In this conversation, Dr. Eli Karetny, Director of the Project on UAP Studies and International Security, sits down with renowned whistleblower and former intelligence officer Lue Elizondo to discuss the paradigm-shifting reality of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Moving beyond the 2017 disclosure that shattered the long-standing UFO taboo, they dive deep into the national and international security implications of engaging with a non-human intelligence (NHI).

Elizondo offers a grounded, nuanced perspective on how humanity should approach this profound mystery. Blending international relations theory with military pragmatism and deep philosophical insight, this conversation explores whether the UAP presence will spark a new global arms race or serve as a catalyst to unite humanity. Ultimately, Elizondo challenges us to examine our own human nature, arguing that our intentions—guided by empathy, preparedness, and “treating them like a good neighbor”—will dictate our future relationship with the unknown.

Transcript

Eli Karetny 0:06

Since 2017, something fundamental seems to have changed in how the U.S. government handles the subject of UFOs. For decades prior, the national security state enforced a social stigma. Despite countless sightings from reliable witnesses and a growing body of research from serious and well-connected investigators, official government reports dismissed the evidence, and the UFO taboo prevailed. The most thoughtful of the investigators remained invisible, even as their research and theorizing steadily shaped the public mind on the topic of UFOs.

This all began to change due to the efforts of national security officials and affiliated researchers, who in 2017 began working towards the disclosure of the existence of UFOs, now referred to as UAP, by acknowledging that secret government programs have long existed. These whistleblowers and investigators, believing that the public has the right to know about aspects of our reality that have been hidden from us, have opened the gates to a new era. A new UAP regime is taking shape, and my guest today has been at the front lines of the transformation that is upon us.

I’m grateful to have Lue Elizondo here with me today as the first guest on the podcast of the Project on UAP Studies and International Security, based at the Ralph Bunche Institute at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. I am Dr. Eli Karetny, the director of the new project on UAP studies. In May, we hosted our first public event—a wonderful talk by Leslie Kean, the author of the 2017 New York Times article that launched Lue Elizondo into the spotlight and began the shift in the public discourse on the UAP topic. Lue was a career military man who has long served his country in various roles, and now as a whistleblower and disclosure advocate, his public service continues. In the words of Chris Mellon, another important figure in the changes now underway, Lue played a central and indispensable role in forever changing the way humanity views the issue of unidentified anomaLues phenomena. Lue Elizondo, thanks for joining me today.

Lue Elizondo 2:32

Dr. Karetny, it is truly my sincere honor and privilege to be with you today, and those of your students and colleagues and comrades. It is truly profound for me. I have always admired academics, and I’ve always admired individuals who pursue academia, because ultimately it’s a pursuit of the truth. And the truth is a fundamental, inherently human necessity. In fact, it is a way we base all our decisions on life, with the assumption or presumption that we have an understanding of what the truth is.

And so, in pursuing the truth, really, it is up to you in the world of academia, and those of your students who are also very interested in learning the truth about life and about existence and about our reality. You know, it’s very humbling for me. A wise man once said that the greatest nation is but one generation away from utter ruin. And what they meant by that was, it doesn’t matter how much natural resources a country has. It doesn’t matter how much gold and petroleum and timber and whatnot. At the end of the day, it’s all for nothing if you do not invest in the next generation. The next generation are the ones that will take both our sins and our blessings and either do something good with them or inherit them, unfortunately.

And so really, it is up to the academic world to continue to apply academic rigor and continue to challenge the status quo, in order for our society to continue to move forward and evolve. And in fact, I would submit to you that the work you are doing and the work that your students are part of and your colleagues is very much a national security imperative unto itself. It actually is. In fact, without it, we’re probably not going to last long as a nation. So my hats off to you. Thank you very much. Profoundly grateful to be here.

Eli Karetny 4:52

Thank you so much, Lue. And it’s a perfect segue into my first question, which I really want to focus on the national security aspect of the UFO subject, the UAP subject. I approach the subject as an international relations scholar, and a growing number of IR scholars are doing work openly, finally openly on the subject of UAP. A seminal essay was written by Professor Alexander Wendt about 20 years ago, a little bit less than 20 years ago, about the sovereignty crisis that would result from discovering the existence of non-human intelligence. Because, in his words and his co-author, the modern state system rests on anthropocentric assumptions: the belief that only human beings engage in political decision-making and use power to impose their will in human societies.

That’s being reevaluated. And Wendt himself has a forthcoming book. He’ll actually be the second guest on this podcast. He has an upcoming book on the subject, which should open new space for IR scholars who have been quietly, privately studying the subject, but are now prepared to write more and present their research on the topic. One of the areas that IR scholars have been studying is the idea of UAP securitization.

In the classic model of securitization—going to be an IR nerd here for a moment—in the classic model of securitization, made popular by the Copenhagen School of Interpretation: A subject is transformed into a security concern through a three-step process. The first step is some kind of authoritative speech act declares a threat to national security. On the subject of UAP, some papers have recently been written saying that the ODNI report, the 2021, the first of the ODNI reports, acknowledging not only the existence of UAP but that there is a potential threat there. Some have said that those ODNI reports represent this authoritative speech act. There hasn’t yet been an oral speech act, an oral acknowledgment of the existence and of the threat. But there have been written reports. So that’s step one.

Step two in the classic model is that there’s public discourse around the subject, and from that public discourse, a consensus emerges. A narrative takes shape around the nature of the threat, particularly when it’s an existential threat. And from there, the third step in the process is that new security policies are implemented, which are legitimized by this public consensus. So my question to you is: Are is that what’s happening now? Ever since 2017, are we inside of a securitization process that’s unfolding on this topic?

Lue Elizondo 8:18

Well, I think it’s unavoidable. I think what you’re seeing is a sensitization amongst the general public of the reality of this topic. You’re also witnessing an acknowledgment by authoritative figures who have, by the way, traditionally been very quiet on this topic, now coming forward and being quite vocal about this topic and the reality of this topic. So I do.

And when you look at an organization, you know, one thing is to make a proclamation from an authoritative figure, as you say for step one. Another thing is to actually do something about it, and you’re seeing that right now. You’re seeing the use of taxpayer money, a significant amount, by the way, to actually study and research this topic on behalf of the U.S. national security apparatus. That’s already been done. And you have the establishment of AARO and the establishment of Pursue. You’ve had several reports already to Congress about this topic. You’ve had the FBI, Department of Justice, the CIA, and others already who have come out and said, “Yeah, look, our own agents are witnessing this. We’re conducting our own investigations, and it’s pretty compelling.” So I do think we are, in that regard, well on the road to what you talk about, which is this IR, right, international relations.

But there’s another piece to that because for IR to be truly international relations, you have to have friends and allies that you are collaborating with and cooperating with information. And so we are very well on that road as well. You’ve had nations recently such as Japan who’ve requested to enter into a bilateral information-sharing agreement with the United States for the sole purposes of sharing UAP-related information. You have other countries, multitudes of countries in Latin America right now, and in South America specifically in the Southern Hemisphere that are very interested in working with the United States because they’ve had their own UAP experiences and investigations. And you’ve got countries like China that announced recently in the South China Morning Post, that they have their own UAP investigations, and they are pursuing the United Nations and what they call the Five Continents Initiative, where they want to help lead UAP investigations for the United Nations. So you have countries like Russia who’ve already come forward and admitted that they have their own UAP studies program, and the list goes on and on. So I think certainly from an international relations perspective, we are very well underway through this three-step process you mentioned.

Eli Karetny 10:58

Wow, that’s really fantastic, and that reminds me of a wonderful section in your book, which maybe I’ll read this section to you and maybe get you to respond. And the framework here is where national security veers into international security and international cooperation. I think that’s important.

On one hand, there’s lots of talk of a new arms race tied to alleged reverse engineering programs on NHI Tech. You know, according to that narrative, we’re not the only ones in possession of advanced technology. But is there an opportunity here to not think of the current dynamics primarily in terms of great power rivalry or competition or the struggle for power? Is there room here to improve international cooperation, as was done even during the Cold War? At the height of the Cold War on key issues like nuclear weapons, there was deep coordination and cooperation. So there might be room for competition and cooperation to coexist. And I wonder if I can get your reaction to that, particularly on discoveries, technologies that impact all of humanity.

Lue Elizondo 12:24

Yeah, I certainly think there’s areas of cooperation that we should certainly be engaging in. You know, I only have to look back a few decades ago when we were in the middle of the space race against the then Soviet Union for about a decade. And as a result of NASA’s space development programs, particularly Apollo, something like 6,200 industries, not products, industries were developed as a result of that 10-year competition with Russia at the time, the former Soviet Union.

Things that we now take for granted. Things like the LED bulb, and Velcro, and CAT scans, and things like that that have far outlived their initial purpose and design and continue to benefit humanity in a positive way, and internationally too, right? Because those technologies wind up getting in the hands of other countries too, that can help people fight cancer, perhaps, right? Or maybe help an elderly person who can’t reach down to tie their shoe. Now they can use a Velcro strap. So yes, I’m very optimistic that with this new realization that we are entering, that there will be tremendous opportunity as well.

But also opportunity to do bad, you know. People are always asking me, “Well, is this good or bad?” Well, it’s really neither. It’s just like artificial intelligence or nuclear technology. What’s good or bad is the user. You know, we can use nuclear power to light cities in a very clean and efficient way. We can also use that same technology to flatten a city if we wanted to, right? So it’s not really the technology that’s bad or good; it’s human beings’ use of that technology. Same thing with artificial intelligence, right? We can do it to do wonderful things for each other to help each other out. We can also use it to hurt one another if we want to.

So the term good or bad is I think problematic only because I think there are degrees of what is good and what is bad. And we have to start getting into now conversations about the difference between what a personal truth is and a universal truth. And by the way, sometimes personal truths can seem very much as real as a universal truth, but they’re not. So, for example, universal truth is gravity. It affects us all equally at 9.8 meters per second squared because of the mass of the Earth. There’s no getting around it. Whereas politics, religion, right? They seem very much like a universal truth to, say, somebody who is experiencing it, but in reality, it’s still a personal truth. It’s not a universal truth because it’s not widely accepted by other people.

So we have to understand that, and then we have to understand too what information means to us as human beings. If it means that a rogue nation can take a technology and a capability and reverse engineer it and do bad things towards us, that’s a problem. But at the same time, if we can use this technology and avoid the temptation of deploying it against one another and instead use it to benefit one another, then I see great potential there. And ultimately we go back to the term what good and bad is, right? So back to the personal truth and universal truth. Good is relative, bad is relative. It really depends.

Going back to my national security background, I think we all agree that killing another human being is bad, right? It’s called murder. And yet in certain situations they would give people like me an award and a medal for doing that, right? You’re still tearing another human being to pieces. Why is one okay and actually considered good, and other times it’s not? Well, it depends on circumstances, right? And so we’re very complex as human beings, and one only has to look at international relations. Let’s go back to that for a moment, right? The reason why we’re having issues with countries like Iran and countries like Russia and their invasion of Ukraine is because we don’t relate to one another.

Lue Elizondo 16:44

Iranians are motivated by one thing, and we’re motivated by something else, and neither one of us can see each other’s side or perspective. Now, with that said, let me just say this for the record: I by no means am I friendly towards Iran. I think the regime is brutal, and I think it treats its citizens completely unfairly and is repressive. But with that said, that’s not really up to me to decide now, is it? If a citizen of Iran is comfortable in living under those circumstances, well, that’s their business. Even if I don’t agree with it, right? I think it’s abhorrent. I think it’s ridicuLues and crazy to live in a situation like that, and yet other people are quite happy doing that.

My family are immigrants. My father came from Cuba. My father was in the revolution against Castro, and my family made a decision that we didn’t want to be under the tyranny of a dictatorship. Yet, if you go back to Cuba right now, there are many Cubans there that are just fine with the former Castro regime, and some would even say they probably like it. Right? Does that make them bad people? Does it make me good or right, and them wrong and bad? No, we just don’t see eye to eye on certain things, and chances are because we’re not communicating with one another very well, and we don’t respect each other very much. We tend to get into this tribalistic type situation where we all rally. You just look on the news any day today, tomorrow, yesterday, and you’ll see that there’s this tribalism going on in our society. You know, everybody wants to rally around a flag. Pick your issue du jour. It doesn’t really matter what it is. Everybody wants to have a flag, and that’s my flag, and they plant it down. And if you don’t agree with me, then you are on that side of the field, and I’m on this side of the field, right? It’s us versus them mentality.

But it shouldn’t be that way. And this is part of being human. We’ve been doing this since we came out of the cave. You know, crawling on all fours, the first thing we did when we picked up a stone, instead of striking it together and creating fire, we started throwing them at one another. Right? Why is that? Well, that’s the human condition. And as we try to grow and evolve and have more understanding of one another and more empathy, you know, what we’re seeing now on the international scale is no different than we saw at the scale when we were living in a village and in a hamlet before that and in a cave before that. We’ve always been at each other’s necks. And so that’s something I think that, if you look at it, results from us living in a resource-starved environment where competition for basic resources is a reality of life. And so how do we condition ourselves as human beings not to behave that way?

Eli Karetny 19:39

Such important questions. Wow. And I have to say there’s some shared background here in the sense my family’s from Ukraine. Left during the height of the Cold War, before the end of the Cold War in the late 70s. My wife is…

Lue Elizondo 19:55

My wife’s family’s from Ukraine. Oh yeah.

Eli Karetny 19:58

Is that right? Very cool. Very cool. My mom’s from Kyiv, and my dad’s from Zhytomyr, and I was born… My mom was pregnant with me when they left in ’77, so I was born in Philly right after they arrived. So I grew up on one hand as a patriotic American, appreciating the freedom and opportunity that America cherishes and makes possible, and on the other hand, a sense of inherent internationalism and the importance of communicating between cultures and across nations. So I so appreciate your perspective on that.

And you know, the idea of rallying around the flag and embracing our national identity in a tribal way is, on one hand, a human instinct. On the other hand, it’s a challenge and a problem that we need to find ways to overcome or moderate. And you mentioned one way to moderate that is through communication and mutual understanding. And another way, and maybe more what the IR experts call a realist framework, in an acceptance of some of the tragic realities of international relations, that power and security and threats aren’t going away. So one way to forge shared interests and common bonds is when there’s a shared enemy, a common enemy. The Soviets and the Americans were able to come together despite fundamental differences when the Nazis presented themselves as a common enemy. You know…

Lue Elizondo 21:32

Didn’t Reagan once have a famous speech where he said that if we learned that UFOs were real and they were here, that maybe that would drive the United States and Russia to forge a new alliance, right? And a new form of cooperation where we realize, look, we’re all part of humanity here. Can’t we learn to get along? And I believe that’s what I…

Eli Karetny 21:52

I was going to read, and now I don’t need to read it. So thank you. Exactly, exactly right. That was the quote I was going to ask you to respond to. That’s exactly right. And interestingly enough, the final line in there was, and maybe I should just kind of… So this is page 229 of your fantastic book. He’s talking about peace in the context of, perhaps we need some outside universal threat to make us recognize our common bonds, that we’re all members of humanity. And at the very end there, he says, “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.” 1987 speech by Reagan at the UN. And the final line, “And yet I ask you: Is not an alien force already among us?” That was a little bit of a head scratcher. I wonder if you would respond to that. What might he have meant there?

Lue Elizondo 22:51

Well, there has been some discussion in the past that certain presidents were briefed into the reality of UAPs. We now realize that our government, which I’ve known for some time, but now the American people are finally learning this, that we’ve been actually involved in UFO investigations for almost 80 years. Despite the constant denials by certain elements in our government, it turns out that we took the topic very seriously.

And that’s no different than AATIP when I was at the Pentagon. You know, here we were with this public position that, oh, UFOs aren’t real and we don’t pay attention to them. But secretly, we were spending $22 million of taxpayer money looking into them because they were very serious and they were very real. There have been some discussions in the past with certain elements in our government that were made aware of the reality of this topic, and it’s quite possible that Reagan was one of those individuals.

Eli Karetny 23:50

Wow, thank you for that. Appreciate the transparency there, and that’s something for us really all to internalize. So thank you for that. I’m thinking here of as a kind of segue, a character in Jacques Vallée’s book Messengers of Deception, a character named Major Murphy, which is a fictionalized character, but based on a real person. According to Vallée, Major Murphy helped convince Vallée—and interestingly, Eric Davis has made similar points publicly—that we’re not dealing with a science problem per se, because scientists deal with natural phenomenon, and UAP are not natural phenomenon, but represent an aspect or an expression of a non-human intelligence.

So we should be dealing with this challenge, with this problem, as an intelligence problem. So this is another intelligence interacting with us. So we’re studying something that’s studying us back. We’re dealing with something that has some kind of power or influence, or is at least engaging with us, and maybe threatening us, maybe seeking to control us. It’s maybe an open question, which I’d love to hear your thoughts on. But if so, how does that change how we gather data about the phenomenon, how we seek to understand it?

Lue Elizondo 25:20

Wow, great question. Let me first address the first part of your conversation about studying something that is studying us. I’m an avid scuba diver. I have been most of my life. And every time I go scuba diving, it’s never the same. And you have an ability to interact with what some might call alien life forms, right? Something that is in a completely different environment that’s very hostile to us. In fact, we require life support systems to even enter that environment, like scuba gear. And then we are engaging animals that, by definition, are extremely intelligent. Whether they’re dolphins and whales or they’re octopus, these are creatures in some cases that can problem solve, that can use tools, just like a human being.

These were all things that were thought to be exclusively human for some time, and now we’re realizing that other animals do some of the same type of things that we do, right? So maybe we’re not that unique. And when we’re underwater and we’re looking at a parrotfish, make no mistake—that parrotfish is equally interested in studying us as we are of it, because it wants to know: Are you hostile? Are you here to eat me? Are you here just to amuse me and take pictures? So it’s not that unusual that we come face to face with something that is interested in us.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed. I have five German shepherds, right? So one of them just left the room. It is distinctly not human, and yet I interact with it the only way I know how, which is human. And I mentioned this before, but this is why all my German shepherds have human names, and I talk to them like humans because I’m human. I don’t know how else to behave other than human. So I interact with these things as a human does. But make no mistake, they are not human, and yet we can communicate, right? So think about how profound this is! I know my dogs don’t speak English, but they tell me when they’re hungry. They tell me when they want to go out. They tell me when they want attention. Right. Well, that’s communication. It may not be written communication using A, B, C and the alphabet, but they are communicating very effectively, and I communicate with them very effectively. We understand each other, and this is a completely different species of animal we’re talking about.

So it’s not new for us to come face to face with something that we’re studying. What we’re not used to is coming face to face with something that potentially might be smarter than us, that might potentially have some sort of motivations that we’re unaware of, or that can do something that we may not be able to defend ourselves from. That creates a tremendous amount of insecurity for us. And it’s the same reason why you have insecurities in religions, because they look at another religion and say, you know, that’s not consistent with my beliefs. Same thing with governments, but that’s a human issue. That’s not a thing that we have to… If we want to solve that, we have to look at ourselves. We can’t blame NHI, or non-human intelligence, for the way we perceive them. That’s not their fault. That’s our fault. We have to figure that out.

Now, the second question you had is probably going to take a little bit more to unravel. Could I ask you to please repeat that second part of your question, just so I can make sure I get it right?

Eli Karetny 28:43

The idea that, well, maybe I’ll add another piece to it. If we’re engaging with something that’s studying us back or interacting with us in various ways, are we left to just be passive observers? You know, of our oceans and skies and deep space. Are we left just placing advanced sensors in locations where they hope they appear, or is there a way in our essential humanness to engage actively in this interaction? Is there a way to? And some of my experiencer friends really reject the idea of using the language of summoning, but let’s say the language of inviting. Inviting them to appear. So what power do we have to engage actively in the study of something that’s studying us back?

Lue Elizondo 29:46

Well, it’s up to us. We can react any way we want to. We can react with curiosity and optimism, or we can react with fear and violence. You know, it’s really up to us. I kind of liken it to opening the front door to your house. You moved into a neighborhood at night. You have no idea what neighborhood you’re in. You just open the front door, and whoever comes through that front door, you know, that’s who comes in your front door. Maybe they’re coming in for a cup of coffee. Maybe they want to borrow some sugar. Maybe they just want to welcome you to the neighborhood. Maybe they want to rob your house, right, or worse.

So we don’t know, and it’s in that vacuum of knowledge where we behave in ways that are we’re biologically predisposed to, right? Self-preservation and things like that. We’re naturally very wary of things that we don’t understand, and we don’t understand its motivation. So that creates a lot of internal anxiety psychologically, sociologically, and even theologically. So there are concerns there, but it shouldn’t stop you from never opening your front door, right? We have to be cautious and wary, but at the same time, I don’t think we need to be scared, and proverbially panic at the disco. I don’t think that’s an appropriate response either. We are faced with the reality of new species all the time. We’re constantly discovering new species. If we discover a new type of shark in the oceans, are we scared? No, unless you’re surfing that day and going out and surfing, and all of a sudden you see a fin come out of the water. Then you might be a little concerned, right? So it’s situation dependent.

I think, look for me, the truth never changes anything. The truth shall set you free. I think it is how we handle the truth and what we do with the truth that we have to pay attention to because the truth is a truth, whether we want to agree with it or not, whether we want to accept it or not. It’s the truth. It’s there. So, and so far, you know, we haven’t been wiped off the planet. We haven’t…

Eli Karetny 31:54

…thought about who we invite in. And I’m reminded of the mythology of the vampires that can only come in after they’re invited in. And is there a way to protect ourselves in terms of who we’re inviting in? Maintain both a sense of openness and curiosity and engagement to invite in those that may cause us no harm, and yet to protect ourselves against those who may harm us?

Lue Elizondo 32:21

Well, this goes back to walk softly but carry a big stick. You always put your hand out in friendship. Extend your hand out to shake hands. By the way, do you know the origins of shaking hands? It comes from the ancient times in Rome. They would take the hand that they used to hold their sword, and instead they would extend it out in friendship, with the understanding that, well, you can’t use your sword if I’m extending my hand out in friendship, right? I can’t fight you if I’m doing this. It’s a sign of mutual respect and a peace offering.

But at the same time, make no mistake. I’m sure if you talk to a Roman soldier, they were prepared to grab their sword if they needed to, right? It never left their hip side. They never put their sword down. They just put their hand out in friendship. But that sword was still on their belt, right? People know, hey, he can use that sword if he needs to. And I think really that’s all we can do, you know. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, hoping that that never comes to play.

I think, and also we talk about well, if these things are really that more capable than us, then clearly they could have wiped us off the planet before or whatever. Well, that may be true. Maybe it’s not. You know, there’s a lot of things that we are assuming about this topic that we may not be assuming correctly. And so it’s a great question. I think ultimately, if we want to know how to deal with… In order to understand what’s out there first, we first need to understand what’s in here inside every one of us. What motivates us? Why do we do the things we do? And then once we can reconcile that and understand that better and control some of those aggressive tendencies, then maybe we’ll be prepared better to engage something beyond us. If that makes sense.

Eli Karetny 34:20

Wow, that’s really so many important ideas in that. And I’m mindful of time. I promised you would be done at 11. So let me ask a final question, and hopefully we can pick this up another time. Thinking about a few things you just said. One is carrying a big stick and yet maintaining that openness in a nonviolent sense, prepared to defend, but also extending our hand in the spirit of peace and engagement, and what we’re carrying with us internally in that encounter.

An experiencer I know who I have profound respect for—you may have been on his show in the past, James Iandoli. I talk with him periodically. He reminds me that the intent, our intentions matter. What we carry in our hearts and souls when we are inviting in new people or new beings, really matters. And if we come with fear and aggression and violence, the phenomenon has a way of holding a mirror to those energies, and we might be getting back what we bring to the encounter. And if we come with love and openness and sincerity, we might also be getting something like that in return.

So my question is this, as a final question, thinking again about what we carry in our hearts, our intentions, and also maintaining a big stick to protect ourselves just in case. You describe in the book an operation called Interloper. What you talk about as a honeypot scheme that was designed to lure UAP by creating a situation… Hey, puppy, what’s his name?

Lue Elizondo 36:15

Sorry, he does this all the time. He photobombs. This is Bounty.

Lue Elizondo 36:20

He’s our young fella. I’m listening intently to you.

Eli Karetny 36:24

No, no, he’s awesome. No problem. So, Interloper—creating a situation that was irresistible for the enemy to ignore. Right? The idea was based on historical evidence that UAP are drawn to our nuclear facilities, and apparently operations like this had already been discussed, according to memos that Vallée uncovered in the Hynek files way back in 1953. What he called the Pentacle memo had already started to think about strategies for how to lure UAPs, what were then still called UFOs. So my question basically is, what do we learn about UAPs from Interloper and from similar operations that now are being done by Skywatchers and others, which are said to have an effective dog whistle?

Lue Elizondo 37:24

Yeah. So the two major commonalities are large bodies of water and nuclear equities. Whether it’s nuclear propulsion, nuclear weapon systems, it doesn’t matter. These things, these UAPs, seem very interested, and this is globally, in nuclear technology. And there’s a very distinct reason for that, we believe, but that’s for another conversation. And the close proximity to large bodies of water, and there are several theories on that as well, why that is. But those are two distinct commonalities that we have established as being absolutely 100% accurate.

The question is why, right? And so, forgive me. My dog has learned how to turn on the printer by himself. So, I’m going to teach him to do my taxes, I think next week. Probably does a better job than I will. But anyway, you know, OPLAN Interloper was a very real plan that was being developed, and I wouldn’t be surprised if other plans very similar to that have been executed as well.

Eli Karetny 38:38

And in terms of what you know, this last thought about what we bring to our engagement with the phenomenon, do operations like this represent a coming to the encounter with what intention? An intention of openness and engagement, or violence? And this…

Lue Elizondo 39:01

…is why we have to be very careful about this topic. About three and a half years ago, I was briefing a three-star general, and at the end of the hour presentation, he said to me, “Oh, that’s fine and dandy, Lue. That’s great, but look, at the end of the day, I just need to know one thing: if these things land on the White House lawn tomorrow, do I put my hand out in friendship, or do I point an M16 to its head?” And I said, “General, this is not a binary solution, brother. You’re looking at this the wrong way. It’s not an either-or. In fact, either-or might doom us. Because if these things are violent and we put our hands out in friendship, maybe they anticipate or they look at that as a sign of weakness, right? And so they are going to anticipate that they can proverbially steamroll us. At the same time, if they’re technologically advanced and they are not violent, and we put an M16 to its head, we may cause them to respond in a way that we don’t want them to respond. Right? So it’s not an either-or.”

I think intent is very important. It’s the same reason why my dogs walk in here and they come in and they lick my face. Because they know my intent is always I love my dogs, right? Over time I’ve proven my track record to be kind and gentle and giving with my dogs, and so they respond to that. There’s no natural fear. Now if a neighbor or a stranger comes to the front door, you will see these dogs’ personalities change on a dime. I would not want to be on the receiving end of five of these fur missiles. But to me, they’re like my children, right? There’s no threat because I have no ill intent. They know that they’re comfortable. They’re confident that I’m not trying to hurt them, and so perhaps it’s the same thing when we’re dealing with NHI.

I think what we need to do is, what I would not recommend doing, is doing something like a Project Interloper for the purposes of shooting down a UAP. Because I’ve been asked that before. “Well, why don’t we just shoot them down?” That would be a mistake. That would be a provocation. You know, it’s the same reason why we don’t shoot down Russian airplanes right now. They may not be our allies, but we don’t want to poke the bear. No pun intended. You know, it’s really up to us.

And I do think intent goes a long way. I think goodness, innocence, intent—you know, these are things that might be more universal than we really understand. They might be something beyond human beings that can express and share those types of feelings. Things like empathy, things like sympathy, things like love, the notion of love, right? Something that everybody in this world feels at times, but yet no one can really explain it, right? How ironic! Something that we all know universally exists and it’s the most fundamentally important thing of our existence, and yet none of us have the exact same definition for it. But it’s there. There is a fundamental understanding I think regarding intent, regarding what we need to do. If we really want to learn more about whoever’s on the other side of the screen porch, our friends from out of town, we probably need to extend a welcoming embrace because it’s not going to change anything. It’s not going to change the fact that they’re here. They’re here, whatever they are, for whatever reason they have. Probably best to just treat them like we would treat a neighbor, would be my advice. Treat him like a good neighbor.

Eli Karetny 42:44

That’s really a beautiful and poignant way to end this, what I hope is our first conversation. Yeah, the idea that a military man will finish the conversation with a reminder about the importance of love and goodness is really special and touching. I appreciate that, and I look forward to future conversations. Lue Elizondo, thank you so much for joining me today.

Lue Elizondo 43:11

Doctor, my honor and privilege, and I look forward to meeting you and some of your students in the near future.

Eli Karetny 43:20

Thank you so much, Lue.

Lue Elizondo 43:21

Take care. God bless.