That's the account you admitted to me that you chose to disseminate the private DMs to where you called me "mentally unstable", "huckster" & arguably "fellon" (sic), right? You said it was to "clear [your] name"?
Just curious, because I'd like to avoid confusion & conjecture. ⬇️
And, @LueElizondo, have you ever taken a step back, and looked at how much "drama" you've either gotten yourself into, or I'll even settle for what you've surrounded yourself with? Admitted sock puppet accounts, random Twitter accounts sharing your DMs on your orders, etc.? ⬇️
Look at the affect it's having on PEOPLE that at one time were close to you. I know you see it or you wouldn't keep doing these types of damage control tweets.
You're now flaunting an attorney tweeting warnings ONLY at me, which after I asked you both to justify, you couldn't.⬇️
You may not like what I've said or asked or questioned overall, but I never attacked your mentally stability or insinuated you or ANYONE has a criminal record when they don't (speaking for me, here.).
What would you have @todd_mcmurtry do to me if I did all that that to you? ⬇️
As a tax payer paid employee, doing classified work for @SpaceForceDoD, you feeling the need to tweet about this just seems so odd. I can't grasp why you keep wanting to do this. You're a tax payer paid employee trained in counter-intelligence - why wouldn't we question you?⬇️
So much you could answer for that remains unanswered (some, admittedly, may have easy answers) that could silence many "naysayers and deniers" as you call them, but instead, you tweet about "Richard Butt".
As a tax payer who pays for you to CURRENTLY have a job... do better.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I was going to let this go on longer, but let me clarify to clear up any misunderstanding. The quote was said by Luis Elizondo (@JChurchRadio / Feb 15, '22) and it is a real quote.
I was just curious to see interpretations if a big bad Pentagon spokesperson said it, instead.
2/ Although some agree, and others disagree with the original sentiment; it's wrong. There are too many amazing people that have done amazing things that have paved the way for "Post December 2017 UFOlogy" to exist - whatever THAT actually is.
3/ But destroying the field just because someone doesn't "like where it is" is a viewpoint none of us need in this conversation.
I don't like where a lot of things are, but it doesn't mean I should destroy it all to start over to where I think it should be just because.
1/ @MailOnline just covered the Garry Reid debacle. In it, @LueElizondo credits his IG complaint for his "ousting".
The DoD would not take action on a complaint, but would on a completed investigation.
Does this mean Elizondo's complaint spawned an investigation & it's done?
2/ If so, where is there any proof of that, that would justify Reid was investigated for UFO related matters, and a conclusion was made, just like in 2020 about the inappropriate relationship allegations?
I think if one report could be released, so could the other. Right?
3/ And, on another note, are we supposed to ignore in the same article they say the AFOSI investigation into Elizondo was sparked by Reid's vendetta, even though the article itself says on numerous occasions Elizondo was responsible for the leak?
1/ I am SURPRISED (ok, not really) that the discrepancy of the page count for the classified UAP report given to Congress last year is STILL some big issue.
Let me add some closing (for now) thoughts on the issue until new information, if ever, arrives.
2/ I like Mr. @LueElizondo, and feel we get along just fine behind the scenes, despite some differences of opinion. You would never guess from some garbage posted on #UFOTwitter by others, but I hope that much is true and he agrees.
3/ But, I was dismayed to see another interview bringing up the page count of the report, and taking jabs at #FOIA.
Not only were his remarks mischaracterized, but it fires up some of his nosiest fans, and of course, they come right after me immediately after he said it.
2/ I truly mean no disrespect to ANY party, but I think @MiddleOfMayhem (I am NOT speaking for him) and his recent posts point out a trend. A trend that goes back to day one of visuals used to fit a narrative in this current UFO conversation. BUT they aren't accurately portrayed.
3/ And I truly mean DAY ONE of this current conversation.
In the original press conference in October 2017 that introduced Luis Elizondo to the world, a party balloon was shown to depict a tic-tac as Chris Mellon talked.