Errors in Luis Elizondo's UFO Book "Imminent"

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.
 
Last edited:
External Quote:
A sphere-shaped craft may not be very practical when the bubble is turned off. The object would be rolling all over the place. So an alternative solution would be to flatten your sphere into a disc . . . A saucer. Form follows function.
If you put the center of gravity near the bottom of the sphere (like adding ballast to the keel of a ship), the sphere will not roll. Surely a technologically advanced civilisation knows this.
It's actually worse than that. Since Isaac Newton, the physics of rotational momentum have been well understood. The moon is spherical, but doesn't "roll all over the place" because nothing imparts momentum to it.
If the sphere is moving through a denser medium, friction might impart momentum to it, but then a few small control surfaces suffice to stabilize the craft.

But even if we're arguing at a pre-school level about which objects will or won't roll: take a sphere, slice a bit off the bottom, no more roll.
vase-ball-20cm-121279-5ffedf15b6547.jpg
 
Luis Elizondo's statements raise questions, but perhaps more about the author himself than about the likely nature of UAP.
Having read a little over a third of the book so far, I am inclined to agree. So far he has insinuated the military wanted to shut down UFO research because people believed they were encountering demons and Elizondo confesses to taking government funding for one purpose and using it for another.

I suspect drawing in all of the paranormal elements into Imminent will have the effect of narrowing his fanbase. Those fans may be more dedicated, but they will surely be fewer.

On page 120 we have this excerpt where he claims to have perfected a way of getting reluctant service members to give out information about UAP events over the phone (Emphasis mine).

Jay excelled at getting his fellow Navy members to talk. Often when talking to a new source we would say, "Look, I know you saw something. It's okay. What you need to know right now is that we work for a Special Access Program, and it's very likely you came across one of our technologies. We do our best to hide these things, but sometimes people who are observant, such as yourself, see one. We would really appreciate it if you could tell us exactly what you saw, so if it is one of ours, we can hide it better in the future." This strategy worked most of the time. It gave witnesses a way out." Oh, well, in that case," they would say, "I saw this thing darting in and out of a cloud like a paddleball. It moved in ways I can't even explain. Thank goodness it's one of our technologies. That's a relief! You guys really need to do a better job hiding it. God forbid the enemy sees it. "With that, we could usually obtain the information we sought. Jay and I spoke often about how we could sense these servicemen and -women trying to make that split-second decision—talk or clam up?—on the phone with us.
 
On page 120 we have this excerpt
External Quote:
trying to make that split-second decision
If you're trying to make a decision, you're struggling; this is not a split-second process.

It should either be
"we could sense [them] trying to make that decision"
or
"we could sense [them] making that split-second decision",
but not both.


How bad must the draft have been if this survived the editing process?
 
Last edited:
How bad must the draft have been if this survived the editing process?
Since publishing was my career, I'll chime in. The book was edited for clarity, brevity, and style (which any competent editor can do), and it was adequately proofread (which any competent proofreader can do). But it was not edited for content, and certainly not fact-checked, let alone gone over by someone with expertise in the subject matter. That's something the publisher should have provided, and they dropped the ball.
 
P121
Later, I would recall this when Navy fighter pilot Alex Dietrich described the 2004 Tic Tac as maneuvering in a "playful" manner.
Firstly, 'maneuvering' is misspelled. Secondly, does anyone know if she ever used the word 'playful' to describe the tic-tac? In the CNN interview she uses the word 'unusual' but I haven't heard her use the word 'playful.'

P133
I was told that this is what doctors call white-matter disease because the scars appear as white in medical images.
From this page on the Cleveland Clinic website, they define white matter disease as 'an umbrella term for changes and damage to your brain's white matter.'
 
Last edited:
@elvenwear (from your quote)
External Quote:
"Look, I know you saw something. It's okay. What you need to know right now is that we work for a Special Access Program, and it's very likely you came across one of our technologies. We do our best to hide these things, but sometimes people who are observant, such as yourself, see one. We would really appreciate it if you could tell us exactly what you saw, so if it is one of ours, we can hide it better in the future." This strategy worked most of the time.
I have encountered this kind of thing as an official corporate policy before. I'm always struck with the moral disconnect of this as a strategy. Paraphrased, "We need to get people to trust us, so we must lie to them".
 
I have encountered this kind of thing as an official corporate policy before. I'm always struck with the moral disconnect of this as a strategy. Paraphrased, "We need to get people to trust us, so we must lie to them".
As a bonus, they can later claim "The government has tried to cover up UFO sightings by lying to UFO observers."
 
So a sphere would be the best shape for your ship in a warp bubble, and "because reasons" a disk is fine too. Assume for a moment that is true -- then why are disks so rarely reported now? Why are tic-tacs and triangles/pyramids all the rage these days? Why were/are cigars, chevrons and cones reported?

And if spheres are a bad choice because they might roll around when you turn the field off, why are orbs so popular?
 
...why are disks so rarely reported now? Why are tic-tacs and triangles/pyramids all the rage these days? Why were/are cigars, chevrons and cones reported?

Frankly, I think the answer is "fashion", though there must be a number of contributing factors to what is fashionable-
-depictions of UFOs in popular culture, what reported (and photographed / filmed) "objects" get press coverage or used as clickbait, or get widely discussed by UFO enthusiasts.

I suspect this applies to genuine reports made in good faith as well as hoaxes or reports by people who have been hoaxed; if so, it might suggest the cultural milieu sometimes influences what is seen.
Flying discs and "cigars" were common on the covers of US pulp SF magazines, late 1920s- 40s, some years before claimed real-world sightings got widespread publicity.

"Tic Tacs" might be described as a similar shape to Lonnie Zamora's 1964 Sirocco sighting, here's one of his sketches

lz.JPG

(Zamora's sighting is discussed in the thread What happened in Socorro NM April 24 1964), so arguably they're not new...
...but "Tic Tac" is widely understood, easier to say than "elongated ovoid" (or whatever the geometrical term for a Tic Tac's shape is) and easy to remember.
I don't know who first used "Tic Tac" to describe a claimed UFO (David Fravor?) but the phrase somehow strikes a chord in the way that "flying saucer" once did. There's nothing wrong in comparing a UFO with an everyday object if the resemblance is strong, I guess.

More on the topic of evolving UFO descriptions on this thread, How have descriptions of UAPs changed over the years?,
which (IIRC) contains @Duke's observation that a journalist coined the term "flying saucer" from Kenneth Arnold's description of his non-circular craft moving like saucers skipping over water (or something like that). Duke raised the question whether subsequent sightings might have described different-shaped craft, not saucers, if the journalist's mistaken but catchy phrase hadn't been widely publicised, an intriguing question (and I wish I'd thought of it!)
 
From Page 133 (A section about alien implants).
After digging through files, Garry noticed something else. All 105 of the patients were high-functioning and had high IQs. All had an overdeveloped part of the brain known as the caudate-putamen. This is the area of the brain that many researchers have begun to associate with intuition, though the link has been proposed by some scientists as far back as the 1960s. Some researchers had also correlated the size of one's caudate-putamen with one's intelligence, but of course this is a controversial claim that many researchers still disagree with.
I have no medical or neurological training or experience but there is no mention on the NIH website link here that supports his claim. They state the following:-
The putamen is involved in learning and motor control, including speech articulation, language functions, reward, cognitive functioning, and addiction.
 
@elvenwear (from your quote)
External Quote:
"Look, I know you saw something. It's okay. What you need to know right now is that we work for a Special Access Program, and it's very likely you came across one of our technologies. We do our best to hide these things, but sometimes people who are observant, such as yourself, see one. We would really appreciate it if you could tell us exactly what you saw, so if it is one of ours, we can hide it better in the future." This strategy worked most of the time.
I have encountered this kind of thing as an official corporate policy before. I'm always struck with the moral disconnect of this as a strategy. Paraphrased, "We need to get people to trust us, so we must lie to them".
He also has this on page 133
...we routinely kept outside researchers in the dark. We sent scientists a piece of an alleged UAP to analyse without providing any background, a blind study if you will.
I don't necessarily accept that he did this, but the fact that he is willing to present the story of himself sending an alien artefact to an unsuspecting person without warning them of the potential hazards of radiation or chemical exposure indicates he doesn't mind presenting an anti-social persona. It makes me wonder if he is unaware of how he might appear to a normal, healthy person who operates in an ethical manner.
 
From Page 133 (A section about alien implants). [@elvenwear quotes Elizondo:]
External Quote:
...part of the brain known as the caudate-putamen.

The caudate nucleus is sometimes referred to as "the caudate", but that isn't the full name.
The putamen and the caudate nucleus are two different parts of the brain, though partly adjacent and richly connected.

Together they comprise the dorsal part of the striatum, so (understandably) when the putamen and the caudate nucleus are referred to together, they are called the dorsal striatum.

External Quote:
The dorsal striatum is composed of the caudate nucleus and the putamen.
Wikipedia, Striatum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Striatum

External Quote:
The putamen and caudate nucleus together form the dorsal striatum.
Wikipedia, Putamen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putamen

Maybe "caudate-putamen" isn't wrong as such, and it might be understood, but the term in neuroanatomy is dorsal striatum.


Capture.JPG
 
Yes, but orbs and triangles are both more popular now. I'm surprised they do not need a tic-tac category yet, it seems I'm seeing more claims of tic-tacs on online fora now than anything else. I guess "ovals" might be the same thing, but I'm surprised that the term "tic-tac" seems to show up so rarely even there!
I've seen a Tic Tac object, and I thought of it and described it as a "capsule", like a self-luminous gelatin capsule. Only later did I hear the name "Tic Tac" or about the encounters, iirc. It must have happened in 2013. I don't think it coukd have been anything else. Moved as described by Fravor. I realize it sounds crazy.
 
From Page 133 (A section about alien implants). All 105 of the patients were high-functioning and had high IQs. All had an overdeveloped part of the brain known as the caudate-putamen. This is the area of the brain that many researchers have begun to associate with intuition, though the link has been proposed by some scientists as far back as the 1960s. Some researchers had also correlated the size of one's caudate-putamen with one's intelligence, but of course this is a controversial claim that many researchers still disagree with.
Ha Ha More gibberish. Humans ain't got a caudate-putamen. That's rodents and rabbits. And some other mammals I don't remember. Maybe shrews. And there's no ambiguity about it. It's just wrong.

We're a bit more highly developed. In humans, the caudate nucleus and putamen are separated by the internal capsule and are distinct in structure and function.

If anyone's interested there's no debate that the caudate nucleus is involved in some cognitive functions like learning procedural motor tasks. Sewing, would be a good example. That's why it's a separate structure

The Putamen is more involved with basic stuff like walking.
 
Maybe "caudate-putamen" isn't wrong as such, and it might be understood, but the term in neuroanatomy is dorsal striatum.
Garry Nolan's theory here is that there are more connections between the Caudate and the Putamen in UAP health-effect experiencers, not that the structures themselves are special, so I think Caudate-Putamen evolved as shorthand for this.

Article:
We started to notice that there were similarities in what we thought was the damage across multiple individuals. As we looked more closely, though, we realized, well, that can't be damaged, because that's right in the middle of the basal ganglia [a group of nuclei responsible for motor control and other core brain functions]. If those structures were severely damaged, these people would be dead. That was when we realized that these people were not damaged, but had an over-connection of neurons between the head of the caudate and the putamen [The caudate nucleus plays a critical role in various higher neurological functions; the putamen influences motor planning, learning, and execution]. If you looked at 100 average people, you wouldn't see this kind of density. But these individuals had it. An open question is: did coming in contact with whatever it was cause it or not?

For a couple of these individuals we had MRIs from prior years. They had it before they had these incidents. It was pretty obvious, then, that this was something that people were born with.


This part of the broader theory is that UFO experiencers are special people, which is why they see things other people do not.
 
Heh, again. Structural and functional abnormalities in the caudate nucleus are correlated with OCD and body dysmorphia.

More generally: rigid thinking, poor problem-solving skills, impaired judgment, suspiciousness, impaired perceptual regulation, and over valued ideas. Schizotypy.

Let's please not confuse schizotypy with Schizotypal Personality Disorder... again.

Schizotypy is conceptualized as a dimensional or taxonomic liability towards anomalous perception and/or thinking.

Schizotypy is a multi-dimensional personality construct that putatively indicates an individual's liability to psychosis.

Of course there are other things involved with schizotypy: frontal lobe, superior temporal gyrus, hippocampus, amygdala...
 
Last edited:
On P136, he claims the relationship between ants and aphids is not symbiotic.
Ants farm another species, aphids, the way humans raise livestock, because well-fed aphids secrete a sticky, sweet substance called "honeydew" that the ants themselves crave. It's not really a parasitic relationship, but not quite symbiotic either
 
P142 I cannot find any supporting evidence for this. I don't think this is true. If Elizondo starts on the UFO conference circuit, we will soon see if he travels to Europe or not.
My work with Guantanamo Bay brought endless rounds of drama and stress. An attorney for one of the 9/11 suspects labeled me in open court as the "US Czar of Torture." From that moment, I would forever be branded by some as the nation's Darth Vader. At one point I was informed that Europe had issued an open arrest warrant for me and anyone involved in the notorious Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) program of highvalue detainees (HVDs). The international Court of Human Rights had decreed that any US intelligence officer involved in that effort would face trial if arrested. From my perspective, I was serving my country and my president, and preventing another 9/11.
 

Please quote the material being referred to, as per the no-click policy.

Stripping out the minority shapes (arbitrary cut off at <1/10 of the largest):
External Quote:
NUFORC Reports by Shape
SHAPE REPORT COUNT
Unspecified 6343
Changing 4112
Cigar 3828
Circle 14658
Disk 8844
Fireball 9940
Formation 4925
Light 27861
Orb 6300
Other 10231
Oval 6482
Sphere 7782
Triangle 13283
Unknown 10180
 
I don't necessarily accept that he did this, but the fact that he is willing to present the story of himself sending an alien artefact to an unsuspecting person without warning them of the potential hazards of radiation or chemical exposure indicates he doesn't mind presenting an anti-social persona. It makes me wonder if he is unaware of how he might appear to a normal, healthy person who operates in an ethical manner.

Maybe he knew that they would be amenable to such an approach, because they were a Friend Of A Friend? Presence of FOAFs in a story, however, would be a two-edged sword.
 
On P136, he claims the relationship between ants and aphids is not symbiotic.

It's one of the textbook examples of a symbiotic relationship and he also makes the error of thinking that a symbiotic relationship between two species can't be parasitic. What he probably meant was that the relationship wasn't mutualistic (though it is) or parasitic but something in between (I can only assume he means that one of the two organisms involved, I'm guessing the ants, reap the higher benefits, but of course a symbiotic relationship doesn't have to be equally beneficial for the organisms involved). The word he (mistakenly) was looking for is commensalism/commensalistic relationship, a symbiotic relationship where one of the organisms involved benefits from it and the other doesn't but isn't harmed either. Also, that sentence reads to me as if he thinks ants and aphids are two species and not a superfamily and a family of insects. Some species of ants have a symbiotic relationship with some species of aphids. Not all of them.
 
A two edged sword? How so?

RIght since the early days, use of "friend of a friend" has been a marker for fabrication.
External Quote:
Other usage

In some social sciences, the phrase is used as a half-joking shorthand for the fact that much of the information on which people act comes from distant sources (as in "it happened to a friend of a friend of mine") and cannot be confirmed.[6] It is probably best known from urban legend studies, where it was popularized by Jan Harold Brunvand.[7]

The acronym FOAF was coined by Rodney Dale and used in his 1978 book The Tumour in the Whale: A Collection of Modern Myths.[8]
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_of_a_friend#Other_usage

Criminey, I used to work for one of the spinoffs of one of the companies Dale founded! So I could probably say that the term FOAF was coined by a FOAF!
 
@elvenwear (from your quote)
External Quote:
"Look, I know you saw something. It's okay. What you need to know right now is that we work for a Special Access Program, and it's very likely you came across one of our technologies. We do our best to hide these things, but sometimes people who are observant, such as yourself, see one. We would really appreciate it if you could tell us exactly what you saw, so if it is one of ours, we can hide it better in the future." This strategy worked most of the time.
I have encountered this kind of thing as an official corporate policy before. I'm always struck with the moral disconnect of this as a strategy. Paraphrased, "We need to get people to trust us, so we must lie to them".

It's impossible to rule out the thought that Luis' superiors could've been lying to him about his role.
 
It's impossible to rule out the thought that Luis' superiors could've been lying to him about his role.
He did claim to be in counter-intel, but no one is immune I guess. What do you think his actual role was? At this point he seems to be secretly continuing the program that was discontinued and using deception to do so. I've only read about half of the book.
 
This part of the broader theory is that UFO experiencers are special people, which is why they see things other people do not.
Presumably if there is some physical characteristic that distinguishes these folk, it would show up in other ways besides their experience of UFOs. Is that known to be the case? I think that's probably a rhetorical question, since that particular study seems to have been limited to one-postulated-cause, one-effect (or perhaps as suggested, that's one-postulated-effect, one-cause.) However there seems to be an anecdotal connection between things like UFO experiences and belief in ghosts, etc. I don't know if there's ever been a study that would try to correlate things like that with brain structure, and of course I mean brain structure WITHOUT having had any aliens poking around in there.
 
Please quote the material being referred to, as per the no-click policy.

Stripping out the minority shapes (arbitrary cut off at <1/10 of the largest):
External Quote:
NUFORC Reports by Shape
SHAPE REPORT COUNT
Unspecified 6343
Changing 4112
Cigar 3828
Circle 14658
Disk 8844
Fireball 9940
Formation 4925
Light 27861
Orb 6300
Other 10231
Oval 6482
Sphere 7782
Triangle 13283
Unknown 10180
This is a non-explanatory but amusing list (is that one entry per witness, I wonder, and how often do the different witnesses disagree on the shape?). More than that, is an "orb" the same as a "sphere" or a "circle", or even a "disc" or a "light"? Is the number of shapes multiplied by something that's a formation of orbs/discs/spheres? Is a triangle a formation?
 
Just an observation but it seems the colourway / style of the book jacket is targeting the politics / history audience. Or maybe that's just the current trend?
Politics.webp
IMMINENT.webp
PUNISHING.webp
 
Last edited:
What do you think his actual role was?
Maybe to help hide US tech that's too secret to tell him about.

I like the idea that his bluff becomes a double bluff.

But it can't be ignored that anyone they spoke to would've been good evidence for tech existing that's far beyond what we are told. You've got people out there who saw physics being defied and were told by their superiors that it was existing US tech.

Their story would be 100% true. Until someone decides to throw them under the bus.

When everything is fair in the name of national security, who really knows?
 
You've got people out there who saw physics being defied and were told by their superiors that it was existing US tech.
Well ...no. We have people who thought they saw something beyond known physics, perhaps. Or we have people who told us a story that someone else "saw physics defied", or who later described it in those terms when that was not the contention of the original viewer. That's not the same thing.
 
Well ...no. We have people who thought they saw something beyond known physics, perhaps.
Seconding that, reports of an apparently stationary or hovering light in the sky suddenly moving at great speed have been described as breaking the laws of physics (or similar wording).

It ignores the fact that the observer was still capable of seeing the moving light, it didn't just disappear.
Many of us this summer will have chased an annoying fly or mosquito at home, and found it almost impossible to track the critter's sudden changes in direction, maybe losing sight of it at times.
A spotlight or events laser projected onto low cloud can "make" an orb or disc, and that projection can of course be made to move rapidly from a standstill with very little effort (some examples here, CLAIM: Proton bursts? Sofia, Bulgaria Feb 2024).

The guns of some 20th century battleships could accelerate a mass equal to a small car to supersonic speeds in a fraction of a second; unlike the supposedly physics-defying UFOs their shells would be flying much faster than the eye can track.
Since WW2 artillery and naval shells have contained proximity fuses, many modern shells contain electronics that survive the tremendous launch acceleration.

So rapid accelerations of functional items can be achieved with our technology.
I don't think I'm suggesting that someone's (e.g.) flying a drone and knocking it around the sky with explosive blasts, perhaps like a tiny scale version of Project Orion (Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion).

But we do have the means to accelerate significant masses with complex functional components to great speeds in less than the blink of an eye, and we have the means to project a glowing "orb" or disc in the sky, with arbitrarily impressive "flight performance", in some conditions. None of this comes anywhere close to "beyond known physics".
 
Back
Top