Friday, April 30, 2021

Gough: DOD Has No Comment on Any Elizondo Remarks

    Spokesperson Sue Gough stated in an email received today the Department of Defense has no comment on any of Luis Elizondo's remarks. She also reiterated the Department's position that Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP while assigned to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. 

Luis Elizondo
A query was submitted to Gough after the New York Post published an article in which the controversial government official-turned-UFO Disclosure activist minimized statements issued by the DOD on his former responsibilities. The Post quoted Elizondo as suggesting the Pentagon doesn't like him very much, and its denial of his AATIP assigned responsibilities have been disgruntled matters of semantics.

"I had no assigned responsibilities," the Post quoted Elizondo, "because I was working Gitmo for [the Department of Defense]. These assigned duties [exploring the reality of UFOs] were coming from the legislative branch."

Asked if she had any comment, and specifically if Elizondo had AATIP duties originating from the "legislative branch," Gough replied as indicated below.

The Post further quoted Elizondo, "There are enough people now in the Pentagon and on the Hill who know exactly who I was and what I did. And, you know, it’s going to hurt [my detractors’] credibility."

Seemingly unknown to Elizondo, the issue is not a matter of whether those seeking evidence to justify his claims are supporters or detractors. It's a matter of proper documentation. To argue otherwise confuses the issue and is detrimental to the fact-checking process. 

Perhaps his claims will be fully verified, but that is not currently the case. It becomes increasingly difficult to empathize with his inability to resolve the circumstances. As one Twitter account put it, "It makes no sense that he can't show documentation to the public about a claim he has made public. In all his years he has not a scrap of unclassified anything that proves he worked with AATIP?"


See also:

Significance of Pentagon Statements about Luis Elizondo and OUSDI 

Thursday, April 29, 2021

Significance of Pentagon Statements about Luis Elizondo and OUSDI

    NBC News correspondent Gadi Schwartz is among the latest to wade into the AATIP pool. That's the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, or what amounts to the late great Pentagon UFO project, reported far and wide to have been directed by Luis Elizondo.

Schwartz is the most recent to obtain statements from the Pentagon that suggest maybe those far and wide reports are wrong. He also obtained a letter from Sen. Harry Reid, contradicting the Pentagon and clearly stating Elizondo's role was "the head of AATIP."

Let's try to make this simple, or at least simplify what some of the discrepancies are about. The latest Pentagon statement as reported by Schwartz, as has been the case with several before it, states Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for the AATIP while assigned to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence:

In January 2018, To The Stars Academy spokesperson Kari DeLonge went on the record as pictured below and as published by John Greenewald of The Black Vault. She clearly suggested Elizondo took over the AATIP after it was transferred to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence:

The significance of the conflicting statements is the Pentagon has now repeatedly specified Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities in the AATIP while assigned to the very office, OUSDI, out of which Kari DeLonge asserted he directed the project. That's stronger than three feet of new rope.

Luis Elizondo did not immediately respond to an opportunity to comment for inclusion in this blog post.

As many have speculated, perhaps Elizondo was given no particular assignments and managed some type of unofficial UFO file. Others have speculated security classification restrictions or non-disclosure agreements have prohibited him from providing the verification sought. 

Former promotional image for
History and reddit
There are multiple problems with such scenarios. For one, Elizondo's role has clearly been portrayed by TTSA-friendly writers and sensationalist cable television shows as much more significant than some guy organizing a few files in his spare time. Such a situation would, at this point, seem misleading and overhyped, at best.

Secondly, arguing that a security oath prohibits Elizondo from verifying his AATIP claim does not relieve him of responsibility for making the assertion in the first place. It enables a lack of responsibility, and makes excuses for his statements, rather than properly assigning him the burden of proof.

Moreover, if a person sincerely believed their assertion was important enough to voice, but they knew they ultimately could not prove it, perhaps they should concede that to be the case. In contrast, Elizondo might much more accurately be described as someone who has framed himself as a victim for having evidence requested of him.

Elizondo has frequently minimized the discrepancies and the repeated contradicting statements issued by the Pentagon. This is in spite of the fact he should have been prepared to verify his claims if he was ever going to make them. There are law firms that specialize in national security and whistleblower cases. It is arguably an insult to intelligence to suggest options were so limited that the best or only course of action was as appears to have been selected.

No matter how the situation may or may not eventually be resolved, the fact remains it is currently at issue. Denial of the fact only calls motives and competence further into question.   

Meanwhile, Adam Kehoe reported questions were aptly raised about Elizondo's potential involvement with the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, or UAPTF. The Task Force is expected to have some bearing on whatever may or may not materialize of an anticipated intelligence report on UAP. 

Kehoe wrote that Elizondo commented extensively about the pending UAP report during a recent conference call. This prompted call participants to ask about his role in producing the report, at which time Elizondo deflected the questions and suggested they be directed to the government.

Kehoe subsequently asked the Department of Defense about Elizondo's involvement with the UAPTF, to which spokesperson Susan Gough responded he had no involvement. "Her denial specifically included consulting and or any other kind of engagement," Kehoe added.

The discrepancies may eventually be conclusively resolved. A lot of researchers seem to have a finger on the pulse of the story and be equipped with adequate shovels. What will not be resolved is that Luis Elizondo levels claims and spins himself as being under attack when asked to substantiate them. Those who seek sufficient supporting evidence are often villainized, within a genre, no less, notorious for accepting unproven claims.

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Corbell Asserts but Fails to Report How Stories Vetted

    Among the latest stories to splash the UFO Disclosure pot is one involving Jeremy Corbell and material he calls "genuine UFO/UAP footage." Corbell published a post at his website and took to Twitter to share images and a film clip of what he described as pyramid shaped craft and transmedium vehicles.

The maker of such films as Bob Lazar and Hunt for the Skinwalker wrote at his website he obtained the material "in an anonymous data dump." Each item included "detailed written context," he added. 

Corbell wrote he enrolled the help of George Knapp to verify the materials. As a result, he asserted, "I can confirm their authenticity - as well as - the narrative supplied to me when they were presented."

Substantial detail is put forth about the alleged context of the images and video footage, described by Corbell as coming from a May 1, 2020, Office of Naval Intelligence classified briefing. No further information about the vetting process is offered, however, than Corbell's reference to information "articulated" to him by "those familiar with the briefing." The names or specific roles of such people are not provided. Corbell similarly goes on without justification to assert the "impressive provenance" of the material while explaining with confident certainty its otherwise quite unclear purposes. 

Corbell did not immediately respond to an email request to field a few questions for inclusion in this blog post. 

Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough confirmed the photos and videos were taken by the Navy, adding the UAP Task Force included the incidents in their ongoing examinations. Gough would not provide further context, however.

"As we have said before," she continued, "to maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to potential adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examinations of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP."

Information has been scarce about the UAP Task Force, with its scope and significance called into question. The personnel have yet to be publicly identified, and George Knapp reportedly suggested the "Force" had no budget and no staff. Any resulting report, it was added, would have to be produced by the director in his spare time because he already had a full time job.

Questions were raised about how material from a classified briefing could be provided to Corbell. Similar questions arose about the apparent discussion of the contents of the briefing as portrayed at his website.

"Without having seen the actual material that you are referring to, I would say a couple of things," Steven Aftergood, veteran researcher of national security and classification policy at the Federation of American Scientists, explained in an April 12 email. 

"It is entirely possible for a classified briefing to include unclassified parts. In fact, most classified documents do have at least some unclassified paragraphs or portions.

"In the UFO context, the question of authenticity is much more important than the question of classification. There is a history of fabricated documents and images that purport to show UFOs. If someone cannot reliably identify the source of their information because it is 'classified,' then that would count against its credibility."

The UFO faithful are indeed going to continue to struggle to gain respect from a wider audience due to unresolved issues about the context of leaked material. It is reasonable to question if intelligence officials genuinely believe the objects depicted are as mysterious as Corbell's apparent sources would have us believe. It is also questionable as to how widely this view might be shared among such officials. There is no way to resolve such issues other than through transparent verification. 

The motives of the sources and those who relay their stories will remain a significant issue. Why do the sources prefer anonymity if the info they share is unclassified? One school of thought might suggest ambiguity offers more opportunity for unearned credibility than if the public conclusively knew three-plus years of Disclosure stories all originated from the same person or two.

It ultimately boils down to why intelligence officials, with a message they feel is of great substance, would choose Jeremy Corbell to carry it to the masses. After all, Mr. Aftergood was quite receptive to exploring the topic. Maybe Corbell should be questioning why those in Naval Intelligence circles placed such confidence in his info security and communication skills. If he's not asking why, perhaps we should be asking him why not.