In a Jan. 30, 2018, interview with Luis Elizondo, investigative journalist George Knapp asks about media coverage of UFOs and government coverups. Elizondo also talks about personal attacks he has seen. Part 2 of a 10 Part series.
George Knapp: A threat to their worldview?
Luis Elizondo: It could be, absolutely. And it could be a threat to many things. The way they view the world, certainly, the way they potentially view religion and their place in the world, and their place with religion. It can be scary, right? Because for the first time, you’re sailing above that horizon, and the ship’s mast finally disappears over the horizon, and your view of the shore is now gone and so you’re in uncharted territory. What does that mean? What’s your place? You know, if you will, what’s your place on this ocean? And is there a destination out there that we’re going towards? So.
Knapp: Seemed like I was clicking around the channels and there’s Lue, on the channel, day after day, you’re doing all these interviews, and I guess you expected that. But then it goes away. It’s like, you know, like, it disappeared. Dropped off a cliff.
Elizondo: So issues du jour, right? I’m sure this is … you’re probably more familiar with this line of work than I am when it comes to media and whatnot. I think the attention span of the American people is, you know, whatever issue is hot today will probably not be so hot tomorrow. My only desire here and hope is that we at least can now start the conversation without people feeling some sense of stigma, or they have to whisper somewhere in the dark corners, and the recesses of the rooms and back alleys about this topic. Because in the end, I think that is what is potentially, from my perspective, the greatest threat of all. The fact that we have something going on that we can’t talk about, right? If you can’t communicate, there’s a problem. Then you can’t address the problem. I think if you were to take this issue that we’ve seen, and you have something coming into our airspace, or airspace we control, that has maybe a Russian star on the tail, or has North Korean tail numbers, I think people would have a much different reaction and response. Because there’s something we can identify and say that is in our airspace and shouldn’t be here. You DOD, you CIA, you DHS, have the responsibility of protecting us. How did this happen? And yet, here we have that same scenario, but there are no flags and tail numbers on the tail. In fact, there may not even be a tail on some of the things. And yet it’s crickets. Nobody wants to have the conversation. As far as the short memory and attention span of the American people, well, that’s understandable. It’s no different even in the Department of Defense. One day you have a have an issue with terrorism, the next day, you have an issue with weapons of mass destruction, and proliferation, the next day, you may have instability in a particular country. So, it’s a very dynamic environment we’re working in. I’m not surprised that the attention to this has maybe subsided some. But I think this is a long game. I think this is a marathon, not a sprint. And I think that we need to have this conversation over a long period of time. People like you need to ask the hard questions, and have the courage to continue looking at this.
Knapp: A lot of what’s come out has been attacks on you, on your integrity. That you’re part of … that you’re some kind of a political puppet, disinformation, counter intel operation spreading this for whatever nefarious purposes. On one hand, you got the UFO conspiracy people, and then you got scientists who don’t want to take it seriously at all? Well, the “U” in UFO is “unidentified,” they’ll say, as if we shouldn’t be concerned about it. A range of reactions to you, I would think for a guy who’s used to operating in the shadows, that would be unusual for you.
Elizondo: It is unusual, very uncomfortable. But unfortunately, I can’t convince. My job isn’t to convince anybody what I’m telling anybody is true. In fact, I think healthy skepticism is very important. So I would encourage anybody who sees someone like me on TV, making some sort of proclamation about something like this should always have some healthy degree of skepticism and should be asking the hard questions. But in the end, the beauty about this, I think this effort, is that the data speaks for itself. You don’t have to believe me. In fact, I don’t want you to believe me. I want you to go and seek the data and look at the data and let the data speak for itself. And if I’ve accomplished only that, then I’ve accomplished my mission. If this was some sort of mass misinformation campaign, this would probably be the most colossally, historically, worst example of some sort of misinformation campaign that we could do. My job is not to misinform the American public. In fact, I left the Department of Defense and left everything behind, a great job with a great pension and a great retirement, great healthcare and pretty much everything. I was a top of my game in my career field. And I left it all to have this conversation with the American public, there was nothing in it for me. In fact, if this was some sort of get rich quick scheme, again, I can think of a lot better ways to do it, than to put yourself out in front of the American public and take arrows.