They want to think for themselves. You ask the questions you do because half the time, whether you have the answer or not, you're trying to provoke thought and you're trying to provoke people to begin to interact with one another in a way that maybe they wouldn't have considered interacting before. And you're achieving that. And that is not, hey, click out, check out this UFO video, bro. That's a completely different audience. And I'm not interested in that audience either.

Not that we don't need them on board, we do. We want them part of the conversation. But this conversation that we're having and with your audience right now, and your audience is very important to this conversation as well, as long as we can have a respectful and collegial conversation.

Look, you and I do not agree on everything and that's okay. And I don't take it personally and I'm sure you don't either. And we can have a friendly debate on your program without having feelings hurt because both of us are, I think, confident in our own intellectual abilities. But more importantly, we also respect each other's intellectual abilities, right?

I know there are things that you can do that I can't. There's knowledge that you have, there's an intellectual capability that you have that I don't have. And just like in experience, I have experiences in the government that maybe you don't have, right? So we're coming at it from different perspectives. Maybe. So, you know, I think that's what works. And that's the difference between a show like yours and a show like, you know, some other folks. Again, I'm not hitting on those other shows that do that. But I think we get further in the conversation with shows like you have. And what does that disclosure look like?

I don't know if you're ever going to be able to sit there and have a government-sourced video of a UFO landing on the White House lawn. But then again, maybe that's not what's needed. The fact that we have already acknowledged the existence of something there that's not our technology and probably not adversarial technology, well, that's a pretty big step in the right direction. And maybe that's all that takes. And now we allow the people to come up

with what we do next about it. Maybe the government in a way is waiting to get a cue from the population and see, okay, now that you guys aren't freaking out and rioting and abandoning religion, still paying your mortgages, maybe the past assessments we've had were wrong. You know what?

I've always believed that America can handle the truth. I believe America deserves the truth and not just us, I think the world does. And I think we can have that conversation and we're having that conversation. Don't look now, but we're having it. And people are quitting their jobs and running to the hills and, you know, burying themselves in silos, waiting for the world to end.

I'm not sure if it's about the truth, because the truth would just be a statement that would be critiqued and met with skepticism anyhow. It would have to be something that's tangible, verifiable, and placed into the hands of the scientific community. And I'll give you an example because this dictum of it's not a sprint, it's a marathon is personal to me in my bailiwick of theoretical physics. Because string theorists have been saying that for decades. They'll hold your horses. String theory is not a sprint, it's a marathon. How can you expect us to come up with the theory of everything or humanity's answers and in this case in such a short amount of time. It was always this five to 10 years something large is going to happen. It becomes a shepherd tone.

Do you know what a shepherd tone is? I'm aware of the concept, but I know I'm not an expert in the term shepherd tone. In this UAP scene, there's the promise of progress constantly. And a shepherd tone is an auditory illusion. I'll play it for the audience. It will be edited in where you take a superposition of sine waves and you separate them by octaves and you give the impression of upward movement and it's terribly interesting for the first few seconds but then it becomes deeply unsatisfying the longer you listen and you can't quite put your finger on why.

So you get these droughts interspersed with the dribbles of the promise of some oasis in the shimmering horizon in this scene. That's what I mean by even if there's the truth that is revealed, it can't be a proclamation from someone else. Otherwise that's the Catholic Church saying the Bible means this and this and then Martin Luther's like I want to investigate myself and figure it out. I need you to give me the Bible so I can read it myself. That's a really interesting point, Kirk. Let me ask you a question since you do have a good background in physics. When was the notion of the Higgs boson first proposed, the God particle?

first proposed, the god particle. Do you know that? I think it was 1964, if I'm not mistaken. Do you know when we first actually proved this existence? 2012, if I'm not mistaken there as well. Right. 40 years. What did it take to discover the Higgs boson? What did we have to create? At least funding and a collider. All for the purposes of trying to find this elusive particle that only existed theoretically.

The enormous amount of investment, and this was all done in the open, right? And countries, entire countries invested into it. And it still took 40 years. And if you ask most people right now, what's the significance of the Higgs boson, the God particle, they can't tell you. Well, I don't know. It's an atomic particle.

Well no, it's a lot more. It's much more significant than that, right? How about the idea of a black hole? When was that first proposed? Do you remember? You weren't alive, but I wasn't either. But do you remember when that first idea was proposed? Well, there were two.

One was from, I believe, Pascal, and then another was from a solution to Einstein's equations. So that would be in the 1900s. Correct. Correct. Really 1930s is when the idea was really first proposed of a supermassive, infinite mass, no volume space where gravity was so intense that it literally ripped away space and time to a nonsensical state. But Einstein said there's nothing in the universe that could actually do that. So it's just theoretical, but it doesn't exist.

When was the first time we were actually able to prove the existence, not just through observation, the existence of a black hole and the fact that gravitational waves, that space and time itself, the ripple of space and time, can be measured. And that all that was absolutely true. Do you remember when that occurred? So that was through the LIGOs experiment. And and the Lagos was a laser and ferrometer where you had two of these sensors separated by quite a bit of a distance. And they detected the first gravitational waves of two supermassive black holes colliding. Now that was almost a 100 year effort.

It almost took us a 100 years to prove that. So let's put these ideas in the backdrop that we've only really been at this disclosure thing really maybe the last little bit of a decade. There's a lot of people that want a disclosure and some people that came out had conversations, but the government wasn't really actively doing anything. We didn't have a UAP investigative body like Arrow. We did not have Congress being informed and passing laws. That's all relatively recent.

I would just encourage you to know that it's actually, I think we're moving at a breakneck speed. I think even though it's a marathon, I think we're pretty at a breakneck speed. I think even though it's a marathon, I think we're pretty much sprinting this marathon. We've come a long way in six or seven years. In fact, perhaps even more, and I don't want to upset anybody, but we may have come more further in this conversation in the last seven years than we have in the last 70 years. I understand people are chomping at the bit. I understand people are impatient, but this goes back to what I said before many times, that there's a difference between doing things right and doing things right now.

And I think we have one shot at doing this right. And I think we're doing it. I think collectively, all of us, we're working towards that goal. Respectfully, Lou, you sound like a string theorist. So the string theorist would always say, well, look at the predictions of the singularity when did that or the black hole, when did that happen or, or the Higgs boson or whatever it may be. And then decades later, it came to fruition.

And then they'd point to some of what they think is progress in the past amount of years and they'll show that there's some acceleration of that like they'll say well we had a gravitational anomaly in 1983 with supergravity and we found a mechanism around that okay but you still have 10 dimensions yeah but you can compactify these dimensions okay but you introduce scalars massless scalars in four dimensions when you do that. Okay, well, we can introduce background fluxes. We figured that part out. Yeah, but then you still have a vast amount of ways to compactify. Okay, Swampland, okay, weak gravity conjectures, etc. So even in string theory, they could say and have said almost verbatim what you're saying.

And I mean that respectfully. So no, no, no, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, no. And I take it respectfully, but I Wouldn't consider myself a string theorist. I consider myself a realist meaning things take time and to change the human psyche Takes time. It's it it does not occur fat. Not very few things in nature really occur quickly But I I can understand your point. As for string theory or any other theory, you know, think, think say time. And it's not just string theorists, I think a lot

of things in science, take time to really understand, you know, through some of it through direct observation, some of it through indirect observation and measurements. I, you know, through some of it through direct observation, some of it through indirect observation and measurements. Um, I, you know, I, I don't know when, I think if you ask any person, they're going to have a different understanding of when they think that disclosure has been then, I think what you're expecting may be different than someone in your audience, someone in your audience may say, we're already there. Someone say, we're not gonna be there for another 100 years. Um, it's very good. It's a valid point.

I think, I think you're right. And by the way, I do not take offense at all by, you know, paralleling what I'm saying to... I keep prefacing that because there are some people, not you, but I'm just used to some people, that hear a question that sounds like pushback in this scene in physics This is ordinary. Yeah fact is far worse. Yeah, you you put up objections, but in this scene, there are some sensitive Personalities. Well, not so I can I don't take it step on your toes. Not at all. Not at all. In fact, I didn't

Having toes, you know, I'm at the age now that, you know, I'm not even sure if I have toes anymore. I haven't seen toes in about 10 years. I got to get back to the gym. Do you meditate? Oh my gosh. You know, I've had someone ask me that, Kurt. I don't know how to meditate, brother. I got too much going on up here. I wish I could. People say, oh, man, you got to meditate. You know, when I'm not drinking coffee and I'm not running a million miles an hour, I'm sleeping or, you know, I do hit the gym. Obviously I do work out quite a bit. That's kind of my, my thing. Maybe that's meditation for the body. Uh, but no, I don't. How about remote viewing? Do you still engage in remote viewing? I will just simply say yes. And I don't want to

expound upon that. It's a topic that some people have trouble digesting and I get it and it's very controversial. But that's for another conversation. And fortunately it looks like our time is up. Well, I'm just joking you chain man man. Okay. Jeez, jeez. It's just me and you here, Lou and maybe 1 million other people. So what can you say about it without violating any NDA or what have you? So let me, I rarely do this. Let me give you the perspective as it was explained to me because because a lot of it seems like pseudoscience and mumbo jumbo.

And the reality is, is that... Let's start with an analogy here. Sorry, because it's, you know, it's the way I talk. I'm Latino and I kind of use analogies to explain myself. Okay. So, I have five fundamental senses to judge the universe in which I live. And if I can't touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, et cetera, I can't perceive it. And yet we know if I had the ability to have, let's say, cell phone vision, and I could see in GPS, I could see in 5G, I could see in AM and FM, I would perceive an entirely different reality

around me. I'd be seeing in infrared and ultraviolet spectrums, microwave. So what does that actually mean? This is well, I live in Wyoming where we have beautiful night skies and I can look at the stars and say how gorgeous they are. But if I look at that same part of the sky through a radio telescope, I'll see an entirely different reality. I'll see nebula, I'll see things beyond the spectrum that I can normally see. and so therefore I see more of the universe. So I only perceive through the electro-optical spectrum a very, very, very narrow sliver of what really is out there. And then you have the scalability of the universe, which I won't get into here, but the universe is enormous and I don't think people, most people really appreciate just how big the

universe really is just in the observable universe, there are more stars than there are grains of sand and all the beaches of all the world. So think about that for a minute, what that actually means. So we only perceive because of how tiny we are to the universe, you know, very, very small fraction of what's really out there. So some people have claimed that remote viewing, some scientists, is that human consciousness, that the actual, not the intellectual thought process, but what makes us us and self-aware and sentient is a quantum process in the brain and involves a quantum, when I say quantum, quantum process in the brain and involves a quantum, when I say quantum, literally the field of quantum mechanics. There is a process occurring in the brain and that is what creates the illusion of self-awareness and consciousness. If that's the case, some scientists have proposed

that, let's go back to this analogy here, that this this pretend this is a cigar, right? Smoking a cigar. You can compare time to the analogy of a cigar where the past of a cigar is the ashes that have already burned. The future is the part of the cigar that hasn't burned yet that you hold in your hand. And the present is the cherry. It's a moment of ignition. It's a process where the future becomes the past.

It's not really an event. And if you were to look at time at a very, very small scale, plank scale, some scientists believe that time gets fuzzy, meaning that there are elements of the future kind of co-mingling with elements of the past and that the cherry, if you will, the moment of ignition of the cigar, it doesn't burn evenly. And perhaps even may explain some of the duality principles of the electron and the electron cloud versus an electron orbit in its valence and actually being able to pinpoint where it is.

Right? So that was some of the conversation occurring at the time. versus an electron orbit in its valence and actually being able to pinpoint where it is, right? So that was some of the conversation occurring at the time. And so some people had posited that perhaps some people experience current, the current time, what we consider the present, that cherry, being bigger on the cigar, meaning there are more elements of the future and more elements of the past that could potentially

be experienced as if they are occurring now. Do we have any proof for that? We do not. Do I necessarily subscribe to that? I don't know. What we do know is that there are nonverbal cues. I suspect remote viewing is just as ordinary. Most people experience it all the time and don't realize it.

For example, you are in New York and your spouse is in Toronto and you say, you know, I'm going to call her. You give her a call and she says, oh, you know what? I was just thinking about you. I was just going to call you. Some have said, well, that's actually a form of remote viewing, that the brains give off electrical signals. We know that.

That's how we can tell people are clinically dead or not when they've died in a hospital is their brain wave function. And some are now saying, well, you know, the brains can give off frequencies that we can actually detect. Is it possible that there are some people that can receive those and interpret those frequencies? I don't know.

I'm not a medical scientist. I'm certainly not a neurologist. So I would be completely speaking out of context. But my point is, I think when you get into the conversation of remote viewing and nonverbal communication, I'm pretty confident it's based in science. I'm pretty confident it's not mumbo jumbo weird woo woo stuff. Then at the end of the day,

it's probably somewhere embedded within the field of quantum mechanics. If I had to guess, I don't know for sure. But that would be the way I would explain it. So this cigar theory of time, this fuzzy present, is this something that you've been briefed on? Or is it something you've heard some other physicists speak about and then you're surmising it has something to do with remote viewing? Both. Both. Some people have said that is the way it works and other people have said this is the way time works and then within my own experience that's my observation. But again let me tell you I could be wrong and it's you know it's a

conversation there's so little known about it. Yeah. That it's and it's you know it's not always accurate, right? She there's, there's, there's, there's, there's a lot of error and interpretive error there and it's very subjective. So, uh, you know, I, I can't hear it. I can't tell you definitively other than through my own experience. That it's real legitimate. There are some incredible statistical findings that the government, I mean,

we've actually used to find a downed Russian, for example, supersonic aircraft, experimental aircraft that crashed in Africa near the Congo, and our best satellites couldn't find it. But it took remote viewers about 30 minutes and they found it. How do you explain that? I don't know. Why do police departments still use psychics to solve cases? Because they have a good batting average. In some cases, they're actually finding the evidence that the police are looking for. Right? I can't sit here and tell you, you know, to your

1 million viewers and listeners out there, how it works because I don't know how it works. And I don't even know if it works most of the time. I know it works some of the time. And I'm confident about that. But the mechanics of how it works, I couldn't even begin to tell you, brother, I'm not qualified that, but the mechanics of how it works, I couldn't even begin to tell you brother, I'm not qualified to have that conversation. So much man, there's so many here. Okay, let's start with physical implants. What are they?

Let's hear more about them. So implants, let me explain it to you from a from a immunological perspective, because that I do have some qualifications to discuss. The body has an autonomic immune response when there is ever introduced a foreign object into the body that the body does not recognize. It's the reason why when people have transplants, they have to take transplant drugs

to suppress the natural immune response to something in their body belong to them. Okay. And so I have personally held in my hand a sample that came from the Department of Veterans Affairs, but I've also was aware of previous samples, very similar, where a something, which you're going to say something right now, was removed by a surgeon from the Department of Veterans Affairs on an individual, a former US service member who claimed to have had an interaction with a UAP. When they tried to remove this object, according to the surgeon there, who was very upset by this, the object tried

to evade being removed, meaning it moves under its own power, under its own metabolism, metabolic capability, and what appeared to the surgeon is trying to avoid detection. Now, why is that significant? Because there was no immunocascade response, meaning there are, let me give you an example, parasites out there. There's something called a spiral keet. Certain trypanosomes have this capability. They're highly motile and this little tail that they whip around and they move throughout the body.

And when they do that, they create this enormous trail of destruction through a, what we call an immunocascade response or a white blood cell response, trying to fight the infection as this thing is moving around. That was not the case with this foreign object that appeared to have encapsulated itself with some sort of look like human tissue, maybe from the host from the person. and yet had a, I like to say, a technical device, a small metallic, I don't want to say the word chip because that is so cliche.

We don't know if it was a chip, a piece of metal in there. And around this encapsulated area, there were these what appeared to be referred to as morguellen fibers. Morellan fibers comes from the term, comes from the, uh, from the old wizard more Margiela was the sister of, uh, of, you know, the wizard, uh, and King Arthur. Um, so these more Gellan fibers went under scrutiny, don't seem to have any DNA. Some have said that they're fibers from carpet, that they're artificial fibers, they're blue

and red fibers, but these were not carpet fibers. This was removed from underneath the skin of an individual with a chip and those fibers can be clearly seen. More I think alarming is the fact that one of the forensic pathologists that was looking at this sample said that it had its own metabolism, meaning it still moved underneath the microscope when they were studying it. Sorry, what's the definition of metabolism being used here? So anything that is alive gets its energy. Usually we consider, for example, human beings and animals through the ATP ADP process, adenosine triphosphate to adenosine diphosphate. When you cleave one of those phosphates, you create energy. It's all part of the Krebs cycle with the

glycytric acid cycle. And that is a metabolism, basically. That is how we derive energy from consumption. And so you can metabolize and you create energy. Anything that moves requires energy to move. So you either have to have an external energy supply or you have to have an internal energy supply. In this particular case, the object that was removed seemed to have an internal energy supply, right? So it had its own metabolism.

My understanding is that metabolism requires life. Like you don't infer life from metabolism. You start with something living and then you call it metabolism. Otherwise, you're just making an analogy by saying that something transforms energy has self-repair, maybe some nutrient processing, but the phone that you have transforms energy, the phone that you have engages in a minor amount of self-repair with its adaptive battery. Maybe there's no nutrient processing, but all of that would have to be shown. So otherwise you're just making an analogy saying it's metabolism like. Yeah, but this is this is technological, not, not, not biomechanical, totally different. So this is a technological device is deriving energy through a power source. And that power

source is an external power source, usually via a battery. And it's using that in the form of electrons. That's not the case. We're talking about a biological metabolism, right? So the conversion of a biological process through the process of biochemistry to derive energy. And so let me be clear on that. And also let me finish this other piece for you as well. of biochemistry to derive energy. And so let me be clear on that. And also let me finish this other piece for you as well.

There's an individual, it's not my story to tell. So maybe this person will become public one day, but he's a senior CIA official who had a very scary UAP encounter with his wife. And they actually went to the CIA and to some of the doctors and they were able to extract. Well, first of all, the individual had a hole punched in the back of their neck, but the wife, uh, once she blew her nose, had a foreign object, um, that, yeah, that, that was recovered. And so that's, again, I don't want to go too specific cause it's

not my story to tell. There's an individual that hopefully at some point will feel comfortable about being public about that. For now, I'm not going to say who the person was, but there's a lot of these examples. I know another one that's a good buddy of mine, we worked very close together, that had a very interesting situation as well,, there was potentially some sort of interesting encounter and as a result, some sort of biological consequence. It's not, it's, you know, we talked about the five fundamental observables, but there are actually six and biological effects was one of them. You know, yes, we had actual doctors and surgeons looking into the medical consequences of military

members and intelligence officials who may have gotten too close to a UAP. So that's, that was, that did indeed happen. I know you got to get going, man, and we can continue talking for another couple hours. So I'll end with this question, which may be simple, maybe it's not, but are we souls or do we have souls? Maybe it's not, but are we souls or do we have souls? I think most people do. There's maybe some individuals who don't. Maybe those are the individuals that do bad things to one another because they have the intellect, they have the mind and they have a body, but

somewhere along the way, they lack that essence that allows us to connect to one another and empathize with one another and help one another. And because of that, they don't have empathy, they don't have sympathy, and desperate to feel some emotion, they resort to doing bad things, potentially.

You know, there is real evil in this world. That is a fact, and I've seen it myself. And you can't negotiate with it, you can't barter with it. It's... It feeds off of pain and suffering of other individuals. So yes, I do believe the soul is real. I believe most people have it. Maybe absent and other individuals.

All right, sir. I know you got to get going. Kirk, as always right, sir. I know you gotta get going. Kirk, as always honor and privilege. And thank you, huge thank you to your amazing audience for tuning in and allowing me to yammer on. But hopefully I didn't put any, well, maybe I did. Hopefully I did put people to sleep. Maybe they're insomniacs, right?

They're listening to my silky smooth voice. I tell people I have a voice that's as soothing as a cement truck in high gear, careening down a dirt road. It's an honor that you've spent your time with me. Thank you, man. The honor and privilege is mine, Kurt. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your service. It's, Kurt, it's my privilege my honor privilege to be with you here today also thank you to our partner the economist firstly thank you for watching thank you for listening there's now a website KurtJayMungle.org and that has a mailing list the reason being that large platforms like YouTube like patreon they can disable you for whatever reason, whenever they like. That's just part of the terms of service. Now a direct mailing list ensures that I have an untrammeled communication with you. Plus, soon I'll be releasing a one-page PDF of my top 10 toes. It's not as Quentin

Tarantino as it sounds like. Secondly, if you haven't subscribed or clicked that like button, now is the time to do so. Why? Because each subscribe, each like helps YouTube push this content to more people like yourself, plus it helps out Kurt directly, aka me. I also found out last year that external links count plenty toward the algorithm, which means that whenever you share on Twitter, say on Facebook or even on Reddit, etc., it shows YouTube, hey, people are talking about this content outside of YouTube, which in turn greatly aids the distribution on YouTube. Thirdly, there's a remarkably active Discord and subreddit for theories of everything,

where people explicate toes, they disagree respectfully about theories, and build as a community our own toe. Links to both are in the description. Fourthly, you should know this podcast is on iTunes, it's on Spotify, it's on all of the audio platforms. All you have to do is type in theories of everything and you'll find it. Personally, I gain from rewatching lectures and podcasts. I also read in the comments that hey, toe listeners also gain from replaying. So how about instead you re-listen on those platforms like iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, whichever podcast catcher you use. And finally, if you'd like to support more conversations like this, more content

like this, then do consider visiting patreon.com slash Kurt Jaimungal and donating with whatever you like. There's also PayPal, there's also crypto, there's also just joining on YouTube. Again, keep in mind, it's support from the sponsors and you that allow me to work on toe full time. You also get early access to ad-free episodes, whether it's audio or video. It's audio in the case of Patreon, video in the case of YouTube. For instance, this episode that you're listening to right now was released a few days earlier. Every dollar helps far more than you think. Either way, your viewership is generosity enough. Thank you so much.