All right, welcome to the Rojas Report. We have a very special guest
today, and that is lou Elisondo, the former head of the Pentagon Advanced
Aerospace Threat Identification Program. I almost said Aeriel for some reason, I feel
Ariel has a ring to it. I mess that up a lot. In
fact, you may remember one time I mentioned that in one of our former
detractors that somehow it was some sort of official comment when it's not. But
it is aerospace, right, it is Alajadro. Thank you very much for
having me. I certainly appreciate Its a big thank you to your views as
well. Yeah, my pleasure. So a great job on the show unidentified.
Of course it was on We had what the fifth episode that we're at
on an eight episode series, so three more to go, and I guess
what I want to do is kind of talk about the past, the present,
and a little bit about the future as well, and getting into the
past. In my interview with Chris Mellen, you know, he kind of
shaped up how you and he had a strategy coming into this to take this
package of essentially very credible information and to push that forward along with using the
media and identify it as a vehicle to get this out there, to get
the government to respond, luckily the Navy did, and then use that as
a vehicle to demonstrate to the Senate, you know, that this is a
real deal, and to get them to also start inquiries, all of which
has happened at breakneck speed. Yeah. I mean, obviously, I think
social engagement here is key and you know the power of probably more than anybody
of social media. This is really a grassroots effort. You know, you
said something interesting about the past, the president in the future, and I'm
a firm believer that in order to know where you are today, you have
to know where you've been. In order to know where you're going, you
need to know where you are now. So I do think it's important that
we continue to build upon the initiatives and the momentum that we've already gained on
this topic, this very important topic that has until recently and quite frankly,
been relegated to discussions that are that are on the fringe. And I think
it's it's incredible to see that this this conversation is being elevated now to where
to where it should be elevated to right as a very serious topic of very
serious conversation. Uh, that involves all of us, all of us equally
and yet differently. Right, we all live on this planet together, we
all live on this rock together. Uh. You know, no one gets
gets off alive, so to speak. So we're all stuck on this ball.
So this topic affects us equally, but yet differently, because depending on
our our social backgrounds and philosophical backgrounds and theological leanings, you know, it's
going to mean something different to to every The person sitting in Congress receiving a
briefing that's maybe assigned to the cissy is going to look at this topic fundamentally
different than let's say an academic or a scientist, or a philosopher or just
you know, average Jane and Joe sitting around the dinner table. And when
you say cissy, you mean that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That's
correct, Send us Select Committe on Intelligence, the committee responsible for, if
you will, the watchdog agency for Congress that oversees the entire intelligence community.
Writ large m hm. And I mean it does also kind of explain for
people. Early on, once you guys had launched to the stars, there
was some criticism that people didn't see a lot of movement going on publicly.
However, as we've seen in the background, you guys were hustling. You
guys were moving this football forward at that level with that military leadership people at
the Hill, of course, which we saw unidentified. So I mean it
seems as though a lot of your time at that point was taken up with
this getting that information out there, which is what you wanted to do in
the first place, while you weren't in the government. Sure, I think
public engagement is critical here, but you know, and thank you for giving
us credit for that. But to be honest with you, that credit has
to be shared with everybody. When they say everybody, I mean I mean
folks like you, I mean your audience and your viewers. Because if there
wasn't an interest in this topic and a desire to take this topic and look
at it the way I believe it deserves to be looked at, then you
and I would be having this conversation. We wouldn't have made it past the
first few months when we when TTSA got together and started engaging the public.
So this has really been a team effort. The success that you're seeing now
is not a one side of success. It's not just because of us.
And yes, to some degree, we also have to give credit to some
of the skeptics out there, because skeptics are trying to engage this topic very
much like other people. Right, So you have believers on one side,
then you have non believers on the other side, and then you have the
vast majority kind of in the middle that really don't know what to think about
about this topic. And so I think in order to have a productive conversation
about this topic, we need everybody in the boat with us. Everybody.
And it's okay if people are skeptics. I think I've said before for the
record, I think healthy skepticism is important as long as you don't allow your
own personal bias to overshadow that that objectivity, right, and then I think
it's okay. It's okay to ask questions. It's okay to ask why and
who and where. These are fundamental attributes of being human. So anyways,
I guess my point to all this is, you know, thank you humbly
for giving us some of the credit to that, But really I think credit
needs to go where credit do and that's really this is a This is an
awfully big ship role and there's a lot of people that are part of it.
Uh. And it's you know, it's a wonderful opportunity to get different
perspectives. Mm hmm. That's really full. They hear too about you're embracing
skepticism and skeptics, because I agree. I like to be challenged in order
to make sure that you're looking at all angles. And I think that it's
frustrated some in the UFO can get you guys that you all give attention to
skeptics. But at the same time, I people like me appreciate it because
it means you're open to constructive criticism. Yeah, and you see it even
on the television show the History Channels Unidentified Inside America's UFO investigation, you see
that we actually have skeptics actively on the program because we're trying to get all
sides, all perspectives on this topic. It's, you know, we're not
trying to go out and convince the public of a preconceived narrative we already have.
You are truly trying to walk hand in hand with the audience and have
a conversation about this this incredible enigma that has now recently finally been acknowledged as
being one a reality, right, but two something that probably deems additional research
and insight. And I think skeptics play an important role here, you know,
I don't mind being the difference between being skeptical and being a skeptic by
nature. If you are skeptical, that's okay, you are applying I think
reason and objectivity to look at a topic. But if you are a skeptic
by nature, that means then you kind of automatically reject any type of new
data that's presented before you. So there's a fine line between being skeptical and
being a skeptic. I tend to shy away from skeptics in particular because I'm
not sure they're very objective, right. It's just like a true believer,
no matter what you tell them, it's going to be hard for them to
pivot from their narrative. So really our focus has been that whole majority in
the middle there that really haven't had the luxury to really even think about the
topic because they're busy with distractions such as you know, real by the way,
real distractions such as, you know, this awful pandemic that's afflicting the
world COVID nineteen. You also have political issues, you have civil unrest.
You've got a lot of a lot of things going on in the world right
now that are demanding a tremendous amount of bandwidth from people. And so this
is yet just another topic. And I think if this was any other time
in our history, you might see more people talking about it. But there's
so much right now in the dinner plate that I think this topic can sometimes
get a little bit lost, and it's understandable right now. Another thing that
Chris Mellan had mentioned with me and I wrote up in that Dentic Geek article
about unidentifying, it's one tool that one way that unidentifies being used is that
you're able to highlight cases, in other words, to demonstrate that, hey,
now that the sissy as you call them, is asking for these reports,
we know there's a lot out there that better be in those reports that
you can't kind of like a term that I used in one of my articles,
gaslight us and pretend like this, there's not much there. We know
there's a lot there. Are you hopeful that they will, you know,
be open with the public as they should. I am hopeful. I think
the at least the people that I know on those committees are our honest individuals
or patriots. They've been serving the American public for years, if not decades.
You know, they're not there to obfuscate, They're not there to hide
information. Now, there is an element of politics that is always prevalent because
you're talking about an organiz sation by nature that is full of politicians. Right.
But politicians are only going to do as much as they feel that the
constituency, the people that they represent will allow them to do. Because remember,
their job is to eventually, you know, do what they do and
then get re elected. Right, Otherwise they're not very effective and middle get
reelected. So so reelection is very important for them. And I think if
the American public and the constituency tells them, look, it's okay to look
at this, right. I mean, I can get on social media now
and I see comments we're saying. You know, just in a recent interview,
I did you know some of the comments coming in? And so,
why are you wasting time and money and our attention on this dumb topic.
You know, let's get back to let's get back to what's important. Right,
That's not helpful because as long as you have that mentality and you're beating
up our elected officials for even looking at this, then you know we're going
to be back to where we were even ten years ago, fifteen, twenty
years ago. So I think as long as we encourage our leadership, letting
them know it's okay to do this. Senator Harry Reid was an absolute maverick
in that regard, didn't give a crap about what anybody thought. Uh,
and he just did it. Write him and Steven's an innua. And you
know, John, Senator John Glenn, Uh, these are are are incredible
patriots for our country now. Whether politics aside, I don't care if you're
conservative or liberal or independent or whatever. The bottom line is these people put
their their their political careers on the line to do what they felt was right
for the American people. And I think that is exactly the type of people
like Senator Mark or Rubio. Uh. This is an individual he and I
both attended University of Miami way back when he's obviously he's weathered much better than
I have. But uh, you know, this is this is an individual
who who's coming up for reelection and he's willing to take on a topic like
this that's fraught with potential political land minds. I think I think we're seeing
a shift, and I think history will look back and ultimately remember these individuals
very fondly. Now, one of the topics that was brought up recently in
the New York Times, and I know You've spoken about this a little bit
on Fox News, and I've asked you about this a couple of times,
is the topic of UFO crashes and the way the New York Times framed it
is at a couple of you at TTSA at least a few are convinced that
this is a reality, that this is something that's happened. First of all,
is that framing accurate? And you know, is that topic kind of
been raised also as a check to for these reports that hey, you know,
if there is something out there on this topic, we want you all
to share that information as well. So let me go back to original statements
about the people that you know an organization that are convinced. And We've said
this before, there's a fundamental difference between what someone believes, what someone thinks,
and what someone knows right. So I don't ever want to cross that
barrier of what I think. In fact, a few times have been pushed,
you know, to a corner on this question. I've tried very diligently
to deflect because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Luis
Elosondo thinks or believes. What matters is what the data shows. What do
we have empirical data evidence that can speak for itself. Now we know that
this planet we live on, Earth is visited by extraterrestrials all the time.
Now wait before I go down that road. People say, oh my god,
lose saying aliens. We have meteorites, and we have debris from comets
on a daily basis, coming in, re entering to Earth's app if you're
getting caught in Earth's gravity coming in and plopping down here sometimes in people's living
rooms, believe it or not right. So this is a The universe is
not static, It is dynamic. It is always changing. Things are always
happening. And so the question is are the things, some of these things
that are found here on this planet, engineered? Are they? Are they?
Let's go this step beyond. Is it possible that some of these things
that have been found that we know are not from this planet. Are they
natural occurring things such as you know, metea rites or whatnot meteorites? Or
are these something that had some sort of intelligence behind them, if you will,
in their in their their design, and their function. So that's the
question, and the bottom line is we're still trying to answer that question.
Yes, I'm obviously deflecting your question here, and the plate is way possible,
but I'm always very careful to stipulate what I think. Look, the
Internet and social media is full of people espousing what they think, and at
the end of the day, I think most Americans are probably tired about hearing
what about what other people think. Let's try to focus on the areas we
don't know yet, and let's try to provide information and data and evidence that
can help us answer some of these questions. And I think only until we
get more data would I be more comfortable providing my thoughts. I just I
don't want to. I don't want to prejudice the jury, if that makes
sense. My job is very simple, collect the truth and speak the truth.
Doesn't matter at the end of the day, what the hell lu elisondo
things or believes. What matters is what the data shows. So by collecting
this information and presenting it before you. You're the jury. What matters what
you think, not mean, it's you. It's really all about you,
guys. That's that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to provide the
evidence. At the end of the day, say you know, here's the
evidence, here's what the science is telling us. Over to you. M
M no. I. I appreciate the answer, and I'm happy to give
you the opportunity to answer more fully because typically, you know, you've got
a second tip for a SoundBite, and notes can get interpreted in many different
ways, so it's great to hear a clarification. And then one last question
on this topic. Just Davis had brought up at least Roswell and I think
the az Tec case. There's a couple of cases. He believes there are
some wait too, that there may be something to them. I'll put it
that way. Are there, as far as you know, are there stronger
cases? Are there some cases out there that are strong in your mind?
Or have you looked into that really deeply? Yeah, I mean, let's
let's let's face it. You know, it's like doing a criminal investigation.
You know, there's a reason why sometimes hearsay isn't even admissible in court because
it's he said, she said right. Then you get, you know,
second hand account. I know this occurred because X, Y, and Z.
Then you have a first had account, right, and I witness,
I actually saw the car accident myself. This car was traveling direction, this
one was traveling this direction and they had an accident, right, And then
you have so there's different levels of, if you will, information that's more
and more credible. Ultimately, can you imagine, you know, let's say
you're at a traffic court and someone says, yes, I actually saw this
white car Toyota hit this red car Chevy. In fact, it was a
Toyota that was going and doing excessive speed. In fact, here is the
radar return from the police officer who just radared them two blocks before. They
were doing ten miles an hour of the speed limit. By the way,
here is the crash report. Here is a piece of the fender that came
off of the Toyota, and you can see based upon the forces and the
impact, you know, it deformed the front bumper to this amount of degrees.
And so that's really what we're trying to do here, we're trying to
build a case based upon the very best evidence we have available to us at
the time. If that makes sense, mm hmm, it does. And
getting into unidentified moving on to another topic another and you had mentioned skeptics and
another. You all tackled a couple of topics in the latest Unidentified in that
there are other reasons than the search for aliens that you want to look at
unidentified. In fact, Adam Kehill wrote a great article kind of outlining this
based on that episode in that and I've seen this and written about this in
the past. It seems that when something gets labeled a UFO, there's a
blind spot when it comes to the military, and they won't look at those
cases. And some of those cases could demonstrate that there are advanced technologies that
some of our adversaries have developed. Yet we're hands up because of the taboo.
So it seems like, you know, something that is getting missed is
that it's great and it's sexy to talk about aliens, but there are other
important reasons why UAPSE need to be taken seriously and looked at, you know,
carefully, right, you know, we've always realized that the dual use
nature of technology. Let's look at the microwave oven that most people now have
in their in their kitchen settings. And quite frankly, we take for granted
the microwave oven was really invented as a result of military technology, radar technology,
and people realized, particularly some soldiers in the field, that when they
had deployed a radar unit of field radar unit to detect then Soviet aircraft,
they could put their their meal right behind the radar dish and it would warm
up their food, right. And of course now we have microwave ovens.
That's why they used to be called a radar range actually from the beginning,
from my understanding, that's where the microwave was actually called a radar range because
it was using radar waves initially. So it's not surprising that if you know,
you develop a capability to detect u you're building this capability to look at
UFOs or UAPs right, living hypersonic velocities and stintaneous acceleration. Well, there
are some rational reasons why you'd want to continue to develop this technology. Forget
about the UFOs entirely. Let's just look at the fact that that you know,
you have now Russia and some of our foreign adversaries developing hypersonic cruise missiles,
right, new technology that some some some way mimics to some degree some
of the observables. So if you're looking for a UFO or UAP traveling at
hypersonic velocities, well, intercontinalistic missiles travel at that speed, right, hypersonic
glide vehicles. There's all sorts of different themes out there that that could could
could mimic that that behavior. Uh. There are missiles that that are extremely
maneuverable, surface to air missiles that appear to have this almost as sudden and
instantaneous uh characteristic of acceleration. So I guess my point is that this isn't
a one trick pony. You know, if you spend taxpayer dollars trying to
identify UAP, there's a really good chance that you may be able to track
other things as well. And by the way air safety we saw in one
of the episodes, this is not just relegated to military aircraft. There are
indeed civilian aircraft that are coming up close and personal to these things where you've
got, you know, two hundred and fifty people in the back of the
plane drinking cocktails that are completely unaware. That is a flight safety issue.
I don't want myself from my family in an airplane if I don't have complete
air domain awareness of what's around me, If the pilot does not know what's
above him, below him or her, or to their sides, that's a
problem for me. And so if there's technology out there that we can develop
that can assist in some of those areas, I think it's worth pursuing.
Another topic that you brought up that I think is really important, and of
course I've shared my research with you on this, said him and Richard Dodie,
who claims to have put out some disinformation on this topic, and then
you all had Bill Chalker talking about how he had also heard that there were
programs like this. It seems important in order to you know, tell the
signal from the noise, essentially, that we need to pay attention to that
possibility and what information out there could have been you know, used to cover
up other black projects, and that it's a topic we need to be cognizant
of. Yeah, I agree with you. It's not uncommon that if you
know you have a super secret aircraft you're trying to keep from the from public
knowledge all of a sudden, the crashes during a test crush you know,
is it that uncommon to go and put pieces of an airplane or even a
car at the rec site to try to confuse somebody? So maybe they don't
know what type of aircraft you're testing or what type of technology. Right if
you will see the area, so you don't know the difference between you know,
a piece of an aileron to some super secret aircraft and a bolt from
a nineteen sixty six Chevy. Right, it's all together, So it doesn't
make any sense, you know. Yeah, I mean there's reasons why you
want to confuse people sometimes if you're dealing with and this is by the way,
I'm not talking about extually. I'm talking terrestrial technology, advanced terrestrial technology.
Right, you don't even have to talk about UAPs. We can just
talk about you know, real world secret technology working on. Now, because
we've only got about ten minutes left, we'll move on to some other topics
as well. So I wrote an article recently that kind of outlining the Department
of Defenses responses. Ever since you came out essentially with your claims, your
claims fortunately backed up by some of your coworkers and colleagues, such as Harry
Reid, the Senator who helped fund and start the program, you know,
a couple of the contractors like doctors how put Off and Eric Davis, which
in my mind, and I think in many people's minds, including The New
York Times and Political really solidified the credibility to some of your statements. However,
regardless of all of kind of this backing that you had from first hand
witnesses, the DoD has kind of countered many of your claims and your colleague
claims, Harry Reid's as well, which has been very odd, especially when
you put them all together. I felt like when I read that article that
they just kept backtracking and changing their story, seemingly just for some reason,
just dead set against you know, accepting or wanting to verify many of the
statements that you had made, and even you know, claiming that you had
nothing to do with a tip, which is it just seems really odd that
they had been doing that. Do you have any idea why, you know,
I think that's a question you probably want to ask the department when you
look at this. So far, in the last three years, they've changed
their position literally seven times already, and they continue to change it and evolve
it every day. I have some speculation why this may be. But also
every time they change their position, eventually they come back around to admitting,
you know, let's not forget it. Initially it was a TIP didn't exist.
Then it was okay, ATIP existed, but it didn't look at UFOs.
Oh well, actually it did look at UFOs but didn't find anything.
Oh except for that, there were these derds that came out, well it
was defunct. Well, you know, and this constant backpedaling, and it's
only really by a few. There are individuals and documentation out there that will
come to light. For me, it's not a race. I don't really
give a damn what people think about me. What's going to happen is that
all this is going to come out either way, and there's going to be
some people that are going to have to answer some very difficult questions in the
US government. Fortunately, we're talking about a small minority of people. Unfortunately,
I think they've done a disservice to the department, because the department will
have to come back again, just like with the videos and say other real
videos they're UFOs and everything else. You know, I can't help them.
You know, I've tried my best. There's individuals that are still part of
the program that we're associated with, agent that are not part of the task
force. We have reached a critical mass. You're correct. The Senator and
many many, many others know exactly who I am and what I was doing.
But at the end of the day, Alejandro, it's not about me.
You know, I'm not gonna I could have three years ago ended this
conversation very quickly, and there's some documentation out there that would have just shut
this conversation down. But at the same time, it probably we wouldn't be
where we are today with this new task force. They probably would have retracted
back into their shell and say, Okay, we don't want anything more to
do with this, you know, just pay this guy, shut them up,
and let's move on to something else. I think we're only here right
now because there's been been some on our with some patience allowing the Department to
try to figure out a position that they can take without you know, safe
face, without looking like like like they're incompetent, which by the way,
I'm not saying they are because something they made their job very well in other
areas, you know, and being able to brief leadership about the reality and
the nature of this effort. You know, my only warning would be to
those who are in the department who still think that they can obfuscate, you
know, your time is coming. I don't know what to tell you.
At some point here the American people, You're going to be on one side
of history. You're either going to be on the right side or the wrong
side. That's it. And I would ask you to choose very wisely what
side of history you want to be on. Well, and you know,
I know you say it's not about you, but I would imagine, because
it's been a lot of their comments have been focused on you, such as
saying that you never were involved with a tip or those type of things.
Had to have an effect though, I mean, it had to have an
effect on your life and your credibility and perhaps even some of your professional relationships.
Well, of course, I mean, anybody who's served in national security
and served their country the last thing once, the last thing they want to
do is be in a situation now people are questioning their credibility, you know,
their service, their intentions or loyalty. I mean, it is very
difficult, but I also know that the mission is much greater than me.
I mean, everything I've ever said for the record has always come to fruition.
So either I'm telling the truth or I'm the greatest psychic the world has
ever seen today and I'm in the wrong business. So I think people are
smarter than that. I think people realize that when you look at all the
data here and you say, Okay, this is what has been said,
and this is what has occurred versus what the other side has said and not
done, or vice versa, I think it's pretty clear. I don't need
to spend a whole lot of time to myself because quite frankly, the facts
are there and they defend me. For me. There are some individuals in
the journalistic world who, unfortunately, I don't think the American public is savvy
enough to recognize that they're not real journalists, and so they put out these
hit pieces without any real data and information, and of course they're never held
accountable even though years later, months later, new information comes to light saying
oh okay, this actually was the real case. Those reporters will never go
back on what they wrote and say, oh, hey, we're sorry,
we were wrong. I was inaccurate, you know, And that's a shame
because I think the world of journalism today is not what it used to be
even ten years ago. There's no accountability. Anybody can be a journalist at
this point and say whatever the heck they want to be, say whatever the
heck they want to say, and there's no accountability. Right. I can
say I'm a journalist, I want to be a journalist, and therefore now
I'm an investigative journalist, but not really. You know, just because I
badge doesn't necessarily mean I'm a police officer, right. I can buy a
badge at any Pons shop and stick it on me, but it doesn't necessarily
mean I'm a law enforcement If they continue along these lines of you know,
putting out information that seems obviously contrary to the facts that are out there that
you all have shared and established, do you have recourse or are you considering
any sort of further recourse? Yeah? I always have recourse, Alejandro.
I mean, I'm spent a career looking at at second and third order cause
and effects, so you know, people's patients only last for so long.
But I still am a firm believer that we need to try to do things
the right way and the least intrusive way. I'd rather entice somebody with a
carrot than a stick, you know, like I say, a honey.
Honey attracts more than vinegar, so more flies. So yes, I have
recourse, and you know, I always have some options available to me.
But I'm not sure we're at that point yet. I don't know. Maybe
we are. You know, it depends on what the department does or says
within the next few weeks or months. Uh, you know, balls in
their court, really and I guess a stick would be legal recourse potentially.
Sure, that's an option, right, I mean, and if you can
go legal recourse, what happens, Well, everything, everything's put on the
table, and I'm sure there's going to be some people really really uncomfortable should
that, should that have to happen? So you know, again, go
ahead, Yeah, I was just going to say the fortunate thing that I
think your patience early on made people question, you know, why is any
fighting for himself? However, I think it's born out that your patients actually
played well and now has really demonstrated your credibility and has helped in the long
run to see that hey, he was just being paid, you know,
letting the facts all demonstrate that it will all work out. And it did.
I mean for the most part. I mean you've been vindicated. I
mean for you left because they weren't taking the topic seriously enough. In the
Pentagon. You demonstrated you and Chris and the group have demonstrated it was a
real issue, and you've proven that the American people and the Senate should have
been given this information, wanted this information, and that they are now saying,
hey, we need more, you know. And on August fourth,
you have the Deputy's Secretary of Defense authorized under his authorities the establishment of this
task force. This is precisely what we have been trying to achieve when I
was an agent, finally getting somebody in a in a senior level position to
accept this responsibility and fund it properly and give it the teeth it needs to
do what it needs to do. Right. So it took three years.
I'm not sure had we have used a different strategy we would be here.
But we've come a long way in just three years. I think, and
you know, I do I think that strategy has up till now has proven
very effective. Right, rather than confronting the department head on, maybe what
we can do is help them right come to a better conclusion. We're pretty
much out of time. I know you've got to leave just one last yes
or no question and perhaps if you allow, maybe I'll email you some more
questions. There was at least a couple that came up in the chat.
But this current UAP task force, although they Susan goes Press really said that
it was started on August fourth, it appears as though, because you know
it's a Navy relay, did it stems from you used to work on that.
This is the group that was the extension of a tip that continued on
that you've been talking about over the years. Is that correct? Not as
simple as a yes or no answer? There are I think you're on the
right track. I'll just say that I don't want to answer on behalf of
the department again. I want to give them some time to figure out the
answer they want to give. But I think it's abundantly clear at this point
that a lot of the elements that were involved in the AI program are part
of this current effort now is that my coincidence or is that by design?
You tell me, right, And yeah, I found it surprising when I
put together my article just how closely your comments and descriptions of this organization,
and there's in that you know, talks about same department, same players,
all of that. So I found that really interesting and credible for supporting your
stance. But we are out of time. It's ten thirty five, so
I think you've got to run. But thank you so much for joining.
Congratulations on a great show, and congratulations on I can't imagine a better vindication
in that. You know, now the Senate is asking questions, there's this
new task force. I think people are just floored at this point. Well,
I appreciate it Andandro, but really, again, this has been a
team effort. Everybody is part of TTSA, and of course folks like you
that are just relentless and finding the truth and getting that information out has been
incredibly useful. There are people now in Congress that are paying attention, They're
watching social media. There are a couple of people now in the Twitter sphere
so to speak, that you know, seem to have a pretty good understanding
of what's at stake here, and I think they'd be surprised to know that
there's people in very high levels of government that are actually following some of what
they have to post. So this has been a group ember. It's been
a since your honor and pleasure as always to be with you, and you
know, thank you for for all that you do as well, and your
listeners and those individuals that are that are supporting you and people like you.
I think you know, I think the times are changing. I think the
times are changing, and I think you know we're entering potentially a new era
of understanding. Well, thank you very much, and of course thank you
from all of us on your work on all of this. But thank you
very much for joining us, and hopefully we'll talk to you soon. Honor
and a pleasure as always, thank you. Thanks all right, So thank
you to Lose so much for joining us. It was really helpful to to
be able to talk to him about all of this and what I will do.
Like he said, he'll answer more questions via email, So send me
emails if you have other questions. I'll take these questions in the chat and
I'll put those into an email and then I'll put together a Q and A
because I actually had a couple more too. So Otherwise, for those of
you who are watching now, just so you know how this works, is
that if you are a Patreon member, this video won't be able to be
viewable except for those who are in the memberships for YouTube, and I'll post
a new video for all of you and Patreon who are members so you can
watch it as well. And of course, if you go to open mindsat
tv, you can see all these articles that we talked about and you can
see links to all of these interviews that we've got going on. So thank
you all so much for joining and until next time, we'll talk to you
later. Thanks guys, Bye,