Not an error as such, but some statements from Elizondo in
Imminent that stretch credulity, and arguably raise some doubts about his professionalism. -Relying on material previously posted by
@Mick West, with thanks:
External Quote:
"It confirmed UAP are not our technology and are a potential threat to air safety and our national security. And when asked about any research into other UAP programs, the head of the Pentagon's intelligence efforts, Ronald Moultrue, said, "Other than AATIP and Blue Book, no." This was a silent victory for me. At least now the Pentagon acknowledged the existence of my old program, AATIP, and its efforts focusing on UAP. All this under oath."
Elizondo, Luis. Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs: the Former Head of the Program Responsible for Investigating UAPs Reveals Profound Secrets (p. 236). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Posted by Mick
here, my emphasis added.
Elizondo strongly implies that
he believes that UAP are potential threats to air safety and national security.
External Quote:
At Skinwalker Ranch, two dogs owned by a rancher chased a blue orb into the field, only to vanish in a yipe, leaving behind nothing but two grease spots on the sagebrush that contained remnants of the two dogs' biology—body fluid, blood, and small amounts of tissue—literally all that was left of the poor creatures. To researchers it looked as if the orbs had somehow vaporized the dogs, scorching nearby vegetation. A beam of directed energy, from a powerful laser or radioactive weapon, was the presumed cause.
So orbs can carry weaponry. I don't know what the law is in the United States (or Utah, where Skinwalker Ranch is) but I'm guessing the unbidden and unwarranted destruction of two dogs on private land is some sort of offence.
(1) Did anyone inform local police about this act?
(2) Were any specimens taken? Small amounts of tissue remained.
(3) Were any other agencies advised of the event?
Luis Elizondo was head of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.
In the quote above, Elizondo (again) strongly implies that he believes that
External Quote:
...UAP are not our technology...
The claimed orbs fly, and carry directed energy weapons, so they are artefacts- products of an advanced aerospace technology. They are flying within the continental US, and Luis believes they are not of US origin.
A directed energy weapon that can vaporise a dog
must be a threat to human life if used against a human.
So at the very least, a non-US entity is controlling an advanced aerospace threat in US territory.
But as far as I'm currently aware, Luis Elizondo, knowing of this event and despite his job title (and presumably responsibilities) does nothing to harvest specimens from the dog's remains, scorched vegetation or nearby soil/ sagebrush.
No reference is made (AFAIK) to any systematic, practical plan to monitor the area in case of a reoccurrence: No motion-activated cameras/ infra-red alerting devices are deployed as a result of the head of AATIP being informed.
(The antics of recent residents of Skinwalker Ranch are clearly not of an appropriate quality for this task).
In the circumstances, we might expect the witnesses to the dog incident to be formally questioned by relevant
Federal authorities; and the FAA (and local law enforcement for that matter) to be advised of the presence of dangerous flying objects in the area.
Maybe someone should ask Mr. Elizondo if he shared his information with other relevant agencies.
If he didn't, he failed to alert those responsible for United States' national security and flight safety of a known threat.
If he
did, it might imply that those agencies didn't take Elizondo's reports seriously, although relevant contemporary records from those agencies about his communications might be of interest.
External Quote:
Two colleagues in particular were under medical care for both cutaneous and visceral injuries that were sustained from interactions with UAP while working with AAWSAP/AATIP, and we had numerous reports of negative biological effects associated with UAP encounters, especially orbs. The injuries sustained seemed to stem from some sort of directed-energy exposure, almost like radiation. Unfortunately, multiple members of our team (excluding myself) experienced severe biological effects resulting in life-threatening medical issues. These biological effects also extended to their family members, including their children. While I am not able to go into details here, I learned of military servicemen and intelligence officers who succumbed to their injuries and lost their lives due to the biological effects of UAP encounters.
-Luis Elizondo,
Imminent, originally quoted by Mick West
here.
Luis claims that members of his team were critically injured from encounters with UAP using directed energy weapons.
Other servicemen have been killed by UAP "encounters".
Children of members of his team have been similarly injured.
(1) Luis claims a directed-energy weapon was used, "...almost like radiation." He does not explain what that means. If he means ionizing radiation, is he claiming the victims had physical indications and symptoms of this?
(2) Were these injurious "encounters" properly documented? Was that information shared with the relevant medical professionals?
None of Lue's team had the presence of mind to carry cameras or phones (or Geiger counters) with them? -Despite the
"...numerous reports of biological effects...",
and the injuries to their colleagues?
Although apparently experiencing multiple contacts with UAP themselves, the AATIP staff have failed to produce
any evidence that alien technology has visited Earth- just Lue's anecdotes. As investigators (per the program title), their track record is poor.
(3) Patient confidentially notwithstanding, can Lue provide the contact details of a consultant-level medic who can confirm that they dealt with patients with life-threatening injuries or illness consistent with,
and most likely caused by, being hit by a directed-energy weapon?
(4) What was recorded on the death certificates of the fallen? If Lue is correct, they were killed by the actions of a non-US power while in the line of duty. Have any widows/ widowers/ dependents received the appropriate pensions/ other support?
Elizondo believes children were physically harmed by their parent's involvement in AATIP.
This is a profoundly serious matter.
If Lue determined that children were becoming unusually/ acutely ill, or sustaining unusual injuries, and the common factor was a connection with AATIP personnel,
(1) What safeguarding measures did he subsequently put in place?
(2) What agencies with responsibility for children's health and/ or welfare did he contact, as head of AATIP and believing that children associated with his program's employees were suffering?
It is not Elizondo's place to determine the causes of injury or illness to children, nor would it be legitimate for him to discourage anyone from relating the circumstances regarding that illness/ injury to medical staff.
There
are cases of children becoming ill through parent's workplace exposure to pathogens and other contaminants, and there are cases of parts of the defense estate inadvertently exposing servicemen and women, contractors and their families to toxins
(e.g. the contamination of some water sources at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, 1953-1987,
Wikipedia article here.)
(3) Did the DoD, or AATIP specifically, foot the medical bills?
(4) As with the adults, and again notwithstanding patient confidentiality, what conditions were actually diagnosed?
Is there any evidential proof?
Increased and/ or unusual instances of illness or injury in a group of associated children should
always be taken seriously.
Where a common factor is suspected (and Lue identifies the participation of children's parents in AATIP as having an impact on some children's health) then it is important that medical professionals are made aware, i.e. the children are not each treated on a case-by-case basis without anyone making the connection that each child is part of an at-risk group.
Historically, this has sometimes been particularly important when an explanation for a child's ill health seems extraordinary.
External Quote:
I was shocked to find that a lot of my colleagues and I began experiencing firsthand some of these orbs at our homes...
...Over time, more orbs appeared in our home. Not too frequently: a whole month might go by, and then one would arrive. Since "our" orbs manifested as clear or green, I did not feel compelled to warn my family to avoid them. I didn't want to frighten them further. As far as I knew, only blue was problematic...
.... Our neighbors witnessed this too. It got to the point where neighbors would sometimes joke, "Is this one of our government's secret programs you are working on, Lue?"
So orbs would appear on a roughly monthly basis in or around Elizondo's home.
Elizondo believes orbs are advanced aerospace artefacts, they can carry beam weapons, and maybe that they have caused serious illness to his colleagues and unspecified illness/ injury to children (Elizondo doesn't specify whether his staff and their families had been affected by orbs or by another type of UAP).
Elizondo is head of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.
But he doesn't think to fit cameras throughout his house (or any other form of monitoring equipment) as far as we know.
(10) Why? Given this extraordinary opportunity, why does Elizondo pass it up?
He's the head of AATIP.
Maybe because of the dogs incident, Elizondo sees blue orbs as "problematic". But (especially considering the claimed injuries sustained by his staff, ill health of their children etc.) it is extraordinary that he decides that non-blue orbs are therefore benign.
He was an intelligence officer. He should know, as second nature, not all threats are overt. And not all is as it seems.
Head of AATIP, but apparently resigned to having orbs fly around his home, unrecorded.
Or maybe he doesn't think the domestic orbs are threats, and so aren't under AATIP's remit:
He decides not to alarm his family; he's apparently reassured by
his orbs being different colours to the dog-killing orbs.
For a former intelligence officer working on a DoD-funded program, Luis Elizondo seems incredibly naïve.
Assuming his accounts are accurate, of course.
Luis Elizondo's statements raise questions, but perhaps more about the author himself than about the likely nature of UAP.