Thanks, for having me back on the show. I apologize for jumping around between so many topics and cases, and if any listeners would like more information on things we discussed, please ask.
I for one, was really glad to have you back. Certainly no need to apologize for anything. You're starting to sound like a Canadian! Also, an excellent article on AATIP and Elizondo, but I'd like to know who the "then-director of AATIP" was that "Elizondo finally met with". Because it seems from that statement that there actually was a "Director".
In the meantime, it still remains unclear to me because of the contradictory statements made by officials still in office, whether or not Elizondo had any leadership responsibilities. However, it does look like he has military credentials. But so far, for all we know, he just shuffled some paper around, and we're still not entirely sure exactly what the objects in the videos really are.
The Kit Green piece is a very interesting read. However let's not forget that particle beam weapons have been around for decades now, as have microwave communications transmitters. You don't want to get between two of those dishes, or it could kill you, and there are many in civilian use. As for the military, they probably need to worry less about aliens than known potential enemies, and they have their own particle beam weapons:
The U. S. Navy's Virginia Class attack submarines are formidable weapons platforms. But a program plans to make them the first in the world with powerful lasers.
www.forbes.com
I strongly suspect that the military's allusion to any sort of "anomalous systems" or vehicles or UFOs that might result in exposure to high energy radiation is more of a euphemism for much more down-to-earth technology. But then again, the article is correct about ufo reports where bodily injury from particle beams or proximity to a craft is a factor. Are the allusions to aliens meant to be taken seriously, or are they just a red herring, or both?