To The Stars Academy: Investigating the Unexplained

Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,110
    Okay so wait a minnit – are you saying that William Bridge was the shrink on the plane who refused to look out the window? Because the fact that a witness on the plane didn’t see it, doesn’t mean anything if he refused to look. [And man, what an ostrich that shrink is…“I’m not going to look because I like my restricted worldview”…lol]

    Paul Dean studied this case intensively, and spoke with Callahan personally, and it’s fascinating to hear what he has to say about it – I may post some of his remarks about it at some point. Like any case involving humans, it does have some cracks as you mentioned, but there are also lots of good reasons to think there’s something to it.

    Right, but as we all know, the radar data isn’t available (it’s never made available). So eyewitness accounts are all we can ever get, plus some blurry pics here and there. And in this incident we have the radar operator who tracked the objects for two weeks, and provided exact numbers from the best radar system in the world. That’s hard to discount imo.

    Oh c’mon – Mick West would argue that there’s no Moon if he hadn't seen it with his own eyes.

    This came up the other day in a discussion I was having with Dr. Knuth at an AATIP facebook group. He said that one of the reviewers couldn’t believe that the Tic-Tac was a solid object, so it was difficult to get their article published.

    No human tech of any kind can zig-zag around “like a ping-ping ball" bouncing off of invisible walls as Fravor described its motion above the ocean…and take off from essentially a standstill to thousands of mph like a bullet…without any propulsion signature whatsoever. Humans can do a lot of stuff, but reactionless propulsion isn’t one of them. Not yet anyway. Given what we know about modern physics and technology, we can be roughly 99.9999999% certain of that.

    I did – that stuff is child’s play compared to things like the Tic-Tac incident.

    We know for a fact that the SPY-1 radar data from the Cmdr. Fravor intercept was recorded and saved to an optical disk. Then apparently it was confiscated. So that’s just one smoking gun that we know about.

    If you read Paul Dean’s blog you’ll see abundant evidence – official manuals detailing the reporting protocols for unidentified aircraft, for example. Then when he FOIA’s each and every one of the facilities that store those reports, they refuse to release a single page of that data. Sure, it’s not 100% proof that they’re withholding the evidence of UFO activity, but I can’t 100% prove that there’s still a room on the other side of my door, until I open it. Even the official scientific standard for the discovery of a new particle isn’t 100% - it’s a high probability of 5-sigma, which is a 99.99997% probability that the signal represents a real particle and not a statistical fluke.

    The only reason we can’t meet that standard to prove the reality of AAVs zipping around our skies from time to time is, imo, the irrefutable fact that all of the scientific data of anomalous aerial activity is being sequestered by the military agencies – the only organizations that have the instrumentation to collect that data.

    I agree that there’s always a non-zero probability that the military found some supergenius akin to a fusion of Einstein and Tesla to crack the seemingly insoluble obstacles to producing warp field propulsion by spending trillions of dollars over the course of decades, to secretly discover, develop, and ultimately perfect that technology so that now, today, the military is producing warp drive devices with USS-Enterprise-level spaceflight capabilities.

    But given what we know about our place in the universe – that there are at least 2 billion Earth-like worlds orbiting Sun-like stars in our galaxy alone, and that those planets have on average a 2-3 billion year head-start on the Earth’s evolutionary timeline, I think it’s a far simpler and more probable explanation to conclude that some other folks out there have developed hyperfast spaceflight capabilities long ago, and they like to drop by and have a look around from time to time.

    Okay first off, Cmdr. Fravor and the trainee pilot rendezvoused at the cap point before they intercepted the Tic-Tac; so if it had been monitoring the air traffic in the area, it would’ve known where that cap point was. Secondly, Kevin Day reported that the targets he saw on his radar system zipped across over five miles of distance in .78 second. A transit that fast would be too fast for the human eye, or even our best radar system, to track in real time. And in Cmdr. Fravor’s other interviews, he said that it took 1-2 seconds for the Tic-Tac to zip out of sight – he did see it move.

    That’s not a good argument. On my dream list I would write “the ability to instantaneously teleport to anyplace in the universe.” That doesn’t mean that the military can do that either.

    I would argue that alien motivations and behaviors would most likely be totally inscrutable to the contemporary human mind, so the fact that these craft do in fact seem to behave in an incomprehensible manner indicates that they are alien. Since both of those arguments are reasonable, neither one is significant.

    That’s definitely true. Sen. Reid applied for SAP status for the program, in part to permit the AATIP to share data with other SAP programs. We would expect an SAP program to have “the good stuff,” like scientific equipment to conduct scientific analyses for example, because classification level is related to intelligence value.

    Did you read those articles, or just the (sensationalistic) headlines? I studied that experiment last year, and here’s the reality:

    They’re using a nearby laser array to trap a minuscule mote of reflective particle in the air, and move it around in front of a series of colored laser beams so quickly that it draws lines in the air. In principle it’s similar to an old-style television, where a moving electron beam rapidly activates the phosphors to create the illusion of a moving image. But look at the severe limitations of this type of imaging:



    - it requires special reflective particles of the right size to be deployed in a very small activation area within inches of the laser control system.

    - it has to be done against a dark background because the image is transparent, not opaque.

    - the image glows because the image is produced by reflected laser light.

    - if they can draw anything more than little lines in the air, they haven't proved it.

    - it has to be done in still air, because the slightest wind frees the particle from the tenuous optical trapping.

    - it must be done within an inch or two of the control laser.

    - the image must be smaller than about 1/4" because the larger the image the more quickly the particle must move in order to draw a continuous line, and a larger image would impart too much angular momentum to the particle to contain it within the optical trapping field.

    Now compare those conditions to the Tic-Tac incident. The object was opaque, not glowing or transparent. It was seen in broad daylight by all four observers, under ordinary windy conditions above the sea. The nearest ship that might’ve housed a projection apparatus was at least 40 miles away.

    So it’s a cool trick, but a very far cry from the opaque, non-radiant, freely-flying object seen in the Tic-Tac incident, miles away from the nearest vessel.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
    I may have mentioned this before in another thread, many years ago in my esoteric work the subject of ufos came up in a brief discussion..."Many of them are mental constructs" I was told and followed up with, if you can, imagine a mind that has had millions or billions of years to evolve along with all sorts of abilities like telepathy...Why would such a grand and advanced mind attempt to traverse the cold vastness of space when it has the ability to create a temporary vehicle of sorts to do the leg work for it...A mental construct that appears solid but simply created to gather information and send it back to that advanced mind and to be dissolved when no longer needed...Seems a more efficient means of gathering information without much risk...

    This could be possible in some cases I think...

    ...
     
  3. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
    I've been thinking about what you said here for a few days now, just on simmer, to see what flavours arise...I cannot help but to add in something to what we've been offered since late 2017, the videos from our space exploration, space shuttle footage, space station footage, any of our video documentation from any and all of our space exploits...If for myself I also consider the video footage I have seen from those ventures in space by our astronauts, unmanned satellites, and probes along with everything 2017 and up, I doubt all we see are homemade vessels, ships, or craft, maybe some of it is homegrown though, a small percentage...Perhaps the more recent ufos sightings are easier to consider as one of our own because we understand better how technology can do this than we did in the past, even if we cannot build it right now...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
  5. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,110
    Yeah I could've been clearer on this point too. I've seen videos of objects in the upper atmosphere that conform perfectly to my expectations of technological embodiments that aren't widely known to the public, but which I believe are within the reach of advanced military research projects.

    For example, Richard Dolan shared some infrared footage taken through a telescope that showed a triangular-shaped object with rounded corners, zooming around in the upper atmosphere, which fit the descriptions of the so-called TR-3B. I think that Lockheed or some other defense contractor at that level could've built that thing. Because as "unconventional" as that craft appeared to be, operating very high in the upper atmosphere, it very clearly followed an inertial trajectory. In fact it didn't seem to change speed much at all - it just changed direction. And as it moved it followed a nice smooth arcing trajectory. So its behavior fits within the capabilities of reaction propulsion technology.

    I know of two modes of propulsion that aren't widely known, which could be used to propel a vehicle of this type. One is the magnetoaerodynamic propulsion method that Stanton Friedman often spoke about - by highly charging the hull of a craft to ionize the air, and then using a rapidly moving magnetic field to force those ionized atoms in the opposite direction of the intended motion, it's probably quite possible to move an aircraft around without jet engines or propellers or rocket thrusters. Tricky, sure, but it seems workable.

    The other method involves a magnetic beam focusing assembly invented by Boyd Bushman. By focusing a very rapidly alternating magnetic beam at the Earth, a field could be created that exerts a force on the Earth via Lenz's law, because at extremely high frequencies the silica in the Earth's crust can be induced to create an electrical current that opposes the changing magnetic field. If workable - and I think it is, this would be an excellent way to produce lift, and even directional thrust.

    But these are still reaction propulsion concepts, which we're very good at engineering.

    The performance characteristics of the Tic-Tac are in an entirely different ballgame however. Cmdr. Fravor described seeing that thing zig-zagging around above the ocean like a ping-pong ball bouncing off of invisible walls, and when he tried to approach it, he saw it take off like a bullet with no propulsion signature. I've seen that kind of motion exactly once in my lifetime, as a 7-year-old boy, when a pair of bright objects zig-zagged across the clear daytime sky at thousands of miles per hour, in perfect formation with no change in speed, and no turning when they instantly jack-knifed back in the opposite direction at the same speed. Our brain tells us that's impossible, because we've never seen inertia-defying reactionless propulsion before. It requires manipulating spacetime itself, in order to produce that type of motion without an enormously powerful explosive reaction.

    So one might ask "what's so difficult about manipulating spacetime?" The best model of spacetime that describes gravitational fields perfectly to within our finest measurements is Einstein's general theory of relativity - it's been tested in every imaginable way and it always gives us exactly the right answers even in exotic scenarios like colliding black holes and the gravitational waves that collision generates, which we've actually detected from billions of light-years away, in recent years. And using Einstein's theory, Robert L. Forward discovered that it's possible to generate an antigravitational field by rapidly spinning a very dense fluid in a spiral around a torus - the device would look like this:

    gravitational dipole generator.jpg

    And when Forward’s gravitational dipole generator is examined numerically, and postulating that the fluid through the coils is as dense as a dwarf star (the densest form of matter which is stable without exploding in the absence of an intense gravitational containment field like a neutron star's), and the coils wrapped around that torus (i.e. donut) shape are as wide as a football field, and the torus is 1-kilometer in diameter, this author calculates a resulting acceleration of g = 10^-10 (one ten-billionth of one g), where one g equals one Earth gravity:
    http://www.tsijournals.com/articles...y-machine-utilizing-electromagnetic-field.pdf

    So it would take a device 10 billion times more powerful than that, just to counteract the acceleration of the Earth's gravity near the surface and make an object float motionlessly in the air. Obviously modern technology is nowhere near that level of capability, and there will a very long and arduous global technological development process before we get there, in perhaps a million years.

    But on the other hand, we know that Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum field theory must be reconcilable: we call that "the unified field theory." All of the brightest theoretical physicists including Einstein have tried to formulate that theory over the last century, and nobody has succeeded yet. Many of us hope that the discovery of the unified field theory will show us shortcuts and loopholes to produce meaningful gravitational fields without the need for football-field-sized pipes carrying dwarf star matter around in coils wrapped around a torus the size of downtown Los Angeles, and some of us think that UFOs prove that sometime within the next billion years we humans will figure out how to produce accelerations of 5700 g's with a device only 40ft long, like the Tic-Tac.

    As it stands, nobody at CERN or Harvard or Stanford or any of our top scientific centers out here in the public sector has been able to produce a detectable gravitational field in the lab, so global civilization isn't even on that road yet. And even if the military somehow recruited somebody more brilliant than Einstein to solve the unified field theory problem, it's reasonable to expect that it will take centuries, millennia, or perhaps even a billion more years before our engineering capabilities are advanced enough to build a Tic-Tac AAV.

    I'm hoping that we can do it closer to the near end of that spectrum than the far end, but given these facts I think it's unimaginable to conceive that the military has already achieved that sublime level of interstellar warp-field propulsion capability - and that's exactly what the Tic-Tac embodies.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,026

    Nope. Two different people. Bridge was sitting in the (I think) navigator's seat with maybe not so good a look out the window and other was the shrink with an overly comfortable world view, and seat.

    Read them? Of course not. You got the same Google I do. I knew an explanation would be forthcoming.

    As for the rest, I always liked The Report on Unidentified Objects and went looking through it for something specific in response. Didn't find it but did lift a few other things from the original edition - not the second that we know the Smoking Man forced him to add three chapters to.

    I think we could add three hundred pages to a thread like this and the only resolution that might come would be if, while we're at, it an object fell from the sky in a public place and we get to see what's inside.

    Ruppelt shared his unique perspective and then dropped dead in 1960, likely from from one too many ham & egg & cigarette breakfasts. Since this thread is actually about TTSA, wouldn't be interesting if we could conjure him up - without the intervening years of ufology to taint his opinion, and ask what he thinks of TTSA ? Another source of debate.

    The reason I attached this stuff is that it's amazing that it was written in the '50s and how little things have changed.


    Here was an excellent opportunity to get some concrete data on at least one type of UFO.
    It was something that should have been done from the start. Speeds, altitudes, and sizes
    that are estimated just by looking at a UFO. are miserably inaccurate. But if you could
    accurately establish that some type of object was traveling 30,000 miles an hour — or
    even 3,000 miles an hour — through our atmosphere, the UFO story would be the biggest
    story since the Creation. 48/190



    As far as radar was concerned, we had reports of fantastic speeds — up to 50,000 miles
    an hour — but in all of these instances there was some doubt as to exactly what caused
    the target. The highest speeds reported for our combination radar visual sightings, which
    we considered to be the best type of sighting in our files, were 700 to 800 miles an hour.
    We had never picked up any "hardware" — any whole saucers, pieces, or parts — that
    couldn't be readily identified as being something very earthly. We had a contract with a
    materials testing laboratory, and they would analyze any piece of material that we found or
    was sent to us. The tar covered marble, aluminum broom handle, cow manure, slag,
    pieces of plastic balloon, and the what-have-you that we did receive and analyze only
    served to give the people in our material lab some practice and added nothing but laughs
    to the UFO project. 166/190



    I know that there are many other scientists in the world who, although they haven't studied
    the Air Force's UFO files, would limit their comment to a large laugh followed by an "It can't
    be." But "It can't be's" are dangerous, if for no other reason than history has proved them
    so. Not more than a hundred years ago two members of the French Academy of Sciences
    were unseated because they supported the idea that "stones had fallen from the sky."
    Other distinguished members of the French Academy examined the stones, "It can't be —
    stones don't fall from the sky," or words to that effect. "These are common rocks that have
    been struck by lightning." Today we know that the "stones from the sky" were meteorites.

    Not more than fifty years ago Dr. Simon Newcomb, a world famous astronomer and the
    first American since Benjamin Franklin to be made an associate of the Institute of France,
    the hierarchy of the world science, said, "It can't be." Then he went on to explain that flight
    without gas bags would require the discovery of some new material or a new force in
    nature. And at the same time Rear Admiral George W. Melville, then Chief Engineer for the U.S.
    Navy, said that attempts to fly heavier-than-air vehicles was absurd.


    Just a little over ten years ago there was another "it can't be." Ex President Harry S. Truman
    recalls in the first volume of the Truman Memoirs what Admiral William D. Leahy,
    then Chief of Staff to the President, had to say about the atomic bomb. "That is the biggest
    fool thing we have ever done," he is quoted as saying. "the bomb will never go off, and I
    speak as an expert in explosives."


    Personally, I don't believe that "it can't be." I wouldn't class myself as a "believer," exactly,
    because I've seen too many UFO reports that first appeared to be unexplainable fall to
    pieces when they were thoroughly investigated. But every time I begin to get skeptical I
    think of the other reports, the many reports made by experienced pilots and radar
    operators, scientists, and other people who know what they're looking at. These reports
    were thoroughly investigated and they are still unknowns. Of these reports, the radar
    visual sightings are the most convincing. When a ground radar picks up a UFO target and
    a ground observer sees a light where the radar target is located, then a jet interceptor is
    scrambled to intercept the UFO and the pilot also sees the light and gets a radar lock on
    only to have the UFO almost impudently outdistance him, there is no simple answer. We
    have no aircraft on this earth that can at will so handily outdistance our latest jets. 189/190
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  7. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
  8. wwkirk

    wwkirk Celestial

    Messages:
    2,165
    As cheesy as this may seem, they've been up front about aiming for profit from the beginning.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
    I agree, I kind of like this greeting card actually,was thinking of ordering some...They have to make money somehow to fund their endeavours, every little bit helps...

    ...
     
  10. Double Nought Spy

    Double Nought Spy Easily Amused

    Messages:
    912
    I've never had a problem with their using their showbiz connections to generate funds for research. I just didn't expect them to sign the Milli Vanilli of ufoology to their label. It's pretty hard to take them seriously after that one, along with a few slightly less idiotic gaffes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,026
    Whatever this phenomenon is if we could just fast forward to the point where we actually know the answer we'd probably collectively have some egg on our faces no matter what our current thoughts on the topic are. Meaning, we'd get some parts right but then there would probably be the parts we never even imagined.

    Actually bringing your stinky biological backside somewhere does seem a bit inefficient in the grand scheme of things. A bit like Remote Viewing right? Why buy a plane ticket when the comfy chair is all you need?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,026
    That include those six figure salaries? Dunno what to believe but lining their own pockets seems to be Job #1.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,026
    And a burning desire for The Answer has allowed them to get away with it. They are well aware of that and that despite gaffes people will still come back again and again because (here comes that well worn phrase again) they're looking for a candy bar in the cat box.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  14. kbarannikova

    kbarannikova Honorable

    Messages:
    274
    nivek, can you investigate the theme of two scientists - Davydova and Pratchett?
     
  15. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
  16. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
    Yeah seems a little extravagant given the reality of their funding situation, they need to sell a lot of t-shirts and gift cards to keep paying those salaries...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
    Yeah we may think we can think logically and reasonably enough to extrapolate what's going on with these ufos but the truth could be stranger than we think, simply because we do not know how aliens think nor how they would apply technology in their lives...Likely, as you said, we probably got some bits right but without doubt there's a whole lot more we don't know and can only assume or theorize...

    ...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. kbarannikova

    kbarannikova Honorable

    Messages:
    274
    Nivek, thank you for your trouble, but that's not it...
     
  19. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    17,416
    Elizondo Transcript – SCU Q&A: Once Congress Says, “You Will Look At [UFOs]” The Stigma Will Be Gone
    by Joe Murgia

    In March of this year, Luis Elizondo was the keynote speaker at the first annual, Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena (AAP) conference put on by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). I finished transcribing the entire lecture many months ago and since the main part was already online, I posted it on this blog. I recommend you go read (or watch) that before moving on to this.

    Since this was a little different (semi-private and early on, invite-only) than your usual UFO-related conference, I waited to get approval before posting the Q&A portion because, at the time, it was not online. That approval never came as people are busy and have lives. A month ago, I realized that Rob Freeman, who shot it all, had placed it on YouTube, so I’m posting it now. The YouTube version left out some personal details Elizondo spoke about so I edited those out of my transcript.

    This now becomes my favorite transcript. Between Part 1 and this, there’s so much great information. If you still have any doubts Elizondo was intimately involved with and ran the AATIP program, and that program was 100% about UFOs, I don’t know what to tell you. Another great part of this presentation was seeing the many faces of the SCU’s, Rich Hoffman, as Elizondo was peppered with some tough questions. I think you’ll enjoy this on all fronts.

    (Note: If I caption a photo, that means it was screen grabbed at the time they were talking about that subject. Otherwise, they’re just randomly placed throughout the transcription to visually spice things up a bit. ~Joe)
    ~~~~~

    [​IMG]
    Luis Elizondo and Rich Hoffman

    Q: How do you explain, sir, that senior journalists have not followed up on the information released to the New York Times?

    Elizondo: I think it’s the same reason why scientists haven’t. Stigma. It’s a career killer. Now, it’s changing. But I think it was a career killer. And I think people like Alejandro Rojas can tell you first hand some of the challenges he had to endure. I will tell you, I know from personal experience, he’s a very, very respectable, investigative journalist. It just so happens that what he’s interested in happens to be aerial phenomena. And for that reason, people will look at it as…

    (Elizondo switches to a hand-held microphone and starts over)

    It’s the same reason why scientists haven’t followed up on this. Because of the social stigma that is usually associated with this portfolio. This phenomenon. And I used the example of Mr. Alejandro Rojas here, who I’ve had the honor and privilege to actually talk with. And I can tell you as a matter of fact, he is a true, blue investigative reporter. He’s very, very good at what he does. But because he decides to focus his efforts on this phenomenon, obviously, there’s a lot of stigma involved with that. So, that is a question I think that probably who can answer that better than me, more qualified, would be someone like him. But my guess is because of the stigma. It’s a career killer. The moment someone starts reporting on UAPs, all of a sudden you think of tin-foil hat and little green people and Elvis on the mother ship. And that’s a career killer, right? Even if you want to pursue it from a scientific perspective, there’s a mountain of stigma. So, part of defeating that stigma is first getting the government, which it already did, to acknowledge, “Yeah, you know what? We’re looking at these things. And by the way, we don’t want to admit it, either! Because there’s stigma!” So it’s totally understandable.

    Q: Would we have known about AATIP without you? Are you a whistleblower?

    Elizondo: No. A whistleblower is somebody who looks at malfeasance from the government and then comes out and wants protection. I’m not looking for protection and I didn’t see any malfeasance. I simply saw a problem systematically with the government, involving silos that needed to be broken down. I am not a leaker nor am I a whistleblower. Leakers are somebody who provides classified information in an unauthorized manner. And a whistleblower is somebody, like I said, who’s trying to point out malfeasance. That’s not me. None of those. I’m just a government guy who wanted to have a conversation and got very, very frustrated because I couldn’t inform my chain of command. And it was purely because of stigma. That’s it.

    Q: How many UFO reports did you receive from the military in a year?

    Elizondo: Which year? (Laughter from all)

    Q: Which group has been most skeptical of TTSA? Government, science or UFO enthusiasts?

    Elizondo: Yes. (Laughter again) All of them.

    Q: Since AATIP was sanctioned to collect info. on aerial threats, why wouldn’t they have the radar data from the 2004 (Nimitz/Tic Tac) event?

    Elizondo: I didn’t know we didn’t.

    Q: Scuttlebutt (rumors/gossip) reports say that many different species visit here. Mostly friendly or indifferent. Does this suggest we are in a neutral zone in interstellar space or unclaimed space?

    Elizondo: I am absolutely not qualified to answer that. I have no idea. It would be completely disingenuous of me to tell you what I think because frankly, I don’t have enough data. So, I respect the question. I think it’s a great question. But that’s a question I think that we need to have philosophers and theologians and the general public have. I’m not qualified. Respectfully, I’m not qualified to answer that question.

    Q: Where did AATIP fit into the DIA reporting structure and how much time did AATIP spend on UFOs?

    Elizondo: AATIP itself spent its entire time on UFOs but it wasn’t always at DIA. It was later moved up to OSD (The Office of The Secretary of Defense). So, DIA in the early days was very much in a role, a part of AATIP and the results were reported up to chain of command, to the highest levels, by the way. I won’t say who, but at the highest levels. But then later it was determined that the organization called AATIP and the effort, would be able to do more at The Office of the Secretary of Defense level. And so it was actually taken out of it – DIA – and I’m not sure that fact has come out yet but that’s what happened.

    Q: In your personal experience in the threat assessment program, has there been any evidence that could be assessed as a threat by the phenomena?

    Elizondo: So let’s, for just a moment, define threat. If you go to an airport and you stand too close to a jet engine, you’re probably gonna go deaf. Because they’re very loud. So, as a result, you can’t get too close to the jet engine. So that’s a threat. It’s a threat to your hearing. It’s a threat to your safety, right? If you go and you put your head in a microwave, bad things are gonna happen, right? I mean, probably not a very smart thing to do. There’s a biological threat there. Whether it’s intentional or not, I think is the question you might be asking. Because we tend to ascribe threats as intentional threats. Someone who’s out to try to harm you on purpose. Where in we were looking at this not necessarily from an intentional threat but any kind of threat. Environmental threat. Biological threat. You know, if you have a pilot that is getting barrel rolls over him with a UAP and all of a sudden now there’s associated hearing loss. Is that a threat? Even if it’s not intentional. Or if somebody says, “Look, I came close to one of these things,” and all of a sudden when they come back and you see them, they look like they’ve got radiation burn. Is that a threat? Well sure it is. It’s a medical threat. So, I’m careful not to say something is definitively a threat because I think we need to define first what a threat means. Cause threat means something different to different people. And whether you talk to a doctor or you talk to a police officer, you know, threats come in all different shapes and sizes.

    Q: Do you believe that there is a government agency, not AATIP, that has real-time access to military UFO reports?

    (Elizondo pauses sixteen seconds while thinking about what he wants to say. Audience member says, “We’ll take that as a yes.”)

    Elizondo: Now or before?

    Rich Hoffman: Let’s go with now for right now. We’ve already had Blue Book doing that so okay! (Laughs) But…now.

    Elizondo: I think I explained to the audience that the effort is alive and well. Read between the lines. Whatever that means.

    Q: How do you do scientific analysis on something inherently not reproducible like UFOs?

    Hoffman: Meaning, I think that, more like, you know, a UFO event happens in the sky and then it doesn’t happen again in the same space. That type of thing.

    Elizondo: Sometimes there are patterns and I’ll leave it at that. So to say that they’re not repeatable? I’m not sure I subscribe to that. But let’s just say they’re not repeatable for argument’s sake. I’ll suspend what I think and let’s just say they’re not repeatable. Well, let’s go back to the analogy I said before about the giant squid in the Pacific, right? That’s not a repeatable thing. These things are very elusive. They live very, very deep in the ocean. And to actually capture one on camera was almost impossible. Until we did it. And then we started to understand its migration patterns. We started understanding its feeding patterns. We started understanding it’s mating patterns. And then we could start drawing patterns that weren’t there before.

    So, UAP is no different. We have to collect the data. And then once you have the data, the data begins to speak for itself. And then you can start putting patterns together and that’s exactly what AATIP was doing. We were putting the patterns together. And we were using that under the construct of the five observables to do it.

    Q: Is all of this disclosure/confirmation happening now because the U.S. is behind our adversaries in developing this technology?

    Elizondo: That is a great question. I can’t answer on behalf of the U.S. government. What I can say is that, if we are aware of another nation who is looking into this…and let’s look at the 1970s as an example when Hal Puthoff, Dr. Hal Puthoff was working the remote viewing program for several of our members in the intelligence community. We knew, definitively, that the Russians were looking at this, too. So, as a result, we need to look at it. Because what may be pseudoscience today could be a breakthrough advantage tomorrow. And so looking at UAPs…sure, yeah, there’s other countries that are interested. I just showed you a slide there that showed you countries that are interested. So, it shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody that the United States would wanna keep a strategic edge over its potential adversaries.

    And especially if…especially…If one of those observables was mastered by a foreign country, whether it was hypersonic velocity…we hear now about the hypersonic cruise missile that Putin is putting out, right? And it’s got everybody terrified. Well that’s just one of those observables. Imagine a craft that can do all five of those. Think how terrifying that would be! Right? So, yeah, it’s incumbent upon us to make sure that we avoid strategic surprise by our potential adversaries. Not sure if that answered the question for you but I think it’s safe to assume that yeah, there are adversaries doing the same thing.

    [​IMG]
    Question About Abductions

    Q: Did the AATIP program at all look at any of the abduction phenomena or does it have any knowledge or evidence of extraterrestrial beings in physical form?

    Elizondo: I’m not qualified to answer that. I think you would be best after this or sometime this weekend, talking to my colleague, Hal. Not to throw you under the bus, but (he pauses and laughs as he looks at Hal) he’s far better at answering that question than I am.

    Q: Have you or TTSA found any exploitable technologies or theoretical concepts from UAP data that are exploitable? And if so, how public will this be?

    Elizondo: Yeah, absolutely we did. And I think in some cases it’s already going public. Let’s look at the warping of space-time. So, this is something that people kind of get excited about and really don’t understand what that means when we talk about warping space-time. What we’re talking about is…there’s two fundamental ways in which mankind is aware that you can warp space-time. And that is with a lot of mass or matter, like Earth or the Sun or any other celestial body that warps space-time. Or, a heck of a lot of energy. Because as we know, energy and matter are really inextricably entwined. It’s almost like steam compared to ice. They look and feel fundamentally different but they’re really kind of the same thing.

    So when you hear that the CERN and the large Hadron collider is now at the point, energy levels where we are creating micro black holes – and of course everybody gets scared that they’re gonna suck the Earth in…that’s not gonna happen – all they’re simply saying is that we’re approaching the energy levels now where we are warping space-time in the laboratory. And we’re doing it with energy. That’s all they’re saying. And so we’ve already accomplished that. We have already crossed that bridge. It’s not a matter of theoretical possibilities where we warp space-time. We’re doing it right now! So the question is now it becomes a technological question. When does the technology and the science catch up so we can scale it to a usable size that now we can actually take advantage of?

    But yes, a lot of those studies that you see, are real studies. The Drake Equation, now that people are aware of, I mean, that was a very real study. And the math is real. Warp drive! That’s not pseudoscience! That, what you see in those papers are now being substantiated at the CERN and Large Hadron Collider. Those very same principles. We talk about quantum entanglement. We talk about teleportation. These things that we thought were science fiction, we’re now doing it on a routine basis. In fact the Air Force has done some of this stuff with DARPA. So yeah, I guess to answer your question succinctly…absolutely.

    Q: Do you see the UAP issue as being potentially, politically unifying? Meaning the Dems and Republicans working together on this issue?

    Elizondo: It has already demonstrated to be a bipartisan issue in the past. We know that between Inouye, Stevens, Reid and John Glenn. And there was others as well. And now we’ve seen, in this last request, from the late Senator from Arizona, John McCain, that there were Democrats on that request. That FOIA request that went up to…it wasn’t really a FOIA request. It was just a request that went up to DIA. That was bipartisan. So yeah, you’re seeing it. You’re seeing it in action! It’s in writing. So, I think that’s also very good because it shows that Washington can cooperate with itself when it needs to.

    Q: During the Nimitz encounter, NASA was testing the X-43A Hyper-X in the same theater of operation. Do you know of any NASA confirmation of any anomalous activity in the air that they monitor?

    Elizondo: That’s one thing that we address very diligently. And you’ll see that probably in the coming weeks, coming months. There was a test. A hypersonic test. But you have to understand how those tests work and they use a Pegasus rocket. And basically, it’s a very linear trajectory and there’s a specific apogee, which I can’t go into. But it’s a very specific signature. And there’s no way to confuse a testing of a hypersonic, scaled down rocket, using Scramjet, with what we’re seeing.



    Hyper-sonic cruise missiles don’t do barrel rolls. They don’t hover. They don’t do a lot of the things that we’re seeing. We know it wasn’t a hypersonic cruise missile. NASA knows it wasn’t, too because we know where they shot it. We know where they flew it. And that’s about probably what I can say about that.

    Q: Given that scientists are analyzing the materials and elements, composition of the space material – things like stars, planets, nebula and more – what is being done to analyze the material composition of AAP (Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena) and might the same tools be used to identify substance materials.

    Elizondo: Again, great question and I’m gonna give that to Hal. That is definitely a Hal question.

    Q: Has anyone ever received a measurable dose of radiation from exposure to an AAP?

    Elizondo: (Smiles and whispers, “Damn”) Yeah, Hal. You heard him just say it. I can’t say it, but…

    Puthoff: (from the audience) Yes.

    Elizondo: There you have it.

    Q: Will we ever hear anything from TTSA about of the squares inside of a sphere – AAVs – that David Fravor spoke of?

    Elizondo: Yep.

    Q: How much of the keep it quiet be a holdover from the panic created by the 1938 radio broadcast by Orson Wells that we’ve been invaded. Fundamentally, is it not a matter of who controls the information? If you control the information, you effectively control the people.

    Elizondo: Great question. That’s why I think we need to engage our academics, our political leaders, our philosophers, our theologians. Because this conversation involves them as well. Those are the ones that have to figure out what type of impact this has to society. But let’s look at history as a brief measure. Let’s just go back even a year ago. There was some fear by a lot of people that if you acknowledge this, then all of a sudden, religions would go crazy and melt down and governments would go haywire and all society would just kind of go into mass pandemonium. Well that didn’t happen, did it? You just had the New York Times run an article. You had the Pentagon admit that the program was real. They even released videos and…no religions fell. No governments crumbled. So, I have a little bit more faith in mankind. I don’t think we’re as fragile as some people think. We trust the American people with the knowledge that there could an Ebola outbreak at any time. Or that there could be a super flu. Or that there is a rogue nation that is trying to build nuclear capabilities against our interests. So, I have faith in the American people that they’re probably okay to handle the truth. That’s my perspective.

    Q: Releasing some information, promising to release more and frustrating people when nothing significant happens for months can be counter productive. Why does TTSA follow that pattern?

    Elizondo: Well, what I would say is remember the analogy I used about the wave tops. There’s a whole lot going below the surface. And what we don’t wanna do is jeopardize those efforts just to satisfy idle curiosity. No disrespect intended. I understand people are very passionate about this. But we do not want to prematurely go down that path and wind up cutting the very avenues that we have worked so hard to establish to push this over the finish line. This is not a sprint, folks. This is a marathon. This is not the beginning of the end. This is not even the end of the beginning. This is gonna be a long haul. And this is gonna take patience. A lot of patience. And the last thing you wanna do is just rush through this and kind of say, “Ahh! I told you so!” That’s not what this is about. We only have one chance to do this the right way and we’ve got a lot of chances to do it the wrong way. So, we’re trying. Our approach is to try to be very deliberate about this. We understand people are hungry for information. That’s why you have people like Hal and I coming out here to do these conferences. We wanna give you the information. We want to satisfy that itch that you have. But at that same time…we don’t want to jeopardize the things that we have going on right now, that I promise you, in the end, will be worth it. You’re gonna look back and say, “Oh, man. You’re right! That makes sense. I can see why you couldn’t have that conversation right then.”

    So I do understand it’s frustrating and I know it comes across as disingenuous. All I can say is…have a little patience. I mean, look what we’ve done in the last year. I mean if any other person or organization even did one of those things, they’d be hailed as, “Oh, those guys are great!” But, you know, I feel like we can’t catch a break. I mean, you’ve got the government admitting that the program was real. And you have Congress admitting that they established it and that there was money to it and that there were results and that there were findings and there were studies and there were videos and…by the way, the program is still running.

    So, I mean…it’s like saying, “Hey, well. You know, I wanna know everything the CIA knows.” Well, you’re not gonna know all that. Because some of that stuff is still going on! So, if it’s going on, you’re not gonna know now. Those of you who work here near Redstone Arsenal can appreciate that. You know, you’re not gonna jeopardize an ongoing mission, just to satisfy curiosity. And I know it’s frustrating, but that is the environment we’re in, and we have to respect that. So, what you’re going to continue to see are these bits of information coming out that allow you to put the puzzle together and allow everybody else to understand what’s going on. Again, it’s not our job to just come out and be full disclosure. People tell me all the time, “We demand the truth! We deserve the truth!” Well, I don’t doubt that. But, hey, no offense but I don’t work for you. I’m trying to do something here that’s for the collective good. And if I had to go out and address each and every single time somebody wanted to know something, we wouldn’t be where we are today. So, I get it. I understand it. I respect it.

    Rich Hoffman: Have we mentioned anything about that thing coming out in May? I didn’t mention it. So, just to let you know, there’s a show that’s gonna be coming on the History Channel about the phenomena. I think it’s called the phenomena, right? “The Unidentified,” yes.

    Elizondo: So what you can expect is a six-part docu-series by investigative journalists who were with us. And we have on camera some pretty remarkable stuff. And I think you’re gonna look back and say, “Oh, wow! I didn’t know that.” And hopefully at that point you’ll begin to understand why it’s been a little bit of a slow dribble lately. It’s important that we help frame the conversation in a way that is universally understood. We can’t just paint a message that only scientists will understand. Or only millennials will understand. Or, only certain sector…it’s gotta be universally applicable. So everybody has a chance to absorb the information and process the information and make the determination for themselves, what it means to them. We’re not gonna tell you what to think about it. You need to do that job. You need to think about what this information’s gonna mean to you. And we have a lot of exclusive stuff. I mean, I think it’s gonna be changing the conversation.

    Q: Are there instances of damage done by UFOs or AAPs that you’re aware of? And then also, has there been any damage to countries or any threats to the national security?

    Elizondo: Simply put…yes? But that narrative is still being constructed so you can actually see it yourself. So, patience. I don’t think it’s gonna be…some of the people are gonna, you know, go crazy about it and say, “Oh, people are getting zapped!” That’s not what we’re talking about. But I think there’s been some very interesting provocations. And I think those provocations will be something that we will explore.

    [​IMG]

    Q: Has the government program built software to find patterns and be able to predict sightings? Predictive behavior and capabilities.

    (Elizondo looks at Hoffman and doesn’t answer the question)

    Rich Hoffman: So, the gist of it…let me share something. I work at the base. It’s a great question. The challenges that we’ve had all along in Ufology is being able to predict…After you get through the, all of the UFO reports, right? Realizing that you can explain probably like 90% of them, right? Then you get down to the residual 10%, where you can’t really do it. And then how many of those things are classified projects that are, you know, flights that you don’t even know about, right? So some of those might fall off. So you’re down to talking about 5%. What I’m trying to tell you is that UFO sightings that are typically like the unknowns are extremely rare.

    Elizondo: And if I may add real quick. Look, if you have analytic data that allows you to identify an unidentified aerial vehicle in your air space, that’s the same type of technology you can use to identify a foreign adversarial, aircraft or one of your own, experimental aircraft, right? So this applies more than to just UAPs. So I’m not being cagey with you on purpose or trying to be cute. I’m just letting you know that there’s things that I’m not at liberty to discuss because they apply to more than just one thing. And so, because of that, for certain reasons, I’m not at liberty to have a conversation about that. So, just so you understand my perspective. I’m not trying to be cagey.

    Q: Is AATIP a partner in any way with Solar Warden?

    Elizondo: Not to my knowledge. I’ve never heard of that company. Probably my ignorance. But…no. Hal, are you aware of that?

    Puthoff: It’s just a conspiracy thing about…there’s a completely reverse-engineered, operations going on.

    Elizondo: Oh. Yeah, I don’t know anything about that. I’m sorry. I really don’t.

    Q: What can people do to support the efforts of TTSA?

    Elizondo: Be patient. That’s what you can do. Be patient. Try to be a little more understanding. I know it’s tough but we are working very, very hard to bring this forward. And it’s not easy. And this is not a get-rich-quick, scheme. Most of us have suffered severe, financial duress doing this. You leave a lucrative, government job. You’re at the top of your game. You’re parking in the same parking lot that the Secretary of Defense parks in. You got 401ks. You got pensions. You got retirement. You got life insurance. You got health insurance. You leave that all behind to…do this. So, be patient, please, is what I would ask. And check in from time to time. We’re approachable. I mean…talk to us. Talk to Hal. Talk to me. Call us. Or write an email to To The Stars. We answer them. Believe it or not, there’s people out there that will tell you, “Hey, actually, you know what? I wrote a blog and they responded!” We’re not unapproachable. We’re not Hollywood superstars. We’re just people and we’re just trying to do the mission that you all expect us to do. That’s all. We’re held accountable. We have investors. We have to protect their investment as well. So, even if I wanted to do what I wanted to do. I can’t. I have to make sure that what we’re doing is for the collective good of what our mission statement says. We are a B Corporation so we’re for a public benefit. But at the same time, we also have investors. So…and I’m not a business guy, so I can’t really talk much about that. I just know that we have to sometimes walk a bit of a tightrope. So, I would ask that you please be patient.

    Q: At a gathering in Italy last year, you acknowledged, briefly, a pattern of UFO interest in nuclear weapons sites. The research of Robert Hastings has shown that this association has persisted for 70 years. (Hoffman – “He’s done a great job with that information.”) Some think the UFO interest in nukes is protective of the human race but this could be wishful thinking. Why do you think UFOs show a persistent interest in nukes? (Hoffman – “And did AATIP ever look into any of that?”

    Elizondo: I have a personal position on it. But I’m loathe to provide my personal position. Because at the end of the day, as I told people before, I can be absolutely sure about something and I can still be absolutely wrong. So, I’d rather let the facts and data speak for themselves. Yes, there’s some synergies there. There’s some congruencies. Absolutely. We do know for a fact that there is some interest…strategic interest in our nuclear capabilities. Albeit whether it’s nuclear energy, nuclear weapons development, nuclear delivery capabilities…but that’s about all I can say because we get real…If I didn’t have a security clearance, I could probably talk a lot more about this. But, I can’t. I can’t even speculate because…if you will, the crown jewel to U.S. defense is its nuclear capability. And the U.S. government’s very, very protective of that information. So…and I don’t want to speculate. Again, if you’re really interested, come talk to me afterwards and I’ll share with you my view. But I’m gonna caveat now, very publicly, that I could be wrong. And so, just take it with a grain of salt. I don’t want anybody taking what I think as being gospel and now thinking, okay this is the way it is. Because I’m giving you my opinion in an unqualified situation.

    Q: Considering that we’re in the land of NASA, what was or is NASA’s role in any studying or investigating of this phenomenon?

    Elizondo: Huge. NASA’s role…you know I look at this as kind of a three pillar capability. And please forgive me. This is the first time I’ve really spoke about this. One of my colleagues kind feels this way, too. You have SETI, which is out there looking for radio signals and looking for life, potentially. Intelligent life from well beyond the Milky Way. Then you have NASA looking for microbial life right here within our solar system. Then you have TTSA looking at…maybe, the other option. That it’s already here. And it’s here now. And it’s impacting our national security equities. So, I think we need to work together, collectively. I don’t think this is an either/or situation. I think we have to work together. NASA has the capabilities and resources to look at this from their perspective. Just as SETI has their mission. Just as we have ours. So I’m not sure that answers the question but I think NASA’s role is huge.

    Q: Did you, at any time, find any kind of indications that we have a very strong relationship that exists between the UFO phenomenon and oceans?

    Hoffman: The planet is definitely surrounded by three quarters water. In fact, I question why we call it Earth. It might be better named, Water. Are we talking about a phenomenon that has a relationship to the oceans. Especially like when you consider those Nimitz cases and stuff like that, right?

    Elizondo: That’s a very fair question and I think that would be a very safe presumption. Look, the Navy has a global presence so everybody knows about the Nimitz incident and we’ll soon learn about some other ones. So it could just be a fact that they are everywhere that everybody else isn’t. But we believe that there is some…yeah there’s some relationship with water. Now what does that mean? Is it because they’re under there? Under the ocean? Or is it because maybe there’s…the hydrogen is being mined as a fuel source? You can run wild with speculation, right? So this is again, why we need more data. I could sit here and tell you all the theories that some of the folks in AATIP have had but that’s not going to do you any good. At the end of the day, we really, we just need more data. And we need the data in order to help paint that picture. And then maybe we can start making some assessment as to why this affinity to H2O.

    Q: Was the Vatican or the Catholic Church ever involved in AATIP in any way? Please explain this. Is this consistent with the work of Dr. Diana Pasulka.

    Elizondo: I can’t speak on behalf on the Vatican and that is a question that you’d have to ask the Vatican, right? So if like a kid says, “Hey, mom, can I go to the mall?’” Well, you need to ask your father. I don’t wanna say yes or no. I’d rather…if you’re asking me a question that involves a 3rd party, you need to first ask that 3rd party, out of respect for them. I don’t wanna answer in any way, shape or form. I don’t have that authority and I don’t wanna assume to have that authority. I think it’s safe to say that they have an interest. And they should. I think all churches should. I think any religion should. Because this applies to them! Just as much as it does to you and me. So, that’s probably about all I can say about that.

    Q: Was was the role of the U.S. Navy and/or the NRO in the AATIP?

    Elizondo: Tough crowd! I don’t think I can talk about that.

    Q: Did AATIP ever investigate abductions and can you explain…were there any patterns between abductees like Rh negative, blood, consciousness, etc…?

    Elizondo: Can I buy a vowel instead? Over to Hal. (Question isn’t answered)

    [​IMG]

    Q: Were the following people read onto the AATIP like Mr. Brennan, General Clapper, General Mattis, General Kelly, General Flynn or General Ashley?

    Elizondo: I absolutely cannot answer that question.

    Q: Did the AATIP/MUFON, STAR Teams or Bigelow Aerospace, ever collect, retrieve or procure any biological evidence, DNA or genetic material? If so, can you explain?

    Elizondo: A really good, insightful question. That’s a question that I would leave to an individual who I’ve always looked up to: Mr. Bob Bigelow, to answer. You’re asking me about what he did, in his company, under Bigelow. You didn’t say AATIP, so you said Bigelow. So I have to defer to Mr. Robert Bigelow to answer those questions.

    Q: Which installations did the AATIP reside at? Not asking for any classified specifics.

    Elizondo: It was a confederated effort. It was over several locations. I can’t say specifically where but it was throughout the national capital region and beyond.

    Q: Which military service agency within the IC (Intelligence Community) would be the best focal point for FOIA requests related to the phenomenon, AATIP and/or this technology?

    Elizondo: If I was a betting man, I would probably stick to knocking on the doors of DIA. They have already admitted that they – after some time – that they actually were running part of the program. I’d keep knocking on those doors.

    Q: In reference to the group of U.S. government leaders who felt the phenomena was demonic, would this same group be known under the moniker of Collins Elite?

    Elizondo: I’m not gonna assign labels. There were absolutely a core group of individuals that were adamantly against what we were doing not because the empirical data wasn’t there but because it was philosophically in contradiction to their philosophical belief system. I respect it. I don’t agree with it. But I respect it. And one of these individuals was actually a very close colleague and mentor of mine. So imagine that? Imagine having somebody who you look up to for so long and who’s a very senior person in the intelligence community, telling you not to pursue this because it went against his ideological belief system. Umm…(pause) Yeah, true story.

    Q: To your knowledge, has anyone ever estimated the number of anomalous craft present on Earth at any given time? Is it tens, hundreds, or thousands?

    Elizondo: That is a great question. I honestly have no idea but it is something that, if it’s okay, whoever asked that question, I’d like to add it to my requisite. That would be a phenomenally, fascinating point of research. So, if it’s okay…whoever wrote that, thank you. I’m gonna steal it and we’ll start to see if we can find out.

    Hoffman: You guys write great questions, by the way. These are very, very in depth. And I just wanna applaud this gentleman next to me because he is trying to carefully dance a sweat dance up here!

    [​IMG]
    Sweat Dance

    Q: Can you explain how the DoD’s space fence is related to the study of or surveillance of this phenomenon?

    Elizondo: So let’s look at it this way…If you’re looking at signatures of an incoming ICBM missile and that signature is coming in from orbit at tens of thousands of miles an hour or we’l; say. And it’s very small and can do certain things. Oh look, low observability, hypersonic velocities, right? Already we got two of those observables there. Then maybe some of those same capabilities can be leveraged to look at the UAP, right? So, wouldn’t you want to to use some of those same assets and capabilities that you do, to identify more conventional-type threats if you can dual use it to also serve the purpose of looking at UAPs? And then if you can go ahead of overlay it in a way where you’re using, you know, high-orbit, mid-orbit, low-orbit atmospheric altogether, right? And you stitch that together, now you got a really good common operating picture of the battle space. Yeah, I can’t answer that question specifically but I can tell you from a common sense perspective…yeah, of course that makes sense. You wanna leverage the hell out of those things.

    Q: Which services and/or agencies do not want disclosure/confirmation, or would not support it, in your opinion?

    Elizondo: All of them. I am sure they want me to go away, yesterday.

    Q: The accelerations of these craft are on the order of one thousands of Gs. What information or data exists to indicate how these craft work? And what is known about how they work? Is it often assumed that they are warping space? Would it be like Alcubierre drive? Or what evidence is there for this? We have no theory of quantum gravity. Could the quantum gravity be more relevant?

    Elizondo: Wow. So let’s start with the instantaneous acceleration. Yes, there are scientific models and Hal can give you a better explanation of it. But if you reduce the mass of something, you reduce the inertial forces. That’s simple. That’s physics. So if you have the technology to reduce the mass of something, then you have the ability to maneuver in ways that conventional technology currently doesn’t have that ability to do. But furthermore, if you can warp space-time, all sorts of interesting things can happen. But let me put this out there: warping space-time is, forgive the pun, it’s relative. It’s not really relative but it’s relative. Let’s say, hypothetically, we’re all sitting on the surface of this Earth right now, we’re all affected by gravity equally. But what if you had some special material that, under certain circumstances, created a field around you. And that field actually insulated yourself from the natural effects of Earth’s gravity.

    Now two things would happen. People talk about the first observable which is, oh, well, all of a sudden now you float in the sky and you don’t need an engine. But something else happens. Because remember what Einstein said: Space and Time are together. So if you insulate yourself from the effects of Earth’s gravity, by definition, you have to insulate yourself from all the effects of Earth’s gravity. To include time. And remember, folks, time goes by differently for us here on this planet than it does even for some of our GPS satellites up there. Because they are fundamentally further away from the mass of Earth. So the cesium atomic clocks go by at a different rate. Time is relative. So if you were to have the ability to insulate yourself, cocoon yourself, from the effects of Earth’s gravity, well, time itself would go by different. Wouldn’t it? And all sorts of things would happen.

    And if you had this, let’s say, this bubble or this event horizon was around this glass here, well it would appear to be kind of weird looking, too. It’d be kind of like this weird, low observable thing. And also, it would have this ability to travel at speeds that would just not be possible for us. And it would also be able to maneuver in ways that would seem to be magic. Instantaneous acceleration. When in reality, if you were inside that bubble it would be a walk in the park. We would all be going in slow motion. But to us, this thing is maneuvering in ways that seem like magic. And…well, positive lift…well if gravity’s not pulling you down, now you don’t have to worry about actually having some sort of engine source ‘cause gravity doesn’t exist for you. And so all sorts of things become possible. So maybe, instead of there being five exotic technologies to explain the five different observables. Maybe all what we’re seeing, all those observables, are really a manifestation of a single technology. And the ability to insulate yourself from whatever gravitational forces is in the environment. Something to think about.

    Q: Why don’t we put together the brightest minds from every university or lab in the country? Or even the world? Especially since physicists and engineers are…to recover any captured and advanced technology – alien or otherwise – whatever the source.

    Hoffman: Why aren’t we eliciting all that wonderful brain matter?

    Elizondo: I thought that’s what this was, no? Isn’t that what you guys do? That’s exactly what we need to do. That’s what we’re trying to do. It takes time. You gotta break down stigmas. You gotta have conversations like this with rational minded people. And then they have to have conversations with other rational minded people. And convince scientists that it’s okay to have a conversation about things that we don’t quite yet understand. But that takes time. You have to convince…investigative reporters like Mr. Alejandro Rojas, who’s willing to go out on a limb and cover this kind of stuff. But he does it because he believes in what he’s doing. So we need more people like that. There’s a couple of other people in the audience that I recognize, too that have put their credibility on the line to pursue this. And that’s exactly what I mean. So the conversation began last year and it is continuing to move forward. You have momentum now like you’ve never had before. You have Congress listening. You have the administration listening. And they’re not turning their backs. They’re not giggling. They’re not laughing. They’re taking this with dead seriousness.

    So, I don’t know how much more of a profound accomplishment you want. You did it. Now let’s not screw it up. We got this far because people know we’re serious. And we’re not into the world of trying to play gotcha or I told you so or anything like that. We’re trying to push the conversation forward where it belongs so humanity can try to finally figure out what this all means.

    Q: For alleged abduction cases, especially for individuals claiming repeated visitations, why aren’t we doing the best to be able to equip their bedrooms with cameras and bodies with subcutaneous GPS chips in order to record scientific evidence?

    Hoffman: How many of you are aware of Fitbit? I just wanna point to you the interesting thing that…this is actually recording my heart rate, the fact that I’m sleeping all night long, or recording every minute. It’s got the whole thing, talking about the number of steps that I take. Would it be an interesting experiment to be able to take this and put this on people who are claiming abductions to actually have this remotely have the data gathered or something like that? And looking at that? This are kinds of things that we can approach it in a different way if we have those types of things and look for data. We don’t know what the effects of this (Fitbit) would be on those individuals. But again, it gives you some sort of metrics to be able to understand what they might be going through. I just wanted to share that with you.

    Elizondo: That’s a really good question. I think that what’s important know that…I belong…I was a creature of the intelligence community and I always preferred the shadows. This whole spotlight thing is new to me. I don’t particularly like it. It’s a bit uncomfortable. But intelligence, which is where AATIP fell under, follows certain rules. And what a lot of people don’t realize, especially the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community, we have something called intelligence oversight. And any time you deal with Joe Public, there are very specific procedures and circumstances that either allow us or don’t allow us, prohibit us from dealing with the public. And when you talk about actually medical stuff, we start getting into a world of what we call human experimentation. That is what they call a Procedure 13. In DoD directive 52, a hundred series. I think it’s 52-40 if I’m not mistaken. It’s either that or dot one. So, we have to be very careful because, in the past, the government and the military was unfortunately, at times, guilty of doing things on human beings that probably shouldn’t have. And that goes back even to World War II where we were doing the atomic testing. So that Procedure 13 is a very serious violation. For me to go out and do anything regarding biological as an intelligence officer of the United States government, on another human being would very, very quickly raise eyebrows and very likely land me in jail.

    Q: When you say we will learn more about the Nimitz and other cases, do you mean that this is gonna be on that History Channel program?

    Elizondo: I do. What better way to get the conversation going than let everybody see it themselves, right? One thing for me to sit here in a suit and tell you something. Another thing is for you to sit there and actually watch and talk to the people who were there. And see it for yourself. So, yes. That’s our hope. That you will, in May, begin to appreciate why we’ve been quiet for the last seven months. I don’t want to speak specifically about certain things but hopefully you can be the judge of that yourself.

    Q: Do you know anything about the relationship between UFOs and the paranormal at the Skinwalker Ranch? I find it extremely puzzling. What is your position on the kind of phenomena witnessed at Skinwalker Ranch and is it related to UFOs or some kind of other worldly entities?

    Elizondo: I’m gonna speak to you from Lue right now. This is my opinion. I am deliberately not gonna address this from an AATIP perspective. I think we live in a really big Universe. Most people realize now that there are several hundred billion stars in our galaxy. There are several hundred billion stars in the observable Universe. And the last time we looked at the assessment was that there were more stars in the observable Universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches in the entire world. That is a phenomenally, almost impossibly large number to wrap your head around. And in fact, if I look to my left and I go 13.5 billion light years in that direction and I look to my right and I go 13.5 billion light years in that direction, that’s a distance of 27 billion light years in between. And that’s just what we can see.

    So there’s a lot of stuff out there that we don’t under…we don’t even understand half of what’s in our ocean! Or even in our neighborhood, right? How many of you know who your kid sits next to in lunch class? Not many. So there’s a lot that we don’t know. So for us to speculate that everything we see is…that’s it, I think is short-sighted. I think when you look at the electro-magnetic spectrum, I’m looking at you right now from a very small sliver that we call visible light. A very small sliver. But we know there’s infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray…everything from…all the way from gamma rays to cosmic radiation…all the way to microwave and everything down below. And we look at the Universe that way. How many times do we look through a Hubble telescope in the optical field and we see nothing but black space? The moment you put it into infrared, BANG the whole Universe lights up. It was invisible to our naked eye and yet it’s very real and very there.

    We see quasars that way. That’s how we see quasars. From billions of light years away. Before this planet was even here. That light left. That quasar. So, for us to assume that, this is it…everything you see is…that’s it? I mean, I would submit to you then if that’s the case, then how do you explain love? You can’t see it. You can’t hear it. You can’t really even measure it with your five senses and yet, most people in this room would agree that it’s real. Yet we can’t even explain it. So if we can’t explain that, who’s to say these other things aren’t real? There’s cultures out there…Native American cultures, that consider this very much a reality. This alternate universe so to speak. Who are we to say that they’re wrong? We’re not. So again, I think we need a lot more data.

    So for those people who are pioneering and visionary enough to explore that, I salute them. Why wouldn’t you want to explore that? Why not? Well, you don’t because of stigma. And that’s what we need to overcome. Because stigma, at the end of the day, will paralyze everybody from everything. You will never move forward. That man would have never gotten on the Moon. Right there. Because, by the way, the picture below that that I was referring to…about that dusty road with a bunch of Model Ts on it? The scientists, just forty-five years before that picture of the man on the Moon was taken, there were actual, serious scientists who believed the Moon was made out of cheese. Cheese! I’m not kidding you. Now we laugh and we think that’s ridiculous now. But that was real! There was a time when the patent office said we’re going to close down because in ten years, everything that needs to be invented will have been invented. How short-sighted, right? There was a time, where the Air Force was absolutely sure that we would never be able to break the sound barrier. You got a Saturn V rocket out there that did it just ten years after that. So I think we need to change our paradigm a little bit as a human beings and what it means to be a human being. That’s all I have to say about that.

    [​IMG]

    Hoffman: I have a lot of related questions here. What’s going on in Antarctica? What are your thoughts on Antarctica, Dulce…

    Elizondo: It’s cold.

    Hoffman: That’s very true. A lot of people asking about Richard Doty, who was working for OSI as a government agent. And helping to plant in somebody’s mind, some fake material using kind of like a strategy to be able to…we would use in military efforts with another country where we’re trying to influence something. What are your thoughts about all these things and is there a secret space program?

    Elizondo: I don’t know Mr. Doty so I’m not gonna comment. He’s not relative to the discussion that my colleagues and I have. I respect people’s opinions. Hopefully they respect mine. But I can’t comment about somebody that I’ve never met. And I deliberately choose not to do that. There’s a lot of people out there that do that with me and I don’t really appreciate it. There’s a lot of people out there that assume I have some sort of ulterior motive or that I’m trying to do something underhanded and…they’ve never met me, they’ve never talked to me. So, I’m gonna politely side-step that question ‘cause I don’t know the individual.

    As far as a secret Space Force? Is that what you said? (Hoffman shakes his head yes but the question was about a Secret Space Program) I don’t know if it’s such a secret any more. I mean, I think they kind of already made an announcement, right? They wanna make a Space Force. As far as historical Space Force? That’s what I’ve heard about discussions about going to different planets.

    [​IMG]
    Obama On Mars?

    Hoffman: There’s a group of people like Richard Doty. Not Richard Doty. Basiago and a whole variety of people who have claimed that they’ve been up there (Mars) and basically, I think they saw Obama when he was out there, too. And there were blue people and various other…Anyway, that’s what they’re talking about. I know you’re talking about the new Space Force we’re gonna get. Maybe now it’s gonna be put under the Air Force. This a whole different matter and this is in that whole conspiracy kind of thing that’s going on. Not a world that you played in, sir. Thankfully. (Actually, there are serious people who think we may have a secret space program. ~Joe)

    Q: Who made the decision to release the information in the Pentagon? Was it a group committee decision or how did that happen?

    Elizondo: It was a group decision that then went up to the DoD for final approval through the official DoD, 1910 process. And it was the DOPSR, (Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review ~Joe) the official DOPSR office that is responsible…chartered for making that decision. And ultimately, the decision was up to them. And they approved it.

    Q: Is the government consulting AATIP or anyone else on how to release information without disrupting the status quo. In other words, is the government afraid people are going to freak out?

    Elizondo: I don’t want to answer anything involving, right now, what the government may or may not be asking us to do because I think it would require the government to answer part of that question. And I certainly don’t want to speak on behalf of the government.

    Q: Is there a connection to the current phenomenon and Operation Paperclip?

    Elizondo: As it regards to AATIP? No. Historically, I can’t answer that. That would be another Hal question (smiles and winks at Puthoff).

    Q: In the era of iPhones and YouTube, including horrific videos of 9/11, for example, why do we not have more incontrovertible evidence of AAPs and USCs. Does the government intercept and confiscate it all? Why don’t we have hi-res photos from the general public using smart phones?

    Elizondo: So let’s go back to the great squid. It’s real. How many of you have a really close picture of a blue whale breaching, that you took? Probably not many. And yet, we all know they’re real. We know they’re there, right? There are pictures that have been taken of blue whales and giant squid and these other elusive creatures. But most of Joe Public never really gets to see them because they are elusive. That’s why, for so long, they were a point of conjecture. So, to say that pictures like that don’t exist? They do exist. Why hasn’t Joe Public taken any of those? Well I’m not sure they haven’t. I don’t know. I think there’s a lot of stuff that’s coming out on social media on a semi-regular basis. I haven’t been able to do the research and analysis on it but maybe we should. I don’t know.

    Q: You mentioned these UAPs have the capabilities to hover for days. When was this observed and what was the response?

    Elizondo: Stay tuned. Yes, we have actual data with these things being able to do that. From very reliable, highly trained sources. And the data is there. What was done about it? Well, you saw with the Nimitz. We scrambled something out to go look at it.

    Q: Is the current political and social landscape having a positive or negative impact on research and disclosure?

    Elizondo: Neither, really. I think people think this is a political issue but I don’t really think it is. I think most politicians wanna stay far away from it until they have to be involved. Probably a politically smart thing to do. I don’t blame them necessarily. But we’re past that. And it’s been my experience before and my experience now that it is absolutely a bipartisan issue. And no one seems to be making this a political issue, thankfully. The individuals that I have been fortunate enough to be exposed to at our level, the higher levels of government… every single one of them has taken this stone cold serious. And for me, that’s encouraging. I mean that means that our government is trying to work. It’s listening and it’s not scoffing. And it’s not one or two. It’s started off with four or five., became seven, became nine and now you’ve got a lot of people involved. So that’s great news.

    Q: Given how we have identified numerous, Earth-like planets, exoplanets nearby, has anyone ever attempted to track craft trajectories to exoplanets which we then can point our telescopes and SETI towards.

    Elizondo: AATIP did not. We were too focused on the here and now. It was more as to…what are these things doing in our operational environments? And are they a threat to our military capabilities? And what are their capabilities? That was our focus.

    Q: Why, in your opinion, has the public lost interest, in general, with the space race? Why have we not been back to the Moon for years?

    Elizondo: Pure conjecture on my part. I think for the last decade and a half, we’ve been a society that’s been pretty distracted. We’ve been distracted with global issues. Whether it be terrorism. Whether it be wars and conflict. Whether it be climate change. Whether it be…whatever issue du jour we’ve been dealing with. But these issues require a lot of money and they don’t lend themselves to being distracted by outside things. And so when you talk about the UAP “threat,” well…at the end of the day you have to determine to yourself what’s more of a threat: North Korea with nuclear capabilities and ISIS? Or UAPs? And there’s only so much money, so much resources to go around. So, until you tell me a UAP has just blown up one of my aircraft carriers, you know what, that’s (points to the right) not my priority. That’s (points to the left) my priority. And so I understand it. From a military perspective, that makes sense. I don’t necessarily agree with it.

    I don’t think this is like a conversation about fine wine that gets better the longer you leave a cork in it. I think we need to have the conversation now. I think yesterday. But I do understand, from that corporate perspective, why maybe this is not…why we haven’t been into another space race, so to speak. It’s just not a national priority. But at the end of the day, if it’s not a national priority it’s because you didn’t make it a national priority. And yes, I’m putting that on your shoulders squarely. Because you are the people.You are the ones who elect officials. You are the ones that set what the priority should be. And so, if you’re not doing it then somebody else will do it for you. So, if you want this to be a national priority then you have to engage your elected officials. That’s what they’re there for. And tell them you want this to be a priority. And give them briefings. And give them data. And then it becomes a national priority. And, I’ll go out on a limb here, I think it’s becoming one again. I think we’re getting there.

    Q: Convincing scientists that these craft are real is of paramount importance to progress. What information can be disclosed…what type of data that will convince and enlist the scientific community?

    Elizondo: You know, it’s funny…when you talk to a scientist, when you, (laughs) you get a couple of whiskeys in him or her and have a serious conversation. A lot of times they’ll tell you, “You know, it’s funny, my mom told me a story growing up that she saw a UFO.” Or, “You know what? I saw something once, I was on a desert road and you know, I just can’t explain it.” So, you know, I think scientists are people like everybody else. I think they are subject to peer pressure. I think they’re subject to ridicule. I think they’re subject to budgets. Nobody wants to lose your funding. Nobody wants to, you know, I mean…come on…we’ve all got mortgages to pay. So I get it.

    And so, unfortunately, a lot of the scientists that are involved in this, they do it on the down low. Because it’s considered fringe. It’s taboo, right? So the question is, how do we break that taboo? How do we break that stigma so scientists can, can…I mean, look…okay, you’re sitting here with a guy (Hal Puthoff ~Joe) who ran the psychic program for the U.S. government. I mean, I don’t know how more taboo that gets. And yet it was real and he got it off the ground and it was running and it was successful. And now you call it something fancy like remote viewing but at end of the day, it’s a pretty interesting stuff. You’re using human cognitive capabilities to collect espionage on a foreign country, separated by space and time. I mean, if that’s not wild science, I don’t know what it is. Right? And yet he succeeded. And he is a real scientist. One of the best of the best. So if you wanna know how you crack that code, that’s the guy you talk to. Cause I’m not a scientist. I’m just an old gum shoe investigator. He’s the guy who did it. And he did it again and again and again. He’s got a track record of doing that. Of breaking taboos, breaking barriers and making programs that, by the way, have kept this country safe for a very long time. So my suggestion is you should ask him.

    Q: Can you speak about the NORAD intercept data that happens on a regular basis?

    Elizondo: I cannot.

    Q: Have the preliminary results of your recent, materials analyses supported or challenged your theories on the physics behind the phenomenon?

    Elizondo: Supported, on the physics. But some of the material, as I said, has turned out…it looks like, to be, fairly ordinary. So, it’s really…we’re talking about…the minority of the material that is truly extraordinary. And that has reinforced the opinions and the conclusions of so far that we have.

    Q: Is any of your focus on the occupants of the UAP?

    Questioner clarifies: “Both AATIP and TTSA and what they’re doing now.”

    Elizondo: AATIP? To a limited degree. Umm…yeah, to a limited degree. Early on. TTSA? Yep. Sure. Absolutely. We wanna cast a wide net. We wanna catch as many fish as we can. So you cast a really, really wide net. And you’re gonna reel in a lot of minnows. We got it. But, you also may get some sizable fish there that you wanna keep. So, that’s been our strategy.

    [​IMG]
    Tough Questions

    [​IMG]

    Q: Have we attempted to shoot down any UAP? Have we succeeded? Have we recovered any tech or beings, dead or alive?

    Elizondo: (shaking his head back and forth) I can’t answer those questions.

    Hoffman: Out of curiosity, did AATIP program look at or consider any of the stuff that like maybe, Len Stringfield did with the crash retrievals or look into any of those crashes?

    Elizondo: I can’t.

    Q: Has anybody studied the physical or psychological effects on observers?

    Elizondo: Yep. Cause actually, some very qualified individuals in the medical field. I can’t comment on what they’re doing and what they have done but these are extremely professional individuals who have the qualifications, expertise and the vitae to answer that question. And they’re looking at it.

    Q: Is there anything known about the pilots themselves, of these craft?

    Elizondo: At this point, I wouldn’t wanna assume anything. I don’t wanna say there’s pilots. Are they UAVs? Are they manned, or any combination in between? I’m certainly not prepared to go there at this point. I think it’s too premature. I think we need more data.

    Q: I was invited to the first NASA techno-signatures workshop in Houston in October 2018. The SETI folks are not on board with looking for UFOs. Despite efforts to locate alien artifacts on the Moon and asteroids, how can we get SETI and NASA on board?

    Elizondo: So let me respectfully agree to disagree on one note. To say that there’s alien artifacts on the Moon and Mars. I’m not convinced of that. I understand people feel that way and I respect their feelings. But I haven’t seen any empirical data to substantiate that. Other than a couple of folks, you know, on a couple of sites saying that. So I haven’t seen anything from government channels to substantiate that.

    But to the bigger note, as far as what SETI is doing…you know, SETI has a mission and they’re using the tools that they have to do their mission. I don’t…like I said, I think it’s a three-pronged approached. If you wanna try to catch a butterfly or a fly with chopsticks, it might be kind of tough, right? But then again, if you’re trying to catch something else – a mouse, maybe? Maybe it works? So, I think there is use for SETI. I think it’s a great mission.

    I’m a little disappointed that when we came out, they were viscerally opposed to what we were trying to do because at the end of the day, we’re doing the exact same thing they are. We’re using the scientific approach, within the means and capabilities that we have, to look at something we don’t understand. With, by the way, a hell of a lot more evidence. There’s no speculation on this. This is real. It’s there. I mean, we got it. So, the question is what it is? We don’t know. But it is there. I mean, that’s…we’re beyond that. That horse has left the gate, it’s gone. So, why would people be opposed to trying to figure that out? I don’t know. Other than maybe we’re getting into their rice bowls. But I think SETI’s mission is a real mission and I think it’s warranted and I think we should spend money on it. If you ask me personally. I think it’s a good mission.

    Q: Can you talk about the directed energy weapons capability of the U.S. government and weather they’re being used on U.S. citizens?

    Elizondo: I can’t address that but I can tell you most certainly they’re not being used on U.S citizens. Folks, I hate to disappoint you…that is absolutely not occurring. You can rest easy. They’re not using directed energy weapons at you. But that’s all I can say about that.

    Q: Are you aware of any geo-engineering programs?

    Elizondo: (No answer)

    Q: Has anyone been able to translate symbols that may be an extraterrestrial language?

    Elizondo: I don’t have the expertise to answer that. That wasn’t our focus.

    Q: What, in your opinion, is the best way to sift and sort through mountains of hoaxes and mistakes to find truly inexplicable, AAP data?

    Elizondo: Data, data, data. Put everything in. Even junk. If you make the machine, the sausage machine good enough, all the junk will get thrown out. That’s why you have AI. That’s why we’re building our VAULT. Our virtual, analytic, UAP learning tool. That’s why we have the ADAM Project. It is a very, very expensive effort. It is not cheap. But if you do it right, the analytics will sift through everything and hopefully, separate the chaff from the wheat. And so that is why we are endeavoring on that effort. Because we believe it’s important enough. So, how who you do that? Well, you hire the best of the best from places like Google and Sony, to come out and help you with the AI. And that AI will be able to identify patterns that us as human beings aren’t able to do. And that’s gonna be fielded. That’s gonna be something you’re gonna be able to access from your computer, your iPhone.

    So, this is gonna be data you’re gonna be able to pull up any time and do whatever the hell you wanna do with it. Which I think is fascinating, I think that’s great. So that’s something that we’re trying to do. And again, to answer your question succinctly – I know I’m kind of yammering – it’s all about the algorithms that go on behind the scenes. And you have to teach the system how to recognize what is legitimate and what is not. And it’s not gonna be done on a singular basis. It has to be a…basically…look at all the data and then come up with the necessary AI protocol to say, “Actually, that is something very significant or that is not.” And you’re not gonna be able to do that until you have the complete picture. So, again…data, data, data. Give it to me. I don’t care if it’s junk. I don’t care. I want real. I want junk and everything between. Because we will sort it out.

    [​IMG]

    Q: Where did the material come from, that you’re taking about, and you showed and when can you discuss this?

    Elizondo: It will be discussed very soon. Again, stay tuned. And by the way, this is not a cheap plug for the show. If you don’t watch it, that’s fine. It’s just to let you know that all these questions that you’re asking, we tried to anticipate seven months ago. So, that’s what we built into this thing. We’re not doing this show, just to go out and you know, have a bunch of pyrotechnics and say, “Wow, here is a cool show.” This is not a UFO hunting show. That’s not what this is. This is a docu-series. These are real people in uniform. Active duty! Telling you what’s going on. And we address those questions. So, you wanna know? Watch it. And by the way, I’m not an actor. I got a face like a cement truck. Nobody wants to see me on camera. I get it. But, it just so happens that we’re working with the right people that can give the information you’re looking for.

    So, when you look at the show, look at it from the perspective that what I’m telling you here…This is your show. This is not our show. This is your show! This is the show that…all those questions you’ve been asking from day one, since those articles came out, that’s in the show. And stuff you’ve never heard about, never seen before…you’re gonna say, “Wow! Holy smokes! I had no idea!” And, that’s the purpose. And then that’s gonna get you to force Congress and ask questions…more questions. And so that’s how this works.

    Q: Has the government program that created the software to track UAPs, tracked the Puerto Rico 2013 UAP to a destination inside the island?

    Elizondo: Can’t answer that one.

    Q: Has it been easier to get government to listen than the scientific community?

    Elizondo: Yes and no. The government…look, at the end of the day, if the government doesn’t want to do anything with this, it’s because we made it a stigma. We’ve made it such a pain in their ass – excuse my language – that they don’t wanna to deal with it until you tell them it’s okay to deal with it. Once they know, you, Joe Public, tell them, “We want you to look at this,” then they will! And so that’s what we’re in the process of doing. And it’s kind of a push/pull effort. So, if you want them to look at it, you gotta let them know it’s okay look at it. Because every time they look at it, what happens? People ridicule ‘em. “Oh the government’s wasting money on AATIP and they spent twenty-two million dollars on 37 studies that didn’t mean anything. Well, that’s absolutely not true. But that’s what happens.

    And so, no wonder no government bureaucrat – GS13, 14 or 15, wants to even address this. Because it’s radioactive. It’s kryptonite. It’s a career-ender. So once Congress says, “You will look at this,” and once you tell Congress, “This is your priority,” then, that stigma’s gone. So, it’s not an easy question because you’re saying does government or the scientific community…which one is more repulsed by topic. In some cases it’s both. And in some cases it’s neither. I mean, look at you all here. We’ve got a lot of scientists here. A lot. I mean, folks that have active jobs right now with DoD. So it’s happening. At the same time, it’s happening with government.

    Q: Could TTSA patent the processes observed in the UAP material? Then in that case, it might not be best to reveal the analysis results.

    Elizondo: Sure. You’re right. But the material that’s not ours, that we are stewards of, is again, not ours. So we’re not gonna patent something that doesn’t belong to us. Some of these individuals have been very generous and patient with us and have allowed us to analyze their material. Allowed us to serve as stewards of their material, provided we provide that information back to them. But it is, at the end of the day, their material. So, if you come up to me after the end of this show and say, “Hey Lue, I got something here I want you guys to look at. It’s really interesting.” That’s your material. It’s not ours. I can’t go out and patent that thing. And in order for me to touch this thing, I need your permission, every step of the way. And when you say, “Lue, I want it back.” There ya go. All yours. So that’s kind of our approach with TTSA. It’s important the people can trust us. It’s important that people know that we are honest brokers and we’re not just out there to try to exploit a situation.

    Q: What percent of AATIP’s work was UFO-related? What percent was roughly the program, paperwork and the Pentagon says it was looking for foreign aerospace advancements in the years, 30-50 years from now. Many people are claiming that AATIP was 100% a UFO program.

    Elizondo: AATIP was a 100% UFO program, period. It was not looking at airplanes. So, I don’t know what to tell ya. I think it’s starting to come out now, when you start looking at the list of studies that came out. But, it was a UFO program. You go, UAP, UAS. Whatever you wanna call it. Tomatoes, tomatoes. Ford, Mercury. It was a UFO. But, I couldn’t be the one to say that. It had to be DIA. And so there had to be Senator Reid or some of these people that can say that. But yet, it just can’t be world according to Lue. It’s not helpful. So, as far as our time spent on it? When you were working AATIP, it was AATIP. It wasn’t anything else but AATIP. But a lot of us also had other jobs, too. So, in all fairness, it wasn’t that it was AATIP 100% of the time. But when it was AATIP, it was 100% of the time, if that makes sense.

    Q: Realistically, what is the first major technologically advancement that we can expect to see, providing no obstacle get in the way.

    Elizondo: Provided no obstacles, I’d say beamed energy propulsion and quantum communication.

    Q: What can you tell us about Medvedev’s statement to SKY News in 2012 that he was given the folder on relations with aliens when he took office?

    Elizondo: Not a clue.

    Q: Given the fact that this Earth appears to be the only inhabitable planet in the solar system, would ET spacecraft visitation be evidence that interstellar travel or warp drive, things like that, could be made practical?

    Elizondo: Well let’s look at the definition of habitable. From our perspective, sure. But, I will tell you from other perspectives, maybe not. Okay? We talked about the Goldilocks Zone. Well we know there are already on this plane, extremophiles. We know there is bacteria that grow a mile below the arctic ice in extreme pressures and darkness. We know that there’s animals that live in the deepest parts of the Mariana Trench and Challenger Deep, living off the chemosynthesis. Basically, surviving off the chemicals from the black smokers down below. Environments that we could never survive in. So for us, we look and say, “Well, nothing could ever survive on those planets. This are extreme environments.” Well, not if they’re designed for it. Not if they’re adapted for it. You go deep sea fishing and you catch some of these fish that live 2000-3000 feet below the surface…you bring them up and they don’t survive more than couple of minutes because there’s no enough pressure. For them, this is an extreme environment. So I think it’s important that we keep that in mind. What we consider habitable and not habitable…that’s relative. Because, quite frankly, if I jump in a pond and I go more than two inches below the water, I’m not gonna be in a habitable zone for very long. Unless I have scuba gear. So, I think that’s relative.

    As far as any possibility that something from the outside would be coming in here? I don’t wanna speculate. Because I’ve said before, I don’t know if it’s from outer space, inner space or the space in between. It could be anything. It might be from here. It might just be a complete different paradigm that we’re used to. Or whatever we’re aware of. Where the experience of space-time itself is fundamentally different. Where we live in a three dimensional world, we have a function of time as a fourth dimension. Is it conceivable that maybe there’s a species that can live in that construct of four dimensions, all the time? So, what I mean, like in practical sense…instead of me being here right now with you, I could be here right now, five minutes from now or five minutes ago. And I have that flexibility where time itself is a movable dimension. So, I think there’s lots of things that could be and I don’t wanna speculate what could be because all we know is what is, and that is the data we’re collecting. So that’s why I stay focused to the data. I really don’t want to speculate cause I don’t really know.

    Q: Can you provide any information on which government agencies or departments to FOIA for data related to AATIP, including any reports produced? And did you have any responsibility fro allocating financial resources in regard to AATIP or AAWSAP, assuming financial resources were available.

    Elizondo: Let me focus on the one question. If you look at Senator Reid’s letter, on the very last page. Look at the very bottom page. And you’re gonna see FOIA exempted language. OK? That’s real. Now you can say, oh that’s sneaky, they shouldn’t put it there. But we do! For a reason. Some of that stuff is FOIA exempt and you’re not gonna see it. I don’t know what to tell ya. And it’s FOIA exempt for a reason. And there’s exceptions, by law. When you look at those exemptions, they actually go back to very, very specific things – loopholes, if you will – or circumstances, that something is not FOAIable. Because of sensitivities. Because of sources and methods. Because of all sorts of reasons. And so from that perspective, some of the frustration…first of all, they thought it was Advanced Aviation. So, you’re not gonna get anything. For six months, I was telling people, “Write Aerospace.” That’s one thing. So you have to be very specific when you do a FOIA. You also need to know which offices. So, DIA/DoD’s a big organization. So you might not get everything you want. It’s not a magic bullet.

    You have to continue to keep pushing and keep pushing and digging and finding what offices were around and what offices were not. And then, maybe apply those specifically, those magic bullet FOIAs to those specific offices. AAWSAP was indeed the predecessor to AATIP. We’ve made that very clear from Day 1. Unfortunately, I can’t talk much about it, out of respect for my former colleagues. I won’t do it. If you wanna know more about AAWSAP and what they were doing, you’re gonna have to talk to the former director. Unless or until he gives me permission to mention it, I can’t do it. It’s just out of respect for him. It’s a promise I made him long, long ago. And just like I wouldn’t want anyone speaking on my behalf – which, apparently, people do all the time. Ask me and I’ll tell you. So with all due respect, I really can’t answer too much about the AAWSAP (can’t make out the last word).

    Hoffman: I wanna say thank you to you. For going through a lot of questions. I mean there’s quite a few there. Let’s all give a huge round of appreciation to this gentleman right here.

    [Applause]

    .
     

Share This Page