UFO-Forschung - Pentagon-Mitarbeiter Luis Elizondo: Substituting facts with opinion



Nach dem auch bei uns in Deutschland immer wieder die "alte Ufologie" ausgegraben wird wie hier bei der Exopolitik:


haben wir einen interessanten Beitrag in SUNlite entdeckt, welche einmal diesen Herrn des Pentagon beleuchtet:



Curt Collins recently directed me, and others, towards a presentation given by the To The Star’s Academy (TTSA) expert, Luis Eli- zondo, to an Italian UFO group called “Centro UFOlogico Nazionale” (CUN). As I examined the video, I, as well as others, noticed that there were a lot of problems with the presentation. There seemed to be several factual errors and repeating of many UFO myths. What concerned me most is a statement made by Mr. Elizondo at the beginning of his lecture:

“...facts is(sic) more important than opinion...I have tried to remove my opinion from the facts and the data.”1

This gave the viewer the impression that what he presented was based on nothing but facts and data. However, what was present- ed was not factual at all.

Fact vs opinion

The Oxford dictionary states a fact can be defined as , “A thing that is known or proved to be true.”2 They define an opinion as,“A view3

or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” This means that in order to declare something a fact, it needs to be proven/established. If Elizondo was truly interested in facts, he needs to demonstrate his claims are facts and not his opinion.

Foo fighters

The first bullet point Elizondo made was that the government had studied “foo fighters” in the early 1940s. My opinion of the “investigation” by the military was suggesting they might be a German secret weapon. However, during the war, there seemed to be little effort by the military to thoroughly investigate these reports.

The “foo fighter” mystery has always been an interest to UFOlogists. However, close examination of the facts indicated that much of the mystery revolved around “air stories” told by pilots and magnified by news reports. There are several articles on line mentioning the foo fighter story that should be required reading. I recommend the following to help understand the “foo fighters” story better:

  • “Are the Photos illustrating the ufological productions dedicated to Foo-Fighters represent these Foo-Fighters?”4 by Gilles Fer- nandez

  • “The foo fighters of world war II” by “Saturday night UFOria”.5

  • The Washington DC sightings

    This is Luis Elizondo’s description of the Washington DC sightings of July 1952:

    In the early 1950s, the United States had another very significant event over our nation’s Capitol. Once again, these objects were identi- fied both with the naked eye and again on radar, and unlike Roswell, many people had cameras and were able to take photographs. And what you see here are real photographs, along with the story - the headline story that came out.

    The images he had in this slide showed some lights behind the capital building and image that had a headline type font. Elizondo apparently did not realize that the image of UFOs behind the capital building was a CGI image taken from a TV program.13 It was based on an actual image from the 1950s that showed something similar but the lights were determined to be nothing more than internal lens reflections by lights below the building. The “headline story” image actually came from a 1954 “weird science-fantasy” comic book that described the sightings! It was not an actual headline from a newspaper. Was Elizondo so lazy he could not be bothered to research any of this or get an actual image from a real newspaper?

    Contrary to what Elizondo stated, there were no photographs of the events that night that defied explanation. Additionally, quite a few of the visual sightings reported that night had little to do with the radar contacts being seen by the operators. An analysis by the Colorado UFO study, and other experts, indicate that the DC radar contacts had more to do with AP and less to do with alien spaceships:

    In summary, the following statements appear to be correct:

    1. The atmospheric conditions during the period 19-20 and 25-27 July, 1952, in the Washington, D. C., area, were conducive to anom- alous propagation of radar signals;

    2. The unidentified radar returns obtained during these incidents were most likely the result of anomalous propagation (AP);

    3. The visual objects were, with one or two possible exceptions, identifiable as most probably meteors and scintillating stars. 14

    Once again, Elizondo seemed to be confusing fact and opinion. Either he did no research on the matter or was unwilling to examine all the data/facts.

    More mistakes

    Rather than go through the rest of the slides, I think it would be best to just summarize the various mistakes I saw.

  • UAPs were hovering over nuclear tests in Nevada in the late 1940s. The problem with this claim is that such testing did not happen in Nevada until the 1950s. I can only assume that he simply confused the state of New Mexico, where nuclear weapons were located, with Nevada.
  • By the 1960s, some government officials thought UFOs were of Soviet origin. This is not accurate. While this was a concern in the late 1940s, the apparent USAF opinion in the 1960s was that UFOs were a waste of time.
  • UFOs were responsible for the Echo flight missile shutdown. The actual USAF evaluation of Echo flight found good reason to reject UFOs being involved and, instead, it was determined that the fault was caused by an electrical malfunction. 15
  • Elizondo personally interviewed one, or more, of the Rendlesham witnesses and determined that the case was a close encoun- ter of the third kind. He implied that a report of some kind from the TTSA is forthcoming. I am unaware of any aliens being seen at Rendlesham but that is what Elizondo appears to be stating. The truth about Rendlesham was revealed long ago and I mentioned a lot of it in SUNlite over the years. Ian Ridpath’s research16 coupled with James Easton’s work indicated that what happened could be explained. I suspect any TTSA report on the case will be based on what the witnesses told them in the past few years and NOT based on the evidence that was collected in the early 1980s.
  • Luis Elizondo presented two space shuttle videos as evidence of alien spaceships operating in low earth orbit. The problem with his conclusion is that both the STS-48 and STS-80 cases were satisfactorily explained as being ice particles that surround the shuttle. Astronaut Tom Jones, who was on STS-80, was quite confident that UFOlogists were making something out of noth-

    “The Nazi UFO Mythos. 01 Foo Fighters” by Kevin McClure6

    It is hard to say what the “foo fighters” were but one thing is clear, there is little evidence, other than reports made by pilots operating aircraft under combat conditions, that the “foo fighters” represented actual craft.

    Of course, Luis Elizondo thinks the “foo fighters” were craft piloted by non-human intelligences. The evidence he presented in this talk was a photograph of showing some white dots, which he identified as “foo fighters”, near a formation of B-17s. Mr. Elizondo added this was taken by an Italian pilot. That seemed odd to me because it looked like some stock footage showing B-17s flying in formation that probably was photographed/filmed from the upper turret of one of the lead craft in the formation. The white dots look like emulsion defects in the negative or print. Both Curt Collins7 and I discovered locations8 on the Internet that present this image. Both indicate it was in Italy in 1945 but never mention the source or the “fact” that an Italian pilot was involved. Italy had surrendered in 1944, so I am not sure how an Italian pilot could have photographed the B-17 formation. In any case, without provenance, it is hard to consider this photograph a “fact” and it appears to be nothing more than “wishful thinking”, which I classify as “opinion”.

    Radar in the 1940s

    Elizondo also stated that, in the early 1940s, there were “radar-visual” events that were explained as weather anomalies. I am unaware of any documented radar-visual events during the war that were explained away by the US government as anomalous propagation (AP). Perhaps Elizondo was referring to “the battle of Los Angeles”, which I addressed in SUNlite 3-1.9 The archaic radar in that incident was not the type of radar used later in the war. While it could detect actual aircraft at distances, it could also pro- duce false targets that could be misinterpreted as aircraft. It took a lot of experience to identify the targets on those old A scopes. It is very possible that the crews of these radar had little or no such experience in early 1942. The history of radar development and studying how radar responds to various forms of weather is well documented. Unfortunately, UFO proponents like Elizondo ignore all of this information in order to promote their opinion that just about any unexplained radar target is some sort of physical object that defied physical laws.


    Elizondo’s comments about Roswell indicated he really was not familiar with the actual FACTS about the event:

    A crashed weather balloon does not usually merit the response of a colonel, several flat bed military vehicles, and an armed force.

    Marcel was a Major, which is two ranks below a colonel. Colonel Blanchard never went to the Foster Ranch and, instead, went on leave that had been planned before the event happened. This is a fact.11 There is no evidence, other than stories told decades later, that confirms the Roswell myth that flat beds were sent to retrieve debris and military personnel, with weapons, were sent out to cordon off the area or sent into town to threaten civilians. Elizondo was just promoting his opinion, based on UFO mythology, and not presenting factual information. For somebody who proclaimed that he was interested in facts, he seemed uninterested in de- termining what was factual and what was noting.17 Now the TTSA appears to be promoting these cases.

  • Is it AATIP or AAWSAP?

    Most of the rest of Elizondo’s presentation had to do with the TTSA and history of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). He presented a document that shows the origins of the program and it states the program’s title was the “Advanced aerospace weapons system applications program” (AAWSAP). I guess the question is, “What was the program’s official name” and why are FOIA requests coming back empty? Only Elizondo knows for sure and he seems to be unwilling to come forth with that information.

    The bottom line

    While the US government felt that the AATIP/AAWSAP did not accomplish anything, Elizondo seems to think otherwise. He

    18states the following conclusions could be reached based on the available information :


    Analysis of videos indicate advanced technology not currently in US Inventory

    The problem with those statements are that we have not seen one analysis of videos or UFO reports that supports these claims. In fact, most analyses done by independent groups, like Metabunk, indicate that what is seen in these videos can be plausibly ex- plained! Why can’t they reveal the provenance of these videos and any actual analysis that had been done? What we have seen to date does not support these conclusions.

    TTSA = Facts don’t matter?

    Based on what we see of his presentation, it seems that Elizondo is more pitchman than analyst. His presentation was full of errors and/or exaggerations that was not supported by any actual facts. Some of these claims could easily have been researched and verified but they weren’t. If one cannot get the simple details right, what does it say about the rest of the research? Saying something is so without providing some actual facts to back them up is opinion and not fact. This indicates that the TTSA is not pursuing facts but pursuing what they want to believe.

  • Military accounts by trained observers are validated by electromagnetic data - Optical, infrared, radio frequency

Quelle: SUNlite 6/2018

Raumfahrt+Astronomie-Blog von CENAP 0