Hi Everyone.

This controversy snuck up on me and since I discussed this previously, I thought I wanted to restate a few things. I have a lot of respect for UAP Gerb, and I think Ross Coulthart has done excellent journalism in this field. And I know I’m probably putting myself out on a limb here, taking a very unpopular position, because it seems to me that Luis Elizondo has become something of a villain in this field. At least to many. But the idea that he is fronting a controlled disclosure operation is an argument that I believe has evidentiary and logical problems. Not that this is impossible, but as it has been stated, I think the argument leaves a lot to be desired. I tried to explain this as well as I can in this video. This is what I wrote for YouTube.

In this presentation, I examine the growing claim—advanced most recently by UAP Gerb in conversation with Ross Coulthart—that Luis Elizondo served as the public frontman for a James Clapper linked effort to control what Americans would be told about UAP. The alleged strategy was to acknowledge NHI and UFOs while keeping crash retrievals, reverse engineering, and the structure of the legacy programs hidden. I take this argument seriously, but test it against the evidence, the chronology, and its own internal logic. Why would officials deliberately revive a subject that ridicule had contained for decades? How does the theory account for Elizondo’s 2019 statement to Tucker Carlson that the government possessed UFO debris, four years before David Grusch, or for the Pentagon’s later campaign against him? This is a critical examination of an increasingly influential narrative, and of the growing tendency to turn complicated figures into heroes or villains before the evidence is complete.
UAP Gerb interview with Ross Couylthart:    • UAP researcher: Lue Elizondo’s new role is…  
Luis Elizondo’s 2019 Interview with Tucker Carlson:    • Tucker Carlson tonight 5/31/19:  UFOs- The…  

I have a feeling many will not like that I am pushing back on some of these allegations. I have no skin in the game one way or another. But I believe the method of argumentation used here has several flaws. 

Your thoughts?
Richard

ps. I just wrote an article on the 1968 article: UFO Hypotheses and Survival Questions. Not sure i will turn it into a video, but I will publish it here, probably early tomorrow. Many thanks to AG for pushing me on this.