Unverified UFO Photo Sparks Backlash: Elizondo Defends Intent Amid Credibility Concerns
Alien Life & UFO/UAPs
Yesterday
6 minute read.
A photograph recently shared by former U.S. Department of Defense official Luis Elizondo, purporting to show a disc-shaped unidentified flying object (UFO) over the Four Corners region of the United States, has been widely discredited, raising questions about Elizondo's credibility and the verification process surrounding such claims.
Elizondo, who previously led the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), presented the image at a panel hosted by the UAP Disclosure Fund. He claimed it showed a metallic, lenticular object approximately 300 metres in diameter, captured hovering above the desert. "The object was said to have cast a distinctive shadow on the ground below, confirming its physical presence", he stated.
The image rapidly circulated online, but sceptics and analysts soon identified the object as a pair of standard agricultural crop circles—one of which had been scorched in a controlled field burn. These are common in desert regions and used for irrigation. Shadow patterns cited by Elizondo were also disputed by experts, including noted UAP sceptic Mick West, who pointed out inconsistencies in the surrounding topography.
"The shadow he referred to isn't aligned with the rest of the lighting in the image," West noted. "It strongly suggests the object is part of the terrain, not a craft in the sky".
The failure to properly verify the image before its release has led to significant backlash, especially from both within and outside the UAP research community. Critics argue that circulating a misidentified image as proof of extraterrestrial activity severely undermines ongoing efforts to investigate unidentified aerial phenomena seriously.
In response to the controversy, Elizondo issued a statement defending his decision to present the image. “As you know, I am always first to admit mistakes, but this is not one of those times”, he wrote. He explained that the photo had been provided to him by a private pilot on the morning of the forum and “had NOT YET been vetted.” Elizondo added that the quoted dimensions were based on the pilot’s own assessment and that his intent was not to present the image as confirmed evidence, but rather to highlight the lack of a formal reporting process for pilots to report potentially anomalous sightings.
“This illustrates a bigger point here”, he stated. “When pilots, or anyone else for that matter, come out to share what they feel may be anomalous, [they] are faced with fierce ridicule… they learn quickly not to ever share again”.
He concluded that the real issue was not the accuracy of the photo, but the absence of a structured system for reporting and analysing such incidents, “Whether a private pilot sees what turns out to be a cloud, a balloon, a tennis shoe, or a UAP, we need a reporting mechanism to ensure it can be analysed and resolved”.
Elizondo’s defence does provide important context, particularly his claim that the image was shared as an illustrative example, not as verified evidence. However, it also underscores a key concern, why the photo was not clearly labelled as unverified when it was introduced during a public forum, especially given Elizondo’s high-profile role in the field. While he insists he made that disclaimer repeatedly, the public perception, fuelled by headlines and social media, suggests that message may not have been effectively communicated.
This has led to broader concerns about how such incidents may affect Elizondo’s standing. As a prominent figure in the push for UAP transparency, the credibility of his contributions is critical. Some commentators have suggested that even unintentionally sharing misleading material can damage both personal and institutional trust.
"One misstep like this can undo years of serious advocacy work", noted a defence analyst. "When your platform is based on credibility and inside knowledge, you simply can’t afford to get it wrong—even if your intentions are good".
With renewed public and political interest in the subject of unidentified aerial phenomena, the need for rigorous standards of evidence and accountability remains paramount. Elizondo’s clarification may soften the blow among supporters, but it also highlights the importance of clear, cautious communication when engaging with such a sensitive and speculative field.
Luis Elizondo's full responce,
Elizondo, who previously led the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), presented the image at a panel hosted by the UAP Disclosure Fund. He claimed it showed a metallic, lenticular object approximately 300 metres in diameter, captured hovering above the desert. "The object was said to have cast a distinctive shadow on the ground below, confirming its physical presence", he stated.
The image rapidly circulated online, but sceptics and analysts soon identified the object as a pair of standard agricultural crop circles—one of which had been scorched in a controlled field burn. These are common in desert regions and used for irrigation. Shadow patterns cited by Elizondo were also disputed by experts, including noted UAP sceptic Mick West, who pointed out inconsistencies in the surrounding topography.
"The shadow he referred to isn't aligned with the rest of the lighting in the image," West noted. "It strongly suggests the object is part of the terrain, not a craft in the sky".
The failure to properly verify the image before its release has led to significant backlash, especially from both within and outside the UAP research community. Critics argue that circulating a misidentified image as proof of extraterrestrial activity severely undermines ongoing efforts to investigate unidentified aerial phenomena seriously.
In response to the controversy, Elizondo issued a statement defending his decision to present the image. “As you know, I am always first to admit mistakes, but this is not one of those times”, he wrote. He explained that the photo had been provided to him by a private pilot on the morning of the forum and “had NOT YET been vetted.” Elizondo added that the quoted dimensions were based on the pilot’s own assessment and that his intent was not to present the image as confirmed evidence, but rather to highlight the lack of a formal reporting process for pilots to report potentially anomalous sightings.
“This illustrates a bigger point here”, he stated. “When pilots, or anyone else for that matter, come out to share what they feel may be anomalous, [they] are faced with fierce ridicule… they learn quickly not to ever share again”.
He concluded that the real issue was not the accuracy of the photo, but the absence of a structured system for reporting and analysing such incidents, “Whether a private pilot sees what turns out to be a cloud, a balloon, a tennis shoe, or a UAP, we need a reporting mechanism to ensure it can be analysed and resolved”.
Elizondo’s defence does provide important context, particularly his claim that the image was shared as an illustrative example, not as verified evidence. However, it also underscores a key concern, why the photo was not clearly labelled as unverified when it was introduced during a public forum, especially given Elizondo’s high-profile role in the field. While he insists he made that disclaimer repeatedly, the public perception, fuelled by headlines and social media, suggests that message may not have been effectively communicated.
This has led to broader concerns about how such incidents may affect Elizondo’s standing. As a prominent figure in the push for UAP transparency, the credibility of his contributions is critical. Some commentators have suggested that even unintentionally sharing misleading material can damage both personal and institutional trust.
"One misstep like this can undo years of serious advocacy work", noted a defence analyst. "When your platform is based on credibility and inside knowledge, you simply can’t afford to get it wrong—even if your intentions are good".
With renewed public and political interest in the subject of unidentified aerial phenomena, the need for rigorous standards of evidence and accountability remains paramount. Elizondo’s clarification may soften the blow among supporters, but it also highlights the importance of clear, cautious communication when engaging with such a sensitive and speculative field.
Luis Elizondo's full responce,
As you know, I am always first to admit mistakes, but this is not one of those times. The facts regarding the photo I shared from a private pilot (as I emphasized several times yesterday during the forum) are as follows:
1. The specific photo had only just been provided to me (by a private pilot) that morning, prior to the forum.
2. The photo had NOT YET been vetted.
3. The dimensions I quoted, were per the pilot’s own assessment of what he saw, based on altitude and experience.
The purpose of me showing the photo was to illustrate the need for civilian and commercial pilots to have a central reporting mechanism to report potential anomalous sightings. In this case, the pilot who took the photo, using his own camera, did not have a way to report what he believed was anomalous.
Once again, as I stated during the forum, I only received permission to release it that morning and only was made aware of it shortly before.
Not sure how many times I need to say it, so I will say it again. The photo was not yet vetted, and I made that perfectly clear.
This illustrates a bigger point here. When pilots, or anyone else for that matter, come out to share what they feel may be anomalous, are faced with fierce ridicule (instead of productive dialogue) from some in the UFO community, they learn quickly not to ever share again.
As I communicated during the forum, my purpose of sharing the photo was to simply illustrate there is no central reporting mechanism in place for private and commercial pilots to report what they believe might be anomalous and for these photos or videos to be vetted. This remains a serious issue. Pilots see things on a daily basis they can’t explain (some identified, some mis-identified, and some truly anomalous) that require additional analysis.
In the end, whether a private pilot sees what turns out to be a cloud, a balloon, a tennis shoe, or a UAP, we need a reporting mechanism to ensure it can be analyzed and resolved. This was the reason I shared the photo, and I emphasized that several times during the forum.
I could have used a photo of an innertube to prove my point, but I used instead a real photo, taken by a real pilot, of something he thought was anomalous (which I emphasized had not been analyzed yet).
The ones who are screaming about it (instead of discussing respectfully it as I hoped) missed the entire point of the photo and are not helping other pilots in the future from coming forward.
