Preview of Luis Elizondo's UFO book: "Imminent"

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/koj6EAAAQBAJ?gbpv=1

Substantial portions of Luis Elizondo's "Imminent" are available on Google Books. In addition to the preview chapters, the entire book is searchable. Here's an excerpt, converted with AI OCR.

External Quote:

A while back I had shared the Predator video with Neill Tipton, who also was a liaison for the folks that worked the Army Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force. Neill was a "techie" and knew the world of ISR probably better than anyone. If what we were seeing in the video was a supersecret US platform, Neill would know. Though fascinated by the evidence before him, Neill had no clue what it could be.

I believed him because he was echoing what our aviation experts had told us. I trusted Neill and he'd shown himself to be a good leader and a sharp thinker. If I cultivated more allies like him, I'd be in good shape to land additional technical support for Interloper.

A few months later I was sitting in a room with high-level Navy officials, CIA reps, and someone from the NSA. After the usual exchange of pleasantries and some backslapping, we rolled the tapes.

The room went silent when we showed the GIMBAL video. What made GIMBAL so perplexing was the fact the object never lost altitude as it turned 90 degrees. Like magic, it remained in place. If a human-built aircraft did what this object did in the video, it would immediately lose altitude because the wings are creating lift disproportionately. In this case, however, the object seemed to hover at an altitude of 20,000 feet and linger there, eerily. Skeptics would later suggest that the object was a balloon, but this was certainly not the case.

One of our meeting attendees made an uncomfortable joke that this thing seemed to be showing us what it could do, mocking us, as if to say, "Hey guys, watch this!" Of course, we do have vehicles that can hover, but not in this fashion, and not at that altitude, and not in that headwind. Whatever this was, it was not conventional technology and not ours. It was something different. To be clear, no one in that room thought this UAP was made by humans.

This unnerved, mystified, and concerned our team of aviation and optical experts. Was this some sort of breakaway technology? Did an adversary figure something out that we hadn't? Despite the billions of dollars we spent on intelligence each year, somehow, someone slipped through the cracks of our multidisciplined intelligence architecture and developed a superior technology completely in the dark. It was an unsettling proposition for all who attended the meeting.

The GIMBAL maneuvered in a way that reminded me of the old Apollo 11 lunar module, which was about as aerodynamic as a dishwasher. It didn't have to be because it operated in the near-vacuum of space, where it encountered zero wind resistance. As a result, it didn't need wings. Yet, in vintage NASA footage you can find online of docking maneuvers, as the lunar module approaches the lunar orbiter for its rendezvous "hookup," it begins to ratchet itself into position, making small adjustments with its thrusters as it gets closer to the orbiter.

If you compare that maneuver to the way in which the object in the GIMBAL video rotates, you will see an uncanny resemblance. This may suggest that whatever is in the GIMBAL video is also operating in a vacuum environment, creating a bubble around itself so the effects of atmospheric resistance are moot. Was that the reason a slight aura can be seen around the GIMBAL object? Was this a protective bubble? Was this an artifact of the propulsion unit?

In our meeting, I watched as a rep from the CIA shook his head, then launched into a half-assed exploration of the possibilities. "The only way I see this being even remotely possible is if you had a . . . hybrid balloon with some sort of inducted fan at its center," he said, not quite believing his own words. "Perhaps it is some sort of Mylar football that has its own navigation and propulsion." I kept my mouth shut just to see where this was going.

His eyes boggled as he tried to keep track of his own tortured logic. The mental gymnastics were herculean. Balloons. Inducted fans. Mylar football. Right. "What about fuel and loiter capability? This thing is way out in the middle of nowhere," I said. His response was even more comical. "Um ... perhaps they are using some sort of tether or beamed energy to give it power, you know? Like a floating platform nearby." This thing was smack in the middle of the ocean.

The object itself was indicated as being very hot; however, the air surrounding it was very cold. It didn't make any sense. He let out an awkward chuckle with apologetic eyes. I felt bad for him, because we'd all been there. The GIMBAL was a great, glittering mystery. On the observables scale, it was clearly an antigravity device. Everything the video showed, the pilots backed up with eyewitness testimony.

When the meeting adjourned and we went our separate ways, I had occasion to flip through the images again, frame by frame. My eyes always came to rest on that weird little bubble. Was it some sort of illusion or effect produced by the camera? According to the CIA, it was not. It was not an artifact of the camera nor a lens flare. Whatever it was, it was real. You had to wonder: if the aura was novel, then was it possibly a clue to the propulsion system of the UAP? To get the truth, we had to pierce that bubble. And we would, sooner than I'd ever imagined.
However, the "aura" is indeed an artifact of the camera, as I explain here:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r119JWI04Ls
 
Last edited:
External Quote:
Skeptics would later suggest that the object was a balloon, but this was certainly not the case.
this makes me angry

skeptics also later suggested (with evidence!) that the rotation is an artifact of the optics, specifically the camera gimbal rotating (dun dun dun duuunnn!)

External Quote:
This may suggest that whatever is in the GIMBAL video is also operating in a vacuum environment, creating a bubble around itself so the effects of atmospheric resistance are moot.
this is physics gibberish

the vacuum bubble, if it was not physically impossible, would have more air resistance, not less. and any common fighter jet has a roll rate similar to the gimbal "object", air resistance notwithstanding, and the ability to fly at 80⁰ bank without losing altitude.
 
No-one ever really suggested the gimbal was a balloon, go fast sure. Lue is either getting his own videos mixed up or is intentionally playing into the general confusion / mixing up of the 3 videos that is endemic to the US Navy video discussion.

What I find most interesting about this excerpt is how it contrasts with his vague statements when asked about the videos during his interview with Mick.

The 3 videos will probably do the rounds again after the book is out.
 
External Quote:
This may suggest that whatever is in the GIMBAL video is also operating in a vacuum environment, creating a bubble around itself so the effects of atmospheric resistance are moot.
this is physics gibberish

the vacuum bubble, if it was not physically impossible, would have more air resistance, not less. and any common fighter jet has a roll rate similar to the gimbal "object", air resistance notwithstanding, and the ability to fly at 80⁰ bank without losing altitude.
Yup, he doesn't seem to understand that fluid dynamics is governed as much by the laws of thermodynamics, and thus statistics, as anything else. It's the averaging of zillions of interactions. Forcing zillions of atoms of air to be absent from a cavity around you is off-the-scale improbable in Air 1.0. (It's very hard not to confuse the specific effect of "cavitation" here, which is related, but multi-stage because it's multi-phase. However, I don't want to use his term "bubble", as that implies an outward pressure, whereas "cavity" implies a region of absense.) Cavities appear when you move so quickly there's no time for any of the fluid medium you're in to replace you. That's an ephemeral state, which the laws of thermodynamics and statistics quicky have no choice but to rectify. So a craft cannot maintain a cavity around itself, as the only known way it can keep air molecules away from itself is by pushing them, i.e. applying pressure, but theres nothing to apply pressure with. Therefore such cavities collapse proportional to the speed of sound in that medium, and the effect would be similar to a sonic boom, with associated damage to everything nearby, in particular the craft in its centre. And once that's happened, it's no longer in a cavity. Is simply makes no sense.

Unless we're going full physics-woo...

Let's hypothesise the "pressure" maintaining the vacuum could be purely from photons, pure energy. I propose the levels of energy required are off-the-scale absurd - let's Fermi it. Solar sails at earth distance get a handful of uN/m^2, and atmospheric pressure trying to collapse the cavity is 10^5 N/m^2, so there's just shy of 11 orders of magnitude difference, call it 10. So the craft would have to be 10^10 times brighter than the sun in order to use that mechanism of maintaining a vacuum (yes, I'm ignoring frequency here, this is a zeroth order approximation). Of course, this would heat the air, the pressure would increase, and you'd now need even more energy. Lather, rinse, repeat. No wonder it causes glare!
 
Unless we're going full physics-woo...
they'd be using anti-gravity to stay afloat absent air, and anti-gravity could also push air off.

But if such a device moved, it would still need to push air in front of it away to the side; the air would not touch the device, but be pushed anyway, which creates air resistance, so Elizondo's "the effects of atmospheric resistance are moot" is false.

Also, when an aircraft rolls, it uses its elevators on the wings to "screw itself" through the air that it moves in; air resistance helps it rotate!

Elizondo's argument here is not physics-based at all: he argues, essentially, because it looks like the lunar lander, it works like the lunar lander, ignoring that the circumstances are entirely different, and inventing impossible things to make up for these differences. He's not explaining the video, he's imagining a story inspired by it.
 
Untrue, it happened no later than a few days ago, from the head of AARO himself.


Source: https://youtu.be/Hc_8lcSANus?si=XF_HjvtuArAKUGSC&t=2990

a gish gallop on video, hurray!

the claim that it couldn't possibly be a balloon because there was no "balloon trajectory" seems unsupportable

My problem with Elizondo is not that he says that some people think it's a balloon. I am angry that he doesn't even hint that there are other explanations.
 
Sitrec is a nice tool to verify. I've never seen a balloon trajectory in there. Just the fact that the lines of sight go one way then the other makes it very difficult to find (i.e. the object would go with and against the wind in that segment). Now if someone finds it, it'd be interesting to see it.
 
Sitrec is a nice tool to verify. I've never seen a balloon trajectory in there. Just the fact that the lines of sight go one way then the other makes it very difficult to find (i.e. the object would go with and against the wind in that segment). Now if someone finds it, it'd be interesting to see it.
The logical place would be near where the LOS cross over - but it never looked very likely with the current LOS, and would need a significant heat source.

I wouldn't 100% rule it out balloons, but I can't see how it fits in any detailed analysis. I'll probably investigate more when I add some more sophisticated traversal solvers later this year. But this is probably a topic for another thread.
 
they'd be using anti-gravity to stay afloat absent air, and anti-gravity could also push air off.

But if such a device moved, it would still need to push air in front of it away to the side; the air would not touch the device, but be pushed anyway, which creates air resistance, so Elizondo's "the effects of atmospheric resistance are moot" is false.

Also, when an aircraft rolls, it uses its elevators on the wings to "screw itself" through the air that it moves in; air resistance helps it rotate!

Elizondo's argument here is not physics-based at all: he argues, essentially, because it looks like the lunar lander, it works like the lunar lander, ignoring that the circumstances are entirely different, and inventing impossible things to make up for these differences. He's not explaining the video, he's imagining a story inspired by it.
Yeah, I was in a rush before lunch, and was a tad sloppy in parts. As I was jokingly retelling the highlights of it after almost every sentence I threw in a "but it's worse than that", for reasons you mention. And there was time to think outside the box^H^Hubble...

Teleportation of air molecules from in front to behind would be an alternative to your (and anyone sane's) "push the air in front of it away" - yay, more physics woo!

Maybe the cavity can be maintained by emitting anti-matter! Oh, dear, that's a constant stream of way-worse-than-Nagasakis!

The claims are all so off-the-scale ridiculous, pure fantasy.

I'm glad you brought up aerodynamics here, as the other thing that I wanted to debunk was the "What made GIMBAL so perplexing was the fact the object never lost altitude as it turned 90 degrees. Like magic, it remained in place. If a human-built aircraft did what this object did in the video, it would immediately lose altitude because the wings are creating lift disproportionately. " bit. That logic explains why every aeroplane in a holding pattern, when doing repeated 180 degree turns, immediately plummets to the ground. Of course, his "what this object did in the video" is his own fiction, so exactly what properties it has are perhaps up to him to fill in as well - anything dependent upon a falsity is itself a falsity too.
 
I'm glad you brought up aerodynamics here, as the other thing that I wanted to debunk was the "What made GIMBAL so perplexing was the fact the object never lost altitude as it turned 90 degrees. Like magic, it remained in place. If a human-built aircraft did what this object did in the video, it would immediately lose altitude because the wings are creating lift disproportionately. " bit. That logic explains why every aeroplane in a holding pattern, when doing repeated 180 degree turns, immediately plummets to the ground.
With Gimbal, the "turns 90 degrees" refers to the angle of the "wings" relative to the ground, not (as in your example) the heading.

Airplanes in holding patterns will turn 180°, but only tilt their wings around 30°. He's correct that 90° would result in loss of lift.
 
With Gimbal, the "turns 90 degrees" refers to the angle of the "wings" relative to the ground, not (as in your example) the heading.

Airplanes in holding patterns will turn 180°, but only tilt their wings around 30°. He's correct that 90° would result in loss of lift.
Ah, OK, I'd have expected a term like "banking" in that context, or even "roll". Thanks for the clarification. He's definitely not a particularly good communicator of factual information.

However, where's he getting that 90o banking from? And where's he even getting aerodynamic surfaces at all from? Their existence would contradict the other things he proximally says, as @Mendel had already noted.
 
With Gimbal, the "turns 90 degrees" refers to the angle of the "wings" relative to the ground, not (as in your example) the heading.

Airplanes in holding patterns will turn 180°, but only tilt their wings around 30°. He's correct that 90° would result in loss of lift.
But it isn't at 90⁰ except at the very end, so we don't know if it loses altitude.

An aileron roll through 360⁰ should be executed such that the aircraft does not lose altitude.
 
The clear explanations in @Mick West 's video on gimbal rotation were the thing that brought me to Metabunk in the first place. I get the distinct impression that Elizondo (and others who have books to sell or TV shows to popularize) have both their fortunes and their egos so thoroughly bound up in their narratives that they actively fear (and thus demonize) skepticism, and consider us "the enemy". They simply do not want to hear alternatives.
 
So, will this book fly off the shelves or just fizzle? Maybe somewhere in between. It seems Elizondo still has some clout in UFO circles, but like Grusch after him, eventually its's just stories. Elizondo has the Navy videos, but those are hardly new.

If the blurb in the OP is any indication it may be 1/2 "Hey remember these cool videos I brought y'all. There still unexplained" and 1/2 "Trust me bro!"

Just this one line sums a lot of it up:

External Quote:

If what we were seeing in the video was a supersecret US platform, Neill would know. Though fascinated by the evidence before him, Neill had no clue what it could be.
Not only is it 2nd hand, if true it assumes this one guy, Neill, would have working knowledge of EVERY supersecret US platform and if he does, he can also share that secret knowledge with Lue. I suppose there are a few people high up in the DoD that are aware of most of the secret programs going on, maybe? But even then, it's my understanding that a lot of this stuff is heavily siloed, so Lue talking with an all-knowing oracle of all things secret is a bit of a stretch.

Then there is the idea that Elizondo is cleared to see or learn about all this stuff as well. Again, I thought this stuff was pretty siloed. The rest of the blurb is just Elizondo passing on 2nd hand recollections of meetings with anonymous but important sounding people who can't figure out the Navy videos. Trust me bro!

The more interesting thing will be his accounting of AAWSAP and AATIP and how his telling stacks up with Lacatski's. Lacatski's book is full of wild ass stuff, but how AAWSAP came to be, how it was funded and where AATIP came from is pretty much backed up by FOIA documents. Of course that means buying the book :confused:
 
If the excerpt above is representative of his writing style, I am not going to buy his book. It is IMO a very bad writing style and very hard to read. Ok, I would not buy his bloody book anyway, that is also true..
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTM
Sitrec is a nice tool to verify. I've never seen a balloon trajectory in there. Just the fact that the lines of sight go one way then the other makes it very difficult to find (i.e. the object would go with and against the wind in that segment). Now if someone finds it, it'd be interesting to see it.
Kirkpatrick is not immune to the confusion about the 3 videos.
 
Kirkpatrick is not immune to the confusion about the 3 videos.
yeah, this interview format is like a cross-examination, but on a good many different topics. Kirkpatrick is very good at explaining their methods and findings anyway, but the interviewer really doesn't engage with what he doesn't want to hear.
 
So, will this book fly off the shelves or just fizzle? Maybe somewhere in between. It seems Elizondo still has some clout in UFO circles, but like Grusch after him, eventually its's just stories. Elizondo has the Navy videos, but those are hardly new.

If the blurb in the OP is any indication it may be 1/2 "Hey remember these cool videos I brought y'all. There still unexplained" and 1/2 "Trust me bro!"

Just this one line sums a lot of it up:

External Quote:

If what we were seeing in the video was a supersecret US platform, Neill would know. Though fascinated by the evidence before him, Neill had no clue what it could be.
Not only is it 2nd hand, if true it assumes this one guy, Neill, would have working knowledge of EVERY supersecret US platform and if he does, he can also share that secret knowledge with Lue. I suppose there are a few people high up in the DoD that are aware of most of the secret programs going on, maybe? But even then, it's my understanding that a lot of this stuff is heavily siloed, so Lue talking with an all-knowing oracle of all things secret is a bit of a stretch.

Then there is the idea that Elizondo is cleared to see or learn about all this stuff as well. Again, I thought this stuff was pretty siloed. The rest of the blurb is just Elizondo passing on 2nd hand recollections of meetings with anonymous but important sounding people who can't figure out the Navy videos. Trust me bro!

The more interesting thing will be his accounting of AAWSAP and AATIP and how his telling stacks up with Lacatski's. Lacatski's book is full of wild ass stuff, but how AAWSAP came to be, how it was funded and where AATIP came from is pretty much backed up by FOIA documents. Of course that means buying the book :confused:

I keep wondering how Elizondo keeps finding these people with classified knowledge who can't keep their mouths shut. Seems the FBI should be following him around and removing the security clearances of everyone he talks too.
 
External Quote:
I believed him because he was echoing what our aviation experts had told us. I trusted Neill and he'd shown himself to be a good leader and a sharp thinker. If I cultivated more allies like him, I'd be in good shape to land additional technical support for Interloper.
What is "Interloper"? There was a unsanctioned pet project carried out by USAF Maj. Dewey Fournet during the Project Blue Book investigations in the 1950's that he called "Operation Interloper". I could only find 3 cases from it.

https://www.nicap.org/docs/bethune_nicapfile_02.pdf
1951 - Bright light flew in a straight line across military pilot's view
1951 - Silver disc reported to fly out of dormant volcano by commercial airline pilots

http://www.nicap.org/520500willowgrovedir.htm
1952 - Weird radar returns during bad weather

See also: https://www.ufoexplorations.com/ufo-study-youv-never-heard-about

Surely these aren't what Elizondo would be looking for "technical support" on? Did he name his own unsanctioned pet project "Interloper"?

External Quote:
To be clear, no one in that room thought this UAP was made by humans.

This unnerved, mystified, and concerned our team of aviation and optical experts. Was this some sort of breakaway technology? Did an adversary figure something out that we hadn't? Despite the billions of dollars we spent on intelligence each year, somehow, someone slipped through the cracks of our multidisciplined intelligence architecture and developed a superior technology completely in the dark. It was an unsettling proposition for all who attended the meeting.
Maybe this is just bad writing/editing, but if nobody thought it was made by humans why were they immediately concerned it had been made by human adversaries?

External Quote:
Inducted fans
Surely this is supposed to be ducted fans? If Mr. Elizondo understands what was actually being referred to, that seems like a weird mistake to make, but maybe is just further bad writing/editing.
 
In the excerpts posted by Mick in the tweet below, Elizondo refers to two incidents that supposedly had media coverage. One involved a Soviet-era supersonic jet that crashed in the Congo which was retrieved by the US (presumably by a CRASH RETRIEVAL PROGRAM) and later mentioned by Jimmy Carter. The other involved a captured "suspected terrorist" that Elizondo and his buddies decided to astral project themselves to and haunt during their lunch break, which was supposedly reported in a "mainstream newspaper article."

I've done a bit of searching for any detail on either of these two incidents without any luck. Anyone else?


Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/1815488638119280972


I'm quite sure Elizondo's book will be thoroughly footnoted with references to these incidents...
 
Gotta love the book title....'Imminent'. I'm old enough to remember UFO disclosure being 'imminent' every single year since the 70s. My bet is it will still be 'imminent' in another 50 years.
More than that, disclosure keeps happening, and what at gets disclosed is "We looked at it and can't find anything important, we don't know of any evidence of aliens, etc." That is disclosure of what "The Government" knows... it's just not the disclosure the believers want.
 
Since Elizobdo has remote viewing abilities, he should set up a public demo to proove it. Impartial juges, a livestream, unedited videos from multiple angles. Boom. instant disclodure of paranormal. Who would doubt him after that? Even have Mick as an observer as a show of confidence.
 
So, going to have to repackage it. Read the full preview over and I have about 8 pages of notes. This is just some heavier points I noticed. My full post will have more sourcing screens and breakdowns.

To narrow for this comment before the breakdown, one thing I would really like to note, is that in the introductory chapter by Mellon, he also, admits to the influence campaign that was planned before any of these guys ever resigned. So now we have confirmation from Elizondo, Stratton, and Mellon, that their claims all these years about the *why* of everything was deceptive. Further than that, all 3 have also admitted to running a concerted influence campaign directed towards DoD leadership, Congress, and "the American public".
Screenshot (6152).png

Interestingly, right after explaining this, Mellon inserts-
Screenshot (6153).png

This does not make a whole lot of sense sequentially. He just reasoned why in the above paragraphs - they did it. This reeks of an attempt to try and pull some psych tricks with the writing, and is a major red flag for me with the rest of the books potential contents & these guys prior careers touching on relevant matters.
Mellon spends a bit talking intelligence issues ala surrounding Iraq and other activities. The most ironic part being he was DASD/I when all this happened, which, made him the functional manager of responsibility for these issues he talks about :p

In an interesting bust to my prior hypothesis about their being 2 co-interactive networks (legacy/aviary & modern), Elizondo gives a lot of details about meeting guys like Puthoff in the late 90s/early 2000s, and, as we now know, Elizondo has been responsible for a lot of the "modern" network surfacing. This, actually, would raise the hypothesis that this is actually all one network and Elizondo is simply a critical node extending interaction between "new" members of the network (ala Grusch, Nell, etc) and old legacy members (Puthoff, Kit Green, etc pre-2000s).

Elizondo in Chapter 3 speaks about the Stargate program very interestingly. According to Elizondo, he was brought into the Stargate program in its final years. How this happened though is very interesting. While actively serving in the Army, he just, ghosted from service into "Gregs" pet project (it was not a formal continuance with Congressional funding or a recognized departmental activity, rather, it was basically Greg doing a Stargate version of Elizondos later fake-"AATIP"). He then claims at the end of this, he immediately went back into the Army in normal assignments.
AKA, he went AWOL basically, and just showed back up to work fine and dandy. Not sure how that one works, pretty sure there's some bullshittery going on there. The way this was explained really confused me procedurally, there could be an explainer but Elizondo sequenced it very weird in the book.
He leaves a very confusing timeline of events too that seemingly contradict each other in where he was assigned and what roles he had when where, although, for my full post, I am going to make a timeline here to parse it out for sureties.

There are some other procedural issues mentioned also in the book. For example;
A) Elizondo claims that while a DCIPS employee, NSA was paying him. This makes no sense, DCIPS has its own funding. You can be assigned to a DCIPS function from another agency, but you would be working/contracting for that other agency, and the paperwork you yourself sign would make that very clear.
B) He also later notes he was an "intelligence operations officer" while a DCIPS employee. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but "intelligence operations officer" I've only ever seen for actual enlisted/officer roles, not any sort of civilian staff which would use the Intelligence Operations Specialist continuum (which we know Elizondo was on). He also mentions reaching GS-15 by this point. This raises an issue as, we know later on, he was a Supervisory Intelligence Operations Specialist as D/NPSMS, nearly a decade after the point of reference he made, and *was not a GS-15*, and I've only seen SIOS max out at 14 granted not impossible to hit 15.
C) When meeting with Stratton and his assistant, fellow DoD employees, in a DoD office building, meeting about DoD matters - are wearing blue badges. I may be incorrect, but the blue/green badging only happens with independent IC functions, the DoD has their own internal coloring system for this matter. Now, if you were part of a DoD IC program and went over to CIA HQ, yah you'd get one. I don't think this makes a lot of sense entirely being DoD internal though. I could be incorrect about the blue/green carding working this way, but I've only ever seen it used in independent IC bodies & their locations. For internal-DoD stuff I've seen other colors like orange badges, but, could have a very specific meaning other than that, unsure.

And just for a funny note, he gives a story about him meeting Stratton that 100% sounds like it was out of a fiction book. Stratton, of course, brought his assistant. The smoking hot intel chic! Not that we don't have baddies in the IC but ensuing parts make it seem like the run of the mil hot badass chick side character insert. Before hunting UFOs she was slaying it in combat postings instead of traditional collection tours. Tad bit unlikely but not impossible.
The ensuing 3 pages explains their meeting as basically one giant spooky talk session. In my experiences, IC types absolutely fucking hate talking like this, no one does it. I interview guys that've done very sensitive stuff all the time, and I am well aware there are things they cannot speak about it, so when I started interviewing folks years ago, I would try to talk around it to avoid potential issues. As it turns out, this annoys them and can just make it harder to answer the actual Q, they'd much rather just tell you they can't answer X part instead of wasting an extra 7 minutes getting to the point.
 
This does not make a whole lot of sense sequentially. He just reasoned why in the above paragraphs - they did it. This reeks of an attempt to try and pull some psych tricks with the writing, and is a major red flag for me with the rest of the books potential contents & these guys prior careers touching on relevant matters.
It's him denying responsibility.

Kind of similar to them proposing Kona Blue and then having Grusch proclaim he's found evidence of a secret UFO program.
 
Last edited:
The other involved a captured "suspected terrorist" that Elizondo and his buddies decided to astral project themselves to and haunt during their lunch break, which was supposedly reported in a "mainstream newspaper article."

Just a hunch, but I suspect that Elizondo is talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Elizondo's book mentions he had previously been at the same location the captured "suspected terrorist" was being held, which was a thousand miles away. KSM is being held at Camp Seven in Guantanamo Bay. Elizondo's Wikipedia article lists him as having previously worked at Camp Seven (Source: Wikipedia), however the supporting articles cited refer more broadly to Guantanamo Bay (Source: CBS News).

In the following interview between Elizondo and The Black Vault's John Greenewald Jr., there is brief discussion about the National Programs Special Management Staff (NPSMS) where Elizondo was a director (Source: Herald Tribune). KSM's attorney made a references to the NPSMS in a 2017 military court hearing (Source: Office of Military Commissions) involving matters that supposedly resulted in Elizondo ending up on "kill list" with ISIS and Al Qaeda.



Still no luck hunting down a "mainstream newspaper article" reporting on KSM (or any other "suspected terrorist") being haunted by ghosts shaking his bed though.
 

Attachments

I've done a bit of searching for any detail on either of these two incidents without any luck. Anyone else?

That's interesting. It wasn't in the OP but good call on posting Mick's X post about it. As mentioned above the preview is no longer available but a screen shot of Mick's post is:

1721786644710.png


Hal Puthoff and Russel Targ's work at SRI for the Army/CIA did not stand up to scrutiny according to Ray Hyman and others:

External Quote:

Proponents of Puthoff and Targ claim 28 published papers, 15 of which showed positive results. An in-depth review of these papers showed that only 13 of the 28 total papers were published under commonly accepted standards of peer review. Of these 13, nine showed positive results. Three of these nine, however, were "retrospective experiments"; meaning that they were "experiments not specifically planned in advance, but apparently reconstructed from separate trials".[42] These retrospective experiments appeared to suffer from the sharpshooter fallacy—the creation of the target after the answers have been given. Of the remaining six studies, only two were found to show actual statistical significance due to the use of inappropriate statistical analyses. Those remaining two studies have yet to be fully replicated.[43]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI

External Quote:

Marks and Kamman concluded: "Until remote viewing can be confirmed in conditions which prevent sensory cueing the conclusions of Targ and Puthoff remain an unsubstantiated hypothesis."[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff

External Quote:

The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there were suspicions of inter-judge reliability.[6]

According to AIR, which performed a review of the project, no remote viewing report ever provided actionable information for any intelligence operation.[21][6]: 5–4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

If we're talking about "government-trained psychics" from the Puthoff/Targ era while SRI was contracted to the CIA or maybe the Army that was conducting the program but with some CIA money (early to mid '70s) that would include Uri Geller, Josephe McMoneagle and Ingo Swann. McMoneagle also said humans evolved from otters, among other things:

External Quote:

According to McMoneagle, humans came from creatures somewhat like sea otters rather than primates and were created in a laboratory by creators who "seeded" the earth and then departed.

McMoneagle's predictions included the passing of a teenager's "Right to Work" Bill,[18] a new religion without the emphasis of Christianity, a science of the soul,[19] a vaccine for AIDS,[20] a movement to eliminate television,[19] and a 'temporary tattoo' craze that would replace the wearing of clothing,[21] all of which were supposed to take place between 2002 and 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McMoneagle

So, Elizondo is just rehashing old '70s era Stargate stuff that has shown to be very problematic and dubious. I wonder if he'll throw in Geller's spoon bending in as well.

There is also the mention in Skinwalkers at the Pentagon that Elizondo is psychic:

External Quote:

Further down the dinner table sat Luis Elizondo, who worked collaboratively with Axelrod and was at the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI).

As he enjoyed his steak tartare, Elizondo regaled those around him with some war stories, including one hair-raising exploit about how his advanced intuition and remote viewing capabilities had saved his life and the life of his men while on a covert combat mission in war-torn Afghanistan.
pg: 49 Kelleher, Colm A.. Skinwalkers at the Pentagon: An Insiders' Account of the Secret Government UFO Program. RTMA, LLC. Kindle Edition.

I know of another blog by a UAPx guy who hooked up with Elizondo and claimed Lue did a remote viewing/future cast for him. I gotta track it down.

For the real nuts and bolts UFOlogist, if there are any left, this book may be disappointing but to be expected. Elizondo has been involved with Puthoff and other SWR alums for years and they're all way beyond simple flying saucers or black triangles. They've long ago incorporated Psy and the paranormal into UFOlogy.
 
Last edited:
I've done a bit of searching for any detail on either of these two incidents without any luck.

I found a few references to crashed Sovit aircraft and remote viewing. There is this from Wiki:

External Quote:

One of the project's successes was the location of a lost Soviet spy plane in 1976 by Rosemary Smith, a young administrative assistant recruited by project director Dale Graff.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

And this reference in an older website that traces the history of Stargate:

External Quote:
A "remote viewer" was tasked to locate a Soviet Tu-95 bomber which had crashed somewhere in Africa, which he allegedly did within several miles of the actual wreckage.
https://irp.fas.org/program/collect/stargate.htm

Note one is a bomber and one a spy plane, though they could be the same, a bomber modified for surveillance, and the gender is different. Going much deeper would probably need a new thread, but we can at least check the sources for these quotes.

The Wiki quote is footnoted 17, which takes us to Phenomena: The Secret History of the US Government's Investigations into ESP and Psychokinesis by Annie Jacobson. The claim seems to be one retold by Dale Graff at a much later date. In a nutshell, Graff was asked to look for a crashed Soviet Tu-95 in an unknown location using only a photo of it. He took the photo to his viewer, Smith, who scribbled up some crude maps. Those maps were then aligned, kinda sorta, with some maps of Africa, by other who knew the plane had gone down in Africa and it supposedly matched up.

I was able to read some of it here:

https://www.google.com/books/editio...BAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT168&printsec=frontcover

I'll note, Jacobson is considered a good researcher and writer, but sometimes advances some strange ideas:
External Quote:

Her 2011 book Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base, about Area 51, makes the claim that the Roswell UFO incident was a Soviet plot to induce War of the Worlds style hysteria.[3]The New York Times called it "noteworthy for its author's dogged devotion to her research".[1] Richard Rhodes, writing in The Washington Post, was more critical of her Roswell claim and its reliance on a single source, writing "Jacobsen shows herself at a minimum extraordinarily gullible or journalistically incompetent."[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Jacobsen

Missing from the above quote is Jacobson's source's claim that the crashed Roswell Flying Saucer wasn't just a Soviet propaganda attempt, but an actual Flying Saucer captured from the Nazi's and piloted by genetical deformed miniature humans created by the Soviets, maybe with the help of Joseph Mengele. Jacobson on NPR's Fresh Air:

External Quote:

"The Horten brothers were involved in the flying disc crash in New Mexico. And that is from a single source. ... There was an unusual moment where that source became very upset and told me things that were stunning that's almost impossible to believe at first read. And that is that a flying disc really did crash in New Mexico and it was transported to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and then in 1951 it was transferred to Area 51, which is why the base is called Area 51. And the stunning part of the reveal is that my source, who I absolutely believe and worked with for 18 months on this, was one of the engineers who received the equipment and he also received the people who were in the craft.

"The child-sized aviators in this craft [that crashed in New Mexico] were the result of a Soviet human experimentation program, and they had been made to look like aliens a la Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, and it was a warning shot over President Truman's bow, so to speak. In 1947, when this would have originally happened, the Soviets did not yet have the nuclear bomb, and Stalin and Truman were locked in horns with one another, and Stalin couldn't compete in nuclear weaponry yet, but he certainly could compete in the world of black propaganda — and that was his aim, according to my source. ...

"What is firsthand information is that he worked with these bodies [of the pilots] and he was an eyewitness to the horror of seeing them and working with them. Where they actually came from is obviously the subject of debate. But if you look at the timeline with Josef Mengele, he left Auschwitz in January of 1945 and disappeared for a while, and the suggestion by the source is that Mengele had already cut his losses with the Third Reich at that point and was working with Stalin."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2011/05/17/136356848/area-51-uncensored-was-it-ufos-or-the-ussr


The quote from fas above includes other sources that will take time, and a different thread likely, to go through, including the CIA's final report on Stargate in 1995.

It seems the remotely viewed Soviet plane in Africa, might be a bit of Psy lore. A collection of things and recollections that become commonly accepted without really looking into the origin of the story.





1721834735695.png
 
I found a few references to crashed Sovit aircraft and remote viewing. There is this from Wiki:

External Quote:

One of the project's successes was the location of a lost Soviet spy plane in 1976 by Rosemary Smith, a young administrative assistant recruited by project director Dale Graff.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

And this reference in an older website that traces the history of Stargate:

External Quote:
A "remote viewer" was tasked to locate a Soviet Tu-95 bomber which had crashed somewhere in Africa, which he allegedly did within several miles of the actual wreckage.
https://irp.fas.org/program/collect/stargate.htm

Note one is a bomber and one a spy plane, though they could be the same, a bomber modified for surveillance, and the gender is different. Going much deeper would probably need a new thread, but we can at least check the sources for these quotes.

The Wiki quote is footnoted 17, which takes us to Phenomena: The Secret History of the US Government's Investigations into ESP and Psychokinesis by Annie Jacobson. The claim seems to be one retold by Dale Graff at a much later date. In a nutshell, Graff was asked to look for a crashed Soviet Tu-95 in an unknown location using only a photo of it. He took the photo to his viewer, Smith, who scribbled up some crude maps. Those maps were then aligned, kinda sorta, with some maps of Africa, by other who knew the plane had gone down in Africa and it supposedly matched up.

I was able to read some of it here:

https://www.google.com/books/editio...BAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT168&printsec=frontcover

I'll note, Jacobson is considered a good researcher and writer, but sometimes advances some strange ideas:
External Quote:

Her 2011 book Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base, about Area 51, makes the claim that the Roswell UFO incident was a Soviet plot to induce War of the Worlds style hysteria.[3]The New York Times called it "noteworthy for its author's dogged devotion to her research".[1] Richard Rhodes, writing in The Washington Post, was more critical of her Roswell claim and its reliance on a single source, writing "Jacobsen shows herself at a minimum extraordinarily gullible or journalistically incompetent."[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Jacobsen

Missing from the above quote is Jacobson's source's claim that the crashed Roswell Flying Saucer wasn't just a Soviet propaganda attempt, but an actual Flying Saucer captured from the Nazi's and piloted by genetical deformed miniature humans created by the Soviets, maybe with the help of Joseph Mengele. Jacobson on NPR's Fresh Air:

External Quote:

"The Horten brothers were involved in the flying disc crash in New Mexico. And that is from a single source. ... There was an unusual moment where that source became very upset and told me things that were stunning that's almost impossible to believe at first read. And that is that a flying disc really did crash in New Mexico and it was transported to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and then in 1951 it was transferred to Area 51, which is why the base is called Area 51. And the stunning part of the reveal is that my source, who I absolutely believe and worked with for 18 months on this, was one of the engineers who received the equipment and he also received the people who were in the craft.

"The child-sized aviators in this craft [that crashed in New Mexico] were the result of a Soviet human experimentation program, and they had been made to look like aliens a la Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, and it was a warning shot over President Truman's bow, so to speak. In 1947, when this would have originally happened, the Soviets did not yet have the nuclear bomb, and Stalin and Truman were locked in horns with one another, and Stalin couldn't compete in nuclear weaponry yet, but he certainly could compete in the world of black propaganda — and that was his aim, according to my source. ...

"What is firsthand information is that he worked with these bodies [of the pilots] and he was an eyewitness to the horror of seeing them and working with them. Where they actually came from is obviously the subject of debate. But if you look at the timeline with Josef Mengele, he left Auschwitz in January of 1945 and disappeared for a while, and the suggestion by the source is that Mengele had already cut his losses with the Third Reich at that point and was working with Stalin."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2011/05/17/136356848/area-51-uncensored-was-it-ufos-or-the-ussr


The quote from fas above includes other sources that will take time, and a different thread likely, to go through, including the CIA's final report on Stargate in 1995.

It seems the remotely viewed Soviet plane in Africa, might be a bit of Psy lore. A collection of things and recollections that become commonly accepted without really looking into the origin of the story.





View attachment 70495

Something with this too left out a lot is the people recruited onto "Stargate" were largely being responsive to areas they already had expertise or worked in, and, they had other jobs where they were actively viewing related intelligence products. Not sure about this specific case, but there's definitely multiple well known Stargate cases where they "found something" but all the guys worked in roles where they were, actively receiving intelligence and photographs relevant to their Stargate Qs. So, it was very likely they for example, actually saw the pictures aligned to a location, and then are given a more refined picture, the same situation, and asked to name the location.
 
Something with this too left out a lot is the people recruited onto "Stargate" were largely being responsive to areas they already had expertise or worked in, and, they had other jobs where they were actively viewing related intelligence products. Not sure about this specific case, but there's definitely multiple well known Stargate cases where they "found something" but all the guys worked in roles where they were, actively receiving intelligence and photographs relevant to their Stargate Qs. So, it was very likely they for example, actually saw the pictures aligned to a location, and then are given a more refined picture, the same situation, and asked to name the location.
You gotta admit, from a counter-intelligence standpoint, it's a great way to hide your sources. "Comrade, they found our crashed aircraft. Is their satellite intelligence that good and that fast?"—"Nyet. They asked a PSI medium, and somehow got lucky apparently."
 
So, it was very likely they for example, actually saw the pictures aligned to a location, and then are given a more refined picture, the same situation, and asked to name the location.

Yeah, I didn't want to get off topic, but the story by Graff about the plan being located has some similar vibes. It takes up several pages of Jacobson's book, so would need to be edited down in a thread on the subject. It's a claim reported by a believer in RV, describing a "hit". But he and his viewer, Smith, had a photograph to work with and he says they had an informal session where she described and sketched various things while studying the photo.

The sketches maybe ended up with some other guys who appeared to know the plane went down in Africa. It's unclear if they totally matched Smith's admittedly crude map sketch to a real map, or Graff did so himself or he just remembers it that way. Certainly seems the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy could have been at work, as is often the case in Psy and the paranormal.
 
You gotta admit, from a counter-intelligence standpoint, it's a great way to hide your sources. "Comrade, they found our crashed aircraft. Is their satellite intelligence that good and that fast?"—"Nyet. They asked a PSI medium, and somehow got lucky apparently."
This is the funny half of why these guys are let to do some of this stuff. We ask "why" these guys can still run around and this is part of the answer. The other is that, despite their research being a bunch of random bs, the govt/mil does get output sometimes. As a random example, a lot of our current EW developments originally spawned out of these parascience programs cause it was viewed as interrelated with it back then, but, it found legitimate application and gravitated away from it. TLDR someone else is exploiting them, they're not involved in that part.

Picked up another funny snippet to add in the meantime.
GTIu_cRW8AApb_h.jpg

This ones really funny because it'd be relatively unlikely a civilian would know this next part, but alas, I love being a nerd.
So, "Grey Fox" was a codename for a unit infamously known as the Intelligence Support Activity.
The Great Skills Program is a program which recruits/selects people that specialize in HUMINT, CI, and Technical Intelligence, and places them on the DASR instead of HRC. Basically, they just spend their careers working SAPs instead of traditional assignments, and get to not wear uniforms among some other perks.
"Grey Fox" and its iterations cannot be the Great Skills Program, since, it's an administrative program that finds positions for people, its own staff is administrative, not operational.

Now an issue. As far as I am aware, ISA and its iterations have never pulled from the GSP. Instead, there is another body hosted out of the Army that's changed its name over the years, that specifically recruits for intelligence SMUs & enablers for SMUs across the military. It went by USAREC/USAPAB. "Grey Fox" and its iterations have always been its own thing, with its own name - they recruit, mostly, from these proxy-selectors. GSP not being one for them.
 
We ask "why" these guys can still run around and this is part of the answer. The other is that, despite their research being a bunch of random bs, the govt/mil does get output sometimes. As a random example, a lot of our current EW developments originally spawned out of these parascience programs cause it was viewed as interrelated with it back then, but, it found legitimate application and gravitated away from it. TLDR someone else is exploiting them, they're not involved in that part.
EW= Electronic Warfare, I presume. I find it unlikely that remote viewing had any positive impact on the development of electronic warfare; that is the realm of computer science, hackers, hard science and technology, not bullcrap.
 
EW= Electronic Warfare, I presume. I find it unlikely that remote viewing had any positive impact on the development of electronic warfare; that is the realm of computer science, hackers, hard science and technology, not bullcrap.
Agreed. @Tezcatlipoca can you elaborate on your claimed connection between remote viewing and electronic warfare?
 
Back
Top