Luis Elizondo Shares Another Alleged UFO Photo — Gets Instantly Debunked
Luis “Lue” Elizondo, former head of the Pentagon’s UFO investigation program and one of the loudest voices in the modern UAP disclosure movement, has done it again.This week, Elizondo showcased yet another alleged UFO photo — only to have the internet, particularly the r/UFOs community, tear it to pieces within hours.This isn’t the first time. Just a few months ago, Elizondo was involved in the so-called “chandelier debacle,” where a photo he shared, supposedly showing something anomalous, was easily identified as an ordinary chandelier light. You’d think after that embarrassing episode, caution would be the word of the day. But here we are again. Elizondo isn’t a fool. He worked in military intelligence. He knows how image verification works. He had to know that putting out a fresh, unvetted photo would attract the online crowd that can geolocate landmarks, match tiny visual details, and trace images back to their origins in record time. We live in an age where people can pinpoint someone’s location from a blurry tree branch or the shape of a bird’s wing in the sky.So what was he thinking?At this point, it’s hard not to wonder if this was intentional. If Lue knew the photo wasn’t vetted, then he had to have known it risked being debunked — and that this, in turn, would harm the larger disclosure effort. And that sucks, because most of the community liked Lue. He seemed legitimate, someone genuinely trying to push the conversation forward. But this feels like a bridge too far.This is now the second fraudulent photo Elizondo has pushed forward. Even if it’s not deliberate disinformation, it’s clear that at best, he’s a poor evaluator of evidence — and at worst, he’s knowingly muddying the waters. If you’re walking into an important forum or briefing and bringing a completely unvetted image, that’s amateur hour. It damages trust, erodes credibility, and undermines the entire case for serious UAP investigation.Here’s what Elizondo had to say in response to the backlash:“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, 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 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. When pilots (or anyone) come forward to share what they feel may be anomalous, and they are faced with fierce ridicule (instead of productive dialogue) from some in the UFO community, they learn quickly not to share again.My purpose of sharing the photo was to illustrate that there is no central reporting mechanism in place. Whether a private pilot sees what turns out to be a cloud, balloon, tennis shoe, or UAP, we need a reporting mechanism to ensure it can be analyzed and resolved.” - Lue Elizondo [source]We get what Lue is saying — but here’s the problem.If you’re using a live forum to push the need for a reporting mechanism, you don’t bring in shaky, unvetted evidence and wave it in front of an audience as your centerpiece. You either stress-test it first or use a known debunked example to illustrate the point.Throwing raw, unchecked material into a high-stakes discussion doesn’t just illustrate a gap — it actively creates more chaos and damages the cause you’re trying to champion.Regardless of what you think about Lue Elizondo himself, whether you see him as a sincere advocate, a sloppy operator, or something in between, it’s worth pausing and asking: how did the pilot think this was a UAP in the first place?Pilots are usually trained observers. They know what aircraft, balloons, clouds, reflections, and atmospheric effects look like. They’re taught to assess things like size, speed, distance, and altitude under pressure. So if the photo that got insta-debunked was so obviously mundane, why did the pilot who took it believe it was something anomalous?This is an important point, especially if the pilot’s story is legit. If even pilots are misclassifying simple visuals as UAPs, it casts serious doubt on the reliability of "credible observer" reports in general. Or maybe Lue is just lying in his defense? I mean, could a pilot — someone constantly in motion, adjusting to changing perspectives — really mistake two circular spots on the ground for a craft casting a shadow? That doesn't seem credible.
