Kudos to our own Kirsten Blackburn for sending me this clip. This was just from this afternoon on CNN. Lue Elizondo talking about the possibility that the UAP Task Force report will be out as early as next week. By the way, this clip is right off of her phone, so don’t expect professional audio!
What’s REALLY interesting however is how Elizondo answers (or doesn’t answer) their direct questions. Again, if this is an “op,” then he’s running rings around his supposed journalistic handlers. There’s no coordination. The female announcer even mispronounced his last name when she introduced him.
Question #1: What do you think this report is going to say?
His answer: he ‘hopes’ that this will provide some useful information to Congress but he fears that 180 days won’t be enough time to do a comprehensive report.
Question #2: “So your expectation is that this report won’t be comprehensive?”
His answer here is masterful. He immediately backs off and says “well I think this is going to be a start.” One thing about Lue: he absolutely knows how to deflect questions he doesn’t want to answer or can’t answer. And he knows how to get out of potential hot water very, very well while being interviewed, as he did here. he was also clever in being vague about how long this phenomenon has been going on “many years if not decades.” Well as we all know, it’s been going on for many decades, but he leaves this extremely vague. This is the opposite of fear mongering, frankly. This is lowballing the situation, if anything.]
Question #3. “When you were director of the Pentagon’s program, what information did you see that the rest of us don’t know about?”
Here, he completely deflects, as you might expect. he starts off by SEEMING to answer directly by saying “Sure, well I think what’s important here …” and then proceeds to talk about essentially contemporary or recently reported UFO incidents by military observers. He indicated that multiple technologies have tracked these unknowns. All good stuff, but not answering her question.
Question #4. “Now you have a former President acknowledging this. What changed?”
Again, he doesn’t answer but mentions how many high level officials have acknowledged this and pivots to “what are these things?,” etc.
Question #5: “And what do you think it is?”
He says, “to be completely honest, it’s too early to reach a conclusion right now.” And so on.
They are not in his league. Not even close.