John Greenewald: Just days ago, the black vault released a story
that confirmed the emails of Luis Elizondo have all been
destroyed by the Department of Defense. This paper trail that
is now gone for good would likely not only consist of
emails, but also all attachments, scheduled tasks,
calendars, chat transcripts, and other communications that
spanned nearly a decade. After months of seeking the proper
authorization for the DOJ to do this, there was nothing found.
When asked the Pentagon couldn't cite authorization either. Even
after nearly two months of asking, in fact, documented
protocol proves that this material should likely have been
saved until at least October 4 2024, if not, possibly even
being mandated to be saved indefinitely. With this crucial
evidence seemingly destroyed. Stepping into the vault today is
Luis Elizondo himself. Now hear from him on what truly was lost,
how he feels about it, and what the next steps may be. Stay
tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault.
That's right everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in and making this your podcast or your live stream of
choice for those subscribers to this channel. Or if you're brand
new days ago, I posted a video which was connected to a very
long article which I worked approximately about three years
on it took two months just to verify the lead of the story,
which was simply this the paper trail that will lead into better
understanding a tip. the Pentagon's UFO story as it is
largely referenced in the media would consist of Luis Elizondo
his emails. And finally, after months of pressing, they did
confirm the Pentagon and Department of Defense confirmed,
it's all gone. Now, although that may stay at sound like
standard procedure, I, for months, tried to verify what,
what authorized them to do this, and I was unable to do it. Now,
that doesn't mean much. But I was pressing the Pentagon at the
exact same time. And they couldn't prove it, either. Now,
you've all heard my reaction to that. But more importantly,
here's the man himself, Luis Elizondo, Louise, thank you so
much for again, stepping into the vault and spending some time
with me here.
Luis Elizondo: Yeah, john, my pleasure. Thank you very much.
And a big thank you to your audience as well. I know, a lot
of folks who have been kind of following this, this topic for
quite some time, and look forward to addressing any
questions you you or your listeners might have.
John Greenewald: And I appreciate that. So like I
mentioned, my audience has, has heard my reaction, a very quick
backstory, so they better understand it was almost two
months to the day, when I picked up my cell phone and called you
and said, Okay, this is what they're polling, I wanted you to
be be the first to know, you ended up being essentially the
only one to know, you may have shared it with others, but but
in the sense I didn't talk about it at all. I want to start with
those emails and and get your reaction to this story. Let me
take you back to two months ago. If I can ask you, were you aware
of that? Or was that new to you that your emails were destroyed
according to the Department of Defense?
Luis Elizondo: Well, I it was a surprise, but but not a
surprise. You know, obviously, john, I've had to to the major
portfolios I ran the last 10 years or so in the Pentagon was
the UFO program. And then one that I haven't really talked
much about, which is Guantanamo Bay. And clearly from a from a
perspective of not just posterity, but from a legal
legal perspective. Anything that I was engaged in involving the
911 Commission trials is considered discoverable in a
court of law, it's considered evidentiary. And so that must by
law be preserved to for posterity sake, and there is no
there's no destroyed 25 years. It stays around forever. So when
you when you had indicated to me that the Pentagon were good be
grudgingly admitted that my my correspondence, my emails were
destroyed. Obviously, I was very disappointed in that, because
frankly, it's it's, it's it's illegal in some cases,
especially as related to some of my work I was doing. But also
disappointing and disappointing, because there are several
categories of information that I was involved with that are
specifically exempt from that destroy on, you know, let's say
two or five or 10 years. And, yeah, there you have it. In my
mind, am I surprised? You know, again, not really, I am, because
it's such a bold act for them to do I mean, at that point, it's,
you know, they say, Well, yeah, Lou had nothing to do with 80.
Okay, well, where it's just females, we don't have them. And
so, you know, it's kind of this weird, you know, double
negative, right. In one case, you're saying that a tip wasn't
real, and we never studied UFOs? And I wasn't part of it. On the
second on the second episode on sale? Well, we don't have any
any of those emails. Yeah, you know. So it's just, it's kind of
kind of bizarre where, where I
John Greenewald: have stated publicly that this goes to the
heart and core and soul of why I do what I do. for 25 years. When
I started, when I was 15, I realized that there were two
main aspects that drove me it was transparency, and
preservation. And with this particular case, the Department
of Defense showed neither, they obviously did not want to give
me these emails, I have at least or had at least eight FOIA
requests with various keywords going for this material. But
what was amazing to me was that even away from a tip was that
that office that you directed, called the National Program,
special management staff or men psms. You had mentioned the the
get mo portion of that. Can I ask you away from a tip UFOs and
all of that, with that particular office? Can you
mention anything else that that office
Luis Elizondo: did? I had to be very careful because it was
very, very sensitive. It my I think one of my last emails may
have been, I don't know if it was released, or someone had a
copy of it. But in there, you can see that it was it was
definitely nuanced. It was a program that supported the White
House and the National Security Council. So obviously, that
information to be just willy nilly destroyed by the DOJ when
we're talking about information that's beyond just title 10. is
frankly, silly. And I'll tell you something to john, from,
from my perspective, look, we haven't always necessarily
agreed on everything. And we can agree to disagree. But let me
tell you, the one thing that I've always respected about you,
you are you are one of the most tenacious and probably one of
the most global experts on the FOIA process. And what why is
that important? Because FOIA isn't just a privilege. It's a
right. It's an act, or it's a law that was established by
Congress to make sure that there is transparency within the
government. Okay. That is, that is a law that was passed by
Congress. So basically, it's not a option. It's not at Well, you
can if you want, you know, you must comply with foil. And what
I'm seeing here, besides this, this obfuscation and the these
these silly games that keep playing is that they are taking
a law, and they're making a mockery of it. They're
interjecting organizations and people into that calculus that
are that are deliberately not supposed to be in there. They
are, they are deleting information, which frankly,
between you and me, I don't believe they've deleted
anything. I think it's just extremely damning and
incriminating. So they don't want it to come out. And it's
it's making a mockery of law. So at that point, you have to ask
yourself, john, when an organization in the United
States who is bound to uphold the law, is now breaking the
law, okay. Is that organism? Are those people that are in those
positions? Do they represent the will of the government? Do they
represent the will of the people in United States? And if the
answer is no on both, then are they even legitimately in charge
of anything? much, that's my, that's my concern here, john,
this is what exercises me so much that there are people that
are willfully trouncing on on on might as well be the
constitution because these are laws of balls of the land.
They're not they're not flexible. It's not like a rule
that you can bend the rule of law you don't and and you have
all people I'm sure probably are frustrated by this, but for me
as a as a patriot and somebody who served his country in
uniform You know, I fought against tyranny over in the
battlefields of the desert and jungles and whatnot, only to
find that same tyranny now within the halls of the
Pentagon, that that is problematic that is that is that
that is that is a true threat, if there was ever a threat is,
is somebody upstanding with our freedoms, and and and basically
tearing up whatever whatever rules or laws have for you that
they think, you know don't apply to them. These laws apply to
everybody. Yeah. And especially if you in a position of
integrity government, you, you know,
John Greenewald: well, I appreciate those kind words
about my work. And when I say that it really does go to the
core of of why I do this. It truly, it truly does. And going
back to the question I asked you about your office, I know that
you get a lot of flak. And I'm happy to say it was never flak
for me on this point, that, you know, you do have those security
oaths and NDA is and and and clearances where you can't talk
about it. And that was what was very evident to me about that
office, because there was very little to dig up. And trust me,
I've tried since 2000, whatever it was, that I have no doubt,
john. But it was those Navy court transcripts that came up
and I won't push you on it, because I know it is sensitive.
And I know it's still ongoing. But for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad,
to reference your office in October of 2017. It's clear that
whatever you were doing within that office, was in dealing with
special access programs, and also giving what appeared from
the transcripts, the translator, for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
access to the information for him to properly translate to the
for the defense, and there was a problem with the judge because
they had lost their SAP access. So for me to see that again,
away from the a tip story that made me realize a couple years
ago, okay, this guy was into, you know, some some highly
classified material programs, and obviously, the one that was
spearheading that effort for others to gain access to those
special access program. Well,
Luis Elizondo: that's honestly john, what landed me on the
naughty boy list with with ISIS and Al Qaeda, that I was
informed that I, I was wound up being put on the on the kill
list, which was not a very good day in the Elizondo house, or
they can make an assure you. But, you know, fortunately, for
me, just, I just wanted up on being on some sort of kill list
where other people actually, you know, lost their lives. So I'm
definitely not saying that, that their line of work was was, you
know, anything more dangerous than anybody else. But it did
put me in a situation where it, it, it may, it still is
technically, I'm still, you know, on that, that naughty
list, if you will, which has not been been easy for my family,
for sure.
John Greenewald: Sure. And I totally understand that. And I'm
sorry to hear that. Because I know, that's obviously not easy
for you, your family and anyone connected to you. So with that,
though, what I wanted my audience to understand is the
sensitivity behind this material that stretches well beyond a
tip. I know, I keep saying that, but it's like, this has become
such a bigger issue now. And that, that is why I got so
attached to this a couple months ago when I realized they were
playing that card. And they were saying, hey, look, for three
years you fought for these records. And oh, by the way, we
don't have them. Let me let me point out one thing that I'm not
sure if I told you this privately, or maybe you read it
in the in the email, but I want you to react to the importance
of this before they told me that essentially, your your documents
were destroyed. And I want to also be clear, and clarify,
that's not just emails, by the records retention schedule, what
goes along this that with that would be all of the attachments,
all of the what they call text communications. And that was
kind of a short list of things that are it's not just email
like hey, you want to go have lunch today to one of your
colleagues. You know, you're talking about the attachments
and everything that goes along with it. When I started getting
these no records denials, but never did they mentioned that
your stuff was destroyed. I verified triple checked that
they searched sipper net nipper net and j wicks to ensure that I
would get everything they wrote back and said yes, never once
indicating that no an account existed or that it was
destroyed.
Luis Elizondo: Kinjo that's either one or two things john
either a they still had the records back then and and they
were knowing that you were interested them said yes, we
search through all this stuff. No records of that specific
request has popped up in the system. And knowing that they're
going to go ahead and destroy these files, or the other option
is they were already gone. And they were just stringing you
along. Either way, Something smells fishy, either, you know,
those emails were there. And then once you won your appeal,
they came back and said up, nothing to see here. Yeah, or
those files already were destroyed, which they shouldn't
have been. And they were just saying, Yeah, yeah, nothing to
see here. Just move along. You know, we looked at we couldn't
find anything knowing full well that they were already
destroyed. But either way it's it's it's it's no bueno. It's up
someone is, is been been manipulating the the FOIA
process, in my opinion.
John Greenewald: Have you had a reaction not only from the
social media world because this pop that this article did become
very popular very quickly within that world. But obviously,
you're dealing with the media, the mainstream media, like on a
hourly basis. Every time I turn on the television, and there's a
UFO story, you are right there on camera. You I hope we'll have
an upcoming vacation soon. And get some sleep because me too.
Yeah. Again, there's there's not 36 hours in a day, but you
seemingly have squeezed that out. What is the reaction if any
two people that you've been been talking to in the mainstream and
those that have kind of tackled like, for example, Gotti shorts,
I have a lot of respect for with NBC, he seems to really dig and
he brought out that Harry Reid endorsement letter of view. And
obviously, Harry Reid has endorsed you since 2019, I think
was the first time publicly, but now it's, you know, Harry Reid's
letterhead, and so on and so forth. And that was Gotti
Schwartz, and with his investigative journalism, he
just kept pushing, pushing. And I respect that. Is there a
reaction that you've been getting from? Yeah,
Luis Elizondo: yeah. You started a firestorm? JOHN, I mean,
you've had everybody from Politico to CNN, Fox News, NBC,
they're all looking at things right now, based upon upon your,
your article, you know, you know, that that's something I
could never publish. You know, obviously, one of the things I
always want to do is make sure I, I never come across a self
serving because I don't do it for me, I do it for a much more
sacred reason. For me, it's to to get the truth out to the
American people. With that said, you, you hit on something that
really struck a chord with some people in the mainstream media,
and that is okay. Are we dealing yet with another iteration of
the pentagon papers? are we dealing it with another issue,
like we did with with with Watergate where all of a sudden
elements in the government are running rogue and doing things
that they shouldn't have? And I think that's given a lot of
people some some concern, because it's gonna lie about
they're gonna lie about this. What else are they gonna lie
about? Right, you know, and that is, I think that is that has
struck a chord in certain elements within the mainstream
media as it should. Yeah. Because once again, you know,
there is a requirement the Public Affairs Office, is, is
enjoying to, to, to dialogue with with the media, okay,
there's that we have, you know, first amendment right, for
freedom of speech. And of course, you have freedom of the
press. These are inalienable rights that we hold very dear to
us. And when elements in the government that are supposed to
be fair and transparent, don't they don't behave that way, then
you've got a problem in the past, there's been attempts by
by these offices to mislead the press. And and it's never worked
out well, for for the government to do that. Ultimately, the
government has to be reminded that it serves the will of the
people not the other way around.
John Greenewald: And and why I wanted to ask you that question
kind of segues into the other thing that I wanted to catch up
with you on was the O RG investigation by the D o t. Now
what we know publicly is that they sent out a memo that they
are evaluating that they went out of their way to not call it
an investigation, but rather an evaluation of how the DOJ has
handled the UAP topic. Now, there's a lot of rumors out
there. But why I wanted to ask about the mainstream media about
this is because part of those rumors are that and maybe this
is more verified fact now, but I kind of felt more as a rumor
that this was about how you were being treated, and essentially
targeted by some of these pointed statements in the last
couple of years. Since I have well it's true.
Luis Elizondo: It's true that they were targeting me and still
do. Yeah, and unfortunately they manipulated in us good people to
do it. Which is which is for me, probably the most disappointing
piece of this, you know people that that are truly just trying
to find The facts and the truth, but we're being misled willfully
by it by a small grant cadre, if you will, or a group of
individuals at the Pentagon. And by the way that does not
represent the whole Pentagon, I just want to make this clear,
there are wonderful fine men and women working every day for that
organization, and 99% of it is is just an exceptional
organization. The problem is, as you know, it takes one bad apple
to spoil the rest. And, you know, that that's, that's what's
happened in the Pentagon has been put into a position where
it's made public statements based upon the input of a couple
individuals. And now it's coming back to bite them. Rather than
then, you know, just be forthcoming and truthful from
the beginning. They try to be clever, and unfortunately, it's,
but it's coming out one way or the other. And guys like you who
are who are experts, eventually anything that is in the
government's possession regarding that's unclassified,
especially like this, I can I Gee, you know, don't think
that's not going to be made public. Yeah, it has to be made
public at some point. So so it doesn't do anybody any good to
try to lie right now. That's, that's the last thing you want
to do. And that's why having this ag evaluation, I think it's
so important because it's, it's, it's a bit of a release valve.
You know, I'm a gearhead, right, so I'm always looking at in
terms of cars, well, think of a waste gate on the turbo system,
a waste gate is there to, to, to allow to disperse any
overpressure in the turbo system, right. So you don't blow
up love the engine. This, I think ag evaluation is very much
the same way. It's a waste gate. It's a it's a way to allow some
of that pressure to be released in an appropriate way that that
is the purpose of the Inspector General is to conduct reviews,
inquiries, investigations, and then provide those
recommendations and this findings to the Secretary of
Defense. So they can fix it. That's what the Inspector
General does. And hopefully, hopefully, the big evaluation
here will will do the same thing. I have full faith and
confidence in the ag right now. I've had a chance to work with
them. The past always found them very professional. These are
also trained investigators, and some are auditors. Some are
actual law enforcement investigators type in the
intelligence community, but they've got a tough job, you
know, and they're always they're supposed to be fair and
impartial and objective. And so far I that's that's what I've
seen with my experience with with the DOJ big.
John Greenewald: So when I reached out to them, I was
trying to fish around as I usually do. See what kind of
fish I could catch. But I had asked them, you know, is is the
is part of the angle is the angle? What is it with this
evaluation? Would that be you and I got Glo marred and for
those who don't know, what glomar is they? They said we can
neither confirm nor deny any involvement with Mr. Luis
Elizondo. So where I say the rumor is I read Brian benders
piece about this made reference to your IP complaint that you
had submitted. I was surprised to see all that come out. But
not surprised. I was happy, because as you noted, a lot of
stuff will come out with that. So then, can I ask you outright
as the evaluation that was that was announced? Is that based on
your complaint? Or is that separate from this eval?
Luis Elizondo: I cannot speak on behalf of the government. I
think there's two things going on. I think there's an honest
attempt in evaluation to to determine what if anything went
wrong over the last three years in the Pentagon's communication.
Now that you've got this report due to Congress, there's a lot
of pressure and at some point, people are gonna start asking
some very difficult questions, right. Doesn't matter what the
report says. At some point, they're gonna come back and say,
Hey, Pentagon out that you said there was nothing to see here or
Hey, Pentagon, I think you said there was something that's here,
either way, that they're in a corner. And and big is a good
way for for somebody who's in a position of leadership, like the
Secretary to say, look, I realized there were some
consistencies. And we we deliberately did this is an
evaluation to see where things went wrong. Okay. That's that's
a prudent thing to do that, that that's something honestly, if I
was in charge, I would do that as well. I would do a self
initiated ag evaluation now. Are there elements of an ag?
complaint? We'll call that a complaint that has been received
by the DOJ big Yes, that is also true. I'm not going to go into
any specifics. Because I want the government the ability for
the government to do its job without outside interference.
You know, I don't want to I don't want to put I don't want
to backup the government anymore into a corner than they're
already, you know, I'm trying to offer
John Greenewald: on their own
Luis Elizondo: and I'm trying to To help them with a way out,
right? I've been for the last three years saying, guys, come
on You don't? You don't have to be this way. I'm not I'm not.
I'm not trying to hurt you. I'm trying to help you. Yeah, I'm
the one guy that your friend in this. But I mean, it is true
that that I spoke with with the do di g again, I've been asked
Let me tell you what they do di g told me Please do not
elaborate on any of the questions that that we discussed
or the dialogue. So that is that is what they asked. And I'm
going to respect their their request on that. Until at some
point, you know, I've given the ability to speak more freely
about it.
John Greenewald: When they sent the memo out it I read it
anyway. But maybe it was incorrectly read that they were
going to like kind of have this wrapped up by June, that it was
a evaluation that they were doing in May. Do you have any
indication when that eval would be over?
Luis Elizondo: Brother? I can't imagine any ag evaluation that's
done in 30 days or maybe 30 months. But I don't know, unless
they already have a preconceived conclusion of what they want to
say. I don't see how that's possible. I guess that to me is
that would almost be a worse indictment on the government.
Right? Because you can't do a first of all COVID has just now
allowed some of these people to go back to their office. Right.
So they haven't even been allowed in their offices until
recently. So I'm not sure. You know, you're going to do an ag
evaluation and 30. I mean, maybe maybe they drop everything that
they're doing this job, which is I don't think the case. I know
that's not the case. But you know,
John Greenewald: yeah, it's just the way that it the way that it
read, it seemed like they were going to do this evaluation. And
then again, partly an assumption on my part. But now we're in
June when this report was going to come along. So I was
thinking, you know, okay, what are they trying to do? Do you
feel that this is potentially going to be a delay for this UAP
report? Or do you believe that those are maybe two separate
issues?
Luis Elizondo: I think they're two separate issues. I hope that
that the the, I hope that the UAP report is is too late, I
don't think it will be. And from my understanding, it's going to
be rather underwhelming, which is really a shame. My hope is
that there'll be a follow on report, you know, this,
honestly, 16 pages 17 pages isn't really enough to to have a
comprehensive report of the last, you know, 70 8090 years
worth of military sightings and documentation that exists. But
you know, I'm not in DC right now.
John Greenewald: So, that up to me, now, you have said that you
were and helped me with the correct word, but either
consulting or working with or communicating with those that
are creating this report or the task force, or both,
Luis Elizondo: I am doing my best to facilitate that process
in whatever capacity that I am useful. without imposing my own
will, you know, I have been been quietly doing my best to, to
facilitate it's in everybody's interest to have have a fair and
comprehensive import, because not only does Congress expect
it, but that's what they deserve, and ultimately serve
the American people. So, you know, Don't you've already had
seven years to screw this up. Don't screw it up anymore. Yeah,
you know, I mean, for the love of God, at this point, here's
your chance to get this monkey off your back now 800 pound
gorilla that's been sitting on your back. Yeah, you know, you
really want to carry that around for another decade or two. Don't
do it. This is this is the time to, to do it. Right. And, and,
you know, everybody at this point are we're all adults, we
can we can handle the truth.
John Greenewald: My biggest fear, not trying to be a
skeptic, but rather looking back at history and the Condon
report. And, you know, I did this this article about
essentially comparing how this is unfolding right now, and how
it has unfolded the last few years and then how it unfolded
in the 1960s. I eagerly await this report, but I fear that we
are at what I call a Condon report 2.0 meaning, you know,
this, this, this material that leaked out, which I want to ask
you as one of my last questions here as we wrap up, but this
material that leaked out, I fear that they put that in there
essentially as fodder for saying, Oh, well, we know what
these things are. We never, we never said that they were an
identified which is true. And I fear that that is playing a role
in this but we haven't seen that chapter written yet. Do you
believe that's a possibility?
Luis Elizondo: Well, I'll tell you a look and I'm not let me
preface this one way, john, because what I'm about to say
some people are gonna look at they're gonna say, you know, Who
the hell are you to say that But with all due respect, the Condon
report didn't have it didn't have Christopher Mellon, it
didn't have Alex Dietrich, it didn't have Dave raver didn't
have Jim slate, it didn't have Ryan grace. It didn't have me.
This is, you know, if they try to pull something like that this
is I've said this before, then they're gonna have a real issue
on their hands, because that's gonna force guys like me who
don't want to do it. But I will run for Congress. And I will
make sure that if I get in a seat there, I will make sure
total transparency on everything, not just uaps all
the other crap that I know that goes on behind these closed
doors, I will make sure that that that people come to heal on
that. And that that the will of the American people will be
represented period, I can assure you that there are elements in
the Pentagon right now, that does not want a cat like me
sitting in Congress, I promise you, I'm sure the sun will rise
tomorrow. Because I'm not a politician. I never happened. I
don't give a damn about politics. I care about serving
the will of the American people. And you damn well better believe
I will do it, I will go in there and I will, I will do what is
necessary to make sure that we are never in this situation
again, I will hold every single person accountable. Who's behind
this kind of crap.
John Greenewald: You bring up an excellent point. Condon didn't
have individuals such as yourself, but in fairness, they
had others I feel Condon was essentially an effort to ignore
those important voices then, and again, just to kind of throw
throw the question at you in a different way. I believe their
intent was to dismiss all of that to create a narrative that
they wanted. So the Dietrich's, the flavors, and all of that be
darned, they had an objective and that objective was Let's
wipe ourselves clean of this. And the shirt and the Condon
committee despite the voices they had had back then even a
guy on the inside Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who saw firsthand and
went from a skeptic believer essentially, that that those
voices were just completely ignored. And they said not no
scientific merit to continue this, we're done.
Luis Elizondo: JOHN, the only way this is gonna stop it. Like
I said, Before someone puts a bullet in my head. If If, if I
even suspect that the government is not being when I say
government elements in the government are not being
forthcoming with the American people, I will continue to
pursue this doggedly and vocally, until the cows come
home, I'm telling you, I feel the same. Chris is the same way.
We're not giving up. We I know what I've seen. And same with
those people that that, that I served, I took an oath, you
know, to represent the will of the American people to defend
this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now that
oath is never changed. And I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit back
and let a bunch of bureaucrats, you know, abscond with with that
responsibility to be fair and transparent with it with the
American people. This is what I've said before the American
government. We do not work for the American government, the
American government works for us. And we must be prepared to
tell the government what we expect of it. Don't sit back and
wait around and let them tell us, oh, here's what you can
have. Bullshit, man. That's not the way this works. who
represent us Don't ever forget that. Because the day you no
longer represent us, you're gone, you're out. Because you're
no longer legitimate. Your authority is no longer
legitimate. So so it is important that we, we, we we
gently remind our friends and the government, those elements
that that forget their oath to the American people and remind
them of their responsibilities, and make sure they don't confuse
that responsibility with privilege, right? Sometimes we
get when we get senior enough we start getting complaints that we
start thinking we deserve it. No, you don't deserve it. No,
you're there to serve us the people. And you know, this is
why I said if I got to it, you know, I get pissed off enough
man. You know, I last thing I want to do is is get back into
the fray of things. I need that like a hole in the head. I just
want to be left alone and retire. There's a reason why I
live in the middle of nowhere, Wyoming. But, you know, hell,
man, if I got to put my boots back on, you know, I will I'll
be willing to do that. So we can we can get, we can finally get
the answers that the American people deserve. And I'm not
talking about, you know, relinquishing classified
information. I'm not asking I'm not saying that. What I'm saying
is just be open and honest with the American people and don't
deceive them. Whatever you do. The last thing you don't want to
talk about a fine say No comment. But for the love of
God, don't go out and start lying to the American people.
Because that's the kind of thing that that, you know, that's not
just going to make me angry. That's going to make a whole lot
of people. Yeah.
John Greenewald: The last question I have for you before
we wrap up here is something that has fascinated me in the
last month or so which is these leaked the leaked material
that's coming out. We've got Various either videos let me say
something I forgot here by the way in case anybody Miss
understands anything I'm saying here at no time do I ever
advocate violence
Luis Elizondo: Okay, that is that is not what I'm saying here
so I don't want people to say yeah lou is gonna go in and you
know, I many cases I'm speaking proverbially when I say I'm
going to go in and clean house that is that is using the
instruments and the policies that are already available to to
people who are in a position of power. Okay, I don't ever ever I
don't want anybody to misconstrue, what I'm saying is
that I am trying to advocate for any type of violent act, because
I am not, that is not at all the purpose of this a true democracy
is one that is won through words, and not violence. So just
want to preface that real quick, just so no, anybody has any in
the back of their mind, you know, that, um, when I say I'm
going to put my boots on, I don't mean I'm going to put, you
know, put my boots on and carry machine know what I mean, to put
my boots on and carry a, you know, a billfold and a pen.
Yeah, that's what I mean,
John Greenewald: I didn't take it that way. But I appreciate
your your clarification. I think the restraint you've had in the
last couple of years kind of speaks for itself. But I
appreciate the clarification. But so the last question here,
and then I'm gonna I know I have to let you go. But the leaked
material, the videos, some briefing slides, and the
swiftness that the Pentagon is confirming the authenticity
taken by US Navy utilized by UAE PTF, but will not comment on the
designation? What are your thoughts about this material
leaking out? And what are we looking at?
Luis Elizondo: I think we've got a sincerely we have a very much
of a schizophrenic approach right now by by elements within
within the Pentagon, I think they've been beat up so bad, on
their contradictory statements that now they're almost over
eager to answer whatever they can, what's considered an easy
pitch by the media. If there's a video that comes out rather than
delay, delay, delay and look foolish. Yeah, that was one of
ours. Yep. We're not going to talk about it. But that was one
of ours. It's almost reflexive, you know, imagine sitting there
at a at a batting cage, right? And you're in the 100 mile an
hour pitch, batting cage. But instead of one ball, you've got
about 10 of these machines, watching balls at you
constantly. And I think that's what's happening now that the
media has has smell proverbial blood and realizes the
inconsistent nature of some of the Pentagon's responses. You
know, they're they're not, they're not letting up. And I
mean, your proof proof in the pudding man you I mean, every
time someone utters anything in the Pentagon, your, your proof
you're falling for Yes, man, you want everything you know, and
I'm sure that scares the hell out of them. And I know that the
last thing they want to do is, is be caught flat footed again.
So I think they're probably just swinging the bat at anything
that comes to them right at this point is probably almost
reflects it just just hit it. Hopefully you hit it. Who cares
if it's a first base, second base, home run, or a fall ball
just just hit the ball?
John Greenewald: Yeah. And And just a quick follow up to that.
We know the FLIR gimbaled and go fast videos when they came out.
It took a little bit of time, but they eventually had given
the designation of unidentified or UAP. We know then by that
that designation is not in and of itself a classified
designation, but they won't do it with these. Do you feel? And
then I promise, I'll let you go. Do you feel that these this
leaked material is truly, in your opinion, a designated UAP?
And if so, why won't the government say it?
Luis Elizondo: I have to be careful because the I've been
privy to information. It'll have my security clearance. And so I
don't want to compromise. Anything that could be
considered sensitive. So I'm not going to comment on on the
specific videos that you're referring to the recent ones
that came out. I know that the government has already stated
their position that they are real. And I can tell you that
they're real. I can tell you that now because the government
has said that. But I really can't go into any more context.
Now, is it possible that there is somebody trying to throw a
bunch of we call it cat litter, you know, if you have a cat or a
pet cat that your cat will sometimes get a little
boisterous in their sandbox and start throwing cat litter all
over the place? I have. So you know, it's just an attempt for
the Pentagon to throw little cat litter and, you know, try to
throw people off off the scent so to speak. It's possible? I
don't think so. I don't think they're quite Forgive me for
saying this. I don't think they're that sophisticated. I
think there are too much in react mode right now. And I
think what you're seeing is a disjointed approach to this
topic. There are some people saying yeah, we need to be four
Coming as other people saying no, don't be forthcoming or be
forthcoming about that, but not about this. I suspect that maybe
maybe what what's going on again, I don't want to comment
specifically on the last video simply because I, you know, I'm
not a liberty to discuss discusses. Once the government
has acknowledged further, more details, then I will be able to
as well. But until that happens, I simply can't do that.
John Greenewald: Sure, fair enough. And I know that you
probably have a light scheduled day of 8700 interviews ahead of
me. So I, I'm at the end of my slot, but listen, I mean, it
thank you for your reaction to the email story. I'm eager to
see how this plays out. Because I think of anything and
everything that I've written about a tip UFOs yourself, I'll
be at some not so popular. But this, I believe, is the most
important and I truly, truly, truly feel that there is much
more to this story to come. And I have this gut feeling that you
and I will probably have some more things to talk about.
Hopefully, you'll give me some more time when it allows. But
thank you so much. I'm
Luis Elizondo: going to share something with you short, quick
observation which this is coming from some some colleagues and
friends of mine in the Pentagon. You are one of the few people
that is truly feared within within public affairs office.
I'm not kidding. I've had people call me say you're not going to
believe what just came across my desk, but I am not getting so
it's you're making a difference. It's it's resonating. You are
every bit as as part of this equation for disclosure as
anybody else. And then you kind of make a distinction
distinction between mainstream media and you but I'm not sure I
think that line is blurred a lot. I think a lot of their
stories and what they have is based upon your work. And all I
can say is, you know, keep it up, man. It's it's making a
difference. I'm hearing, I'm hearing a lot of good things in
the Pentagon because of the pressure you're putting on
people.
John Greenewald: Well, that's awesome and motivating. So
thanks for letting me know that and, and again, thanks for your
time. We'll definitely talk soon. So you take care of
yourself, your family as well be safe out there. And have a great
time with those at 700 interviews today. You've got to
john, thank you so much. Thank you and thank you all for
listening and watching this john Greenwald jr signing off, and
we'll see you next time.