Talk:Luis Elizondo

I confess, I skimmed parts of this cumbersome page, but I haven't seen mention of Senator Harry Reed's confirmation of Elizondo's leadership role in AATIP. It seems crucial to proving his most important bona fides. In fact, it's foundational to have a written statement by a US senator with access to classified information and close knowledge of AATIP. Does anybody know the history of this on the page? Doesn't it require some editing and perhaps rethinking of the pages main thrusts?

according to GQ magazine https://web.archive.org/web/20211109143249/https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/luis-elizondo-interview-2021 :

On X there is a post from a NBC reporter, Gadi Schwartz, showing the referenced letter from Senator Henry Reid. Reid does say Elizondo headed AATIP. Further down on the same page on X you can see a quote from the pentagon completely contradicting this statement. I think this information would enhance the main article. https://x.com/GadiNBC/status/1386872125835812864 2001:56A:6FF8:C446:E89E:1201:FA8B:2E9 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC) 24 July 2025

[although] a Pentagon spokesperson called into question Elizondo’s claim to have worked on AATIP. In response, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to NBC News vouching for Elizondo’s story. “As one of the original sponsors of AATIP, I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo’s involvement and leadership role in this program,” Reid wrote. Gcherrits (talk)

Great point, but Reid's letter is already discussed in the article. Feoffer (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, Reid's there but his statement is 1) buried many graphs down, 2)very ambiguous: "I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo's involvement and leadership role in this program". What program? no idea. 3) plugged in, sorta randomly where it is and also out if place under a different heading. this could be poor editing or it could be designed to obfuscate. Because it does.

All things considered, would you agree that Elizondos page is a bit of a mess and doesn't serve to enlighten anyone. Probably because of the

"conspiracy" and pseudoscience" disputes, it's not Wikipedias best work. :-) Gcherrits (talk) Gcherrits (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

So, welcome to Wikipedia! One of our policies is to Assume Good Faith when talking about our fellow editors. Not everyone really has good faith, but questioning others intentions is a pointless exercise that goes nowhere and does nothing to actually improve the article. Instead, I would just straight up ask you: How would you improve the quote. What text would you use for the additional context/expanded quote? Where do you think Reid letter should go? I don't have the answer key hidden away, nobody thinks the current text is perfect. We're all just doing our best :) . Propose some changes and let's see if they make sense and get consensus. Feoffer (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

So, welcome to Wikipedia! FWIW, Gcherrits has been editing Wikipedia since 2011. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Rereading it. It ended up sounding snippy and snarky. That wasn't my intention. I was trying to get straight to the point and it came out unpleasant. Sorry.

Anyway. I've spent some time in this Elizondo, Malmgren, Putoff, et al fireworks and delet-a-rama. The one thing I know for sure is that these people don't seem to be treated neutrally and as people of good faith. Things don't feel right.

The big problem here is that the delte-a-rama ends up having a chilling effect on the discussion and improvement of the Wiki.

I have some thoughts on how Elizondo might be handled more fairly. I'll see what I can do. He's a complicated fellow. The page should invite discussion, not settle it. IMHO Gcherrits (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I look forward to specific changes you'd propose, ala "Where do you think Reid letter should go?" In general, it's easier to get agreements when you have small, gradual, specific text changes, as opposed to broad ideas. Feoffer (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

would you agree that Elizondos page is a bit of a mess and doesn't serve to enlighten anyone. Absolutely not. The page is far, far better (i.e., encyclopedic) now than it had been previously, when it was dominated by sensational and promotional content (note that the latter links to a subsection of the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT). I also note that it's foundational to have a written statement by a US senator is incorrect, at least per the Wikipedia guideline WP:RS. US senators, along with pretty much any muckety-muck in any government ever, are not what most people would consider particularly reliable sources. But do go ahead and suggest edits here, as that is a primary purpose of article Talk pages. You might also want to review the many previous discussions on this page (see the archives), to better understand how Reid's letter is currently handled, and why the article has its current form. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

just occurred to me. I'm new. When I said poor editing, I meant poor "editing" not "Editing", as in by an unserious vandal not a devoted Editor. I've been interpreting most idiosyncratic things, lately, as part of the outbreak of vandalism. I think its put everyone on edge. Its just a theory. and how do I get to the archives? Gcherrits (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The top box on this page has the bolded word Archives. Click there. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

To add onto @JoJo Anthrax:, you can click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Talk%3ALuis+Elizondo%2F&search=Reid&ns0=1 -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

To edit again, the article wasn't bad, and is probably healthier than it has been. The main mess leftover after the last brouhaha was that the timeline was a complete trainwreck and some sources were misused, and there were still too many sentences unsources. It's all 100% sourced now and in order. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I am removing Kloor's reference as to Elizondo's role in AATIP on WP:BLP grounds. Every single source with the exception of Kloor confirms Elizondo's role in AATIP. On this topic, Kloor would be considered WP:Fringe and as such his use in this article should be treated with caution. It stays out of the lead until its fully justified in talk. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Every single source with the exception of Kloor confirms Elizondo's role in AATIP That is false, and the content you removed was accurate, sourced, and appropriate. There are no BLP grounds supporting your edit, which does not improve the article. But who knows, perhaps WP:CONSENSUS among editors will favor your desired content? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a BLP issue as its clearly WP:UNDUE to put a fringe opinion in the lead of a biography. Provide another source aside from Kloor that states Elizondo had no role in AATIP because I can provide dozens, including the programs founder, which will explicitly state he did. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

That's simply false, as discussed in the RSN thread . Reading the RSN thread, there was consensus again describing his alleged role in AATIP as fact in the lead Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

One of those sources is Kloor and the other is not considered a RS for the topic. Got anything else? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

So you can just arbitrarily exclude sources written in reliable sources (in this case Science magazine) because they disagree with your point of view? Cool story bro. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not arbitrarily doing anything. Newsnation was formally depreciated on UFO topics. Hoisted on your own petard. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you have reading comprehension difficulties, but Science magazine is not in fact NewsNation. Otherwise, you might need a pair of glasses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Kloor wrote the article in Science. Try keeping up. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

And Science published it. Robocop is riding a unicorn. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm tentatively okay with this removal. The content was arguably WP:SYNTH that was contrasting Kloor and the Politico piece. While I agree that that's categorically 'conflicting claims', it's a borderline enough thing that I'm not entirely comfortable endorsing it. We need a source that states 'conflicting claims', otherwise, we should be attributing the claims to the named spokespersons. Something that would be fully acceptable to me could read like "Pentagon spokesperson Dana White confirmed that Elizondo ran the AATIP^[Politico]. However, another Pentagon spokesperson, Christopher Sherwood, stated "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017."^[Intercept] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Within the body of the article, sure, but that seems far too much text for a lede. The original lede content before this latest round of WP:CRYBLP was "The Pentagon has given conflicting claims regarding whether Elizondo had a role in the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program," attached to two reliable sources. Concise, accurate, covered in greater depth within the article body, and not a violation of BLP or SYNTH. Perhaps one could substitute whether Elizondo had a role with "Elizondo's role," which has the advantage of being shorter. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Fair point. What would you think of something like "The Pentagon has, at different times, both confirmed^[Politico] and denied^[Intercept] Elizonda's claim to have run the AATIP. ? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  One of the suggestions that was repeatedly made in the RSN discussion was to remove any mention of his alleged role in AATIP from the lead at all, and just mention him working at the Department of Defense. I would support this suggestion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  I would, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Good suggestion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Kloor is a mainstream journalist writing in mainstream publications. Fringe clearly does not apply, nor does BLP. The content is well-cited. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Once again, dozens of high quality sources identifying Elizondo's involvement with AATIP as well as the US Senator who established the program vs Kloor citing a Pentagon spokesman who said he isn't. This is fringe as well as BLP. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The argument that Kloor is a WP:FRINGE figure is extremely spurious. There is a vast difference between a minority view and a fringe view, and editors are expected to know it. "Citing a Pentagon spokesperson" is literally the gold standard for such a claim, and it is exactly how the Politico piece does it, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Im not saying Kloor is fringe, just his assertion that Elizondo was never part of AATIP is fringe. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, Art Levine endorsed it, and I have found a spokesperson (Sue Gough, for the DoD) who stated the same thing. It is very obviously not a fringe view, nor would it be a fringe view, even if Sherwood were the only one to state it and Kloor the only one to report on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Every single source with the exception of Kloor confirms Elizondo's role in AATIP. Not at all. Per Art Levine, you could call Elizondo's claim "discredited" “Elizondo, whose now-discredited claim to have headed the Pentagon’s $22 million UFO research program “. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Levine is definitely endorsing that claim, but it comes through an... Interesting... Site, ultimately originating with the same quote of Sherwood in the Kloor article. (I'm not disagreeing with you, just playing devil's advocate here. I'm on board with citing both Kloor and Levine to state that. I'm also curious if there are more sources out there.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Art Levine wrote another earlier article in 2023 in the Washington Spectator that discusses the claim in detail:

In a landscape that is saturated with unverified and unproven claims, it has also been difficult to pin down the facts in the biographies of several of the more outspoken UFO adherents. Most journalists have touted Lue Elizondo as the former director of a Pentagon UFO research program. But Elizondo’s claim to have been the director of a secret program known as AATIP (Advanced Aerial Threat Identification Program) has never been verified, as The Intercept first reported in 2019. Yet critics observe that this assertion by Elizondo, first printed by the Times in 2017, has been endlessly repeated by news outlets uncritically quoting the original story through “cut-and-paste journalism,” a practice that is unusually prevalent in the coverage of the UFO field.

To complicate matters, the 2017 Times article mistakenly conflated AATIP (which in reality was a tiny, unofficial and unfunded “activity”) with AAWSAP (Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Application Program), the actual $22 million Pentagon program run by the Pengagon’s James Lacatski, a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) official; the real name and scope of this latter program wasn’t known until May 2018.

To this day, the exact name of the program, its dates and functions, and what–and when– was Elizondo’s precise role, if any, in researching UFOs for the government has changed with different tellings by the Pentagon and especially by Elizondo. In fact, as a new trove of internal DOD memoranda obtained by UFO researcher John Greenewald shows, even Elizondo’s immediate supervisors at the Pentagon were baffled after the 2017 Times story broke by his claims that he ran the AATIP UFO program.

Garry Reid, then director of Defense Intelligence at the USDI office, wrote in a memo that Elizondo had “aggrandized his role” and “to the best of my knowledge, he had no job responsibilities related to the AATIP.” (Apparently, AAWSAP was such a can of supernatural worms they didn’t even refer to the program by its correct name internally.) The Reid memo also said Elizondo claimed that for several years he had been tasked on a super-secret project (see 4th page) on UFOs directly for Defense Secretary James Mattis, and that “nobody at USDI was cleared for this program and would not discuss it further.” Reid noted, “I discussed his claims with senior officials who would likely have known of such an arrangement, but was unable to substantiate them.”

After the new revelations about AAWSAP broke in 2018, Elizondo at first said he had no role in AAWSAP, but then later started claiming that he held an array of leadership posts with AAWSAP, too. These assertions have been contradicted by the actual leaders of that program, who have indicated he never worked there. As one former Pentagon official familiar with AAWSAP bluntly told this reporter: “Lue Elizondo played no role in AAWSAP.”

Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This makes three spokespersons and the director of DI who have denied Elizondo having a role. That's pretty damning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

"has never been verified" .. umm .. Senator Harry Reid verified it:

As one of the sponsors of AATUP, I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo's involvement and leadership role in this program. Mr Elizondo is a former intelligence officer who has spent his career working tirelessly in the shadows on sensitive national security matters, including investigating UAP's as the head of AATIP. He performed these duties admirably. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Members of the United States Senate should be considered unreliable sources for pretty much everything, and especially senators who were associated with this guy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion on the topic is duly noted .. although not especially relevant to the discussion. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Wikipedia is not meant to resolve points but to report them. Was Elizondo involved with AAITP? Reid et al. said yes, Kloor et al. said no. It is not up to us to arbitrate the question. ~2025-36388-15 (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Peer reviewed academic journals hold the highest reliability for sources. From what I have found, he is described as the director of AATIP:

• The main source for this exposé was Luis Elizondo, the director of the "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (AATIP) who, after resigning from his post, has now written 'Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFO's'. Intelligence and National Security

MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Passing mention. As I mentioned in response to Hemiauchenia above, I have now counted two Pentagon spokespersons, one DoD spokesperson and the then-director of Defense Intelligence who have all denied this claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

And the US Senator who authorized the program? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of believing politicians. Especially with regards to anything to do with any kind of conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As per MOS:LEADREL, I suggest one concise sentence be added to the end of the lead that properly encapsulates the amalgam of content and RS in the section Questioned and spurious claims: He has been criticized for not presenting physical evidence for his assertions, and for claiming images of mundane objects — such as light fixtures and irrigation circles — are alien spaceships.

I suggest we use the term "alien spaceships" as consistent with the sources, which make clear the images being presented are claimed to be alien spaceships and not unidentified human aircraft. Chetsford (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Three days have passed and there have been no objections or, indeed, comments of any kind. I'm therefore, adding this. Chetsford (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

late, I know Sounds good to me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

As per MOS:INTRO, which suggests "editors should avoid ... overly specific descriptions", I suggest we modify the first sentence of the lead thusly:

Luis Elizondo is an American author, media personality and UFO disclosure activist formerly employed by the United States Department of Defense in roles of United States Army Counterintelligence and with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSDI).

The specific offices he worked in are detailed in the body and, in looking at other DOD civilian personnel, I find that major appointments held are often detailed in the lead but an exhaustive list of offices in which they worked are not. In Elizondo's case, he seems not to have held any major appointments and simply listing wings of buildings where his cubicle was at is a level of detail better served for the body. Chetsford (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense to defer those detail to the body. Feoffer (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

His specific roles are murky. Supposedly he was also a remote viewer for Hal Puthoff and ran AATIP, etc. I think streamlining the lead as you suggest is a good idea. Especially if the details are present in the body. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed and all editors opining indicate support. It is done. Chetsford (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place regarding the use and license status of the book cover in the article. See Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_December_8#File:Imminent_Inside_the_Pentagon's_Hunt_for_UFOs_book_cover.jpg if interested. 5Q5|^✉ 13:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)