正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
Officially: Strong First instructor SFG I StrongFirst #kettlebell #strongfirst #kuwait •100 snatches in 5 mins / 16 kg •Clean - swing - TGU - front squat - press - snatch
76,466 次观看 • 3 年前 •via X (Twitter)
8 条评论
مُناي التقي3 年前
SFG I is coming 🔥😭
رشـــــــــــــا🇱🇧3 年前
@BeStrongFirst Woooow so proud and so inspiring ! عقبالي
𝗝𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮3 年前
@BeStrongFirst ألف مبروك يالقوية 🥹🤍 ألف مبروك كوچ مناي اجتهدتي وصبرتي ونلتي 🤍🤍🤍 فخورة فيج 😘
مُناي التقي3 年前
@BeStrongFirst مشكوووورة 💙🥹
أحمد بوحمد 🇰🇼3 年前
@BeStrongFirst ألف مبروووك 👏👏👏👏🌹🌹🌹
الخزرجي الانصاري2 年前
@BeStrongFirst يعطيج العافية شنو اسم هذه الالة اللي تتدربين فيها
مُناي التقي2 年前
@BeStrongFirst Kettlebell
مُناي التقي3 年前
@lifeismoon1 @BeStrongFirst Thank you 💙
![40 quotes from Larry Ellison from the new episode "How Larry Ellison Thinks" 1. They were mistaking the present for the future. It’s the worst mistake a tech company can make. 2. I just can’t accept defeat until I’ve been carried dead from the field. 3. The more you win, the more you want to win. 4. I apply engineering discipline to our entire business, not just product development. 5. A 100 percent perfect solution exists only in the imagination. 6. In marketing, simple messages always win. 7. I’ve always been more motivated by fear of failure than by greed. 8. It’s win or die. 9. I am a sprinter. I rest, I sprint, I rest, I sprint again. 10. The brain’s primary purpose is deception, and the primary person to be deceived is the owner. 11. I have a lot of endurance: intellectual, emotional, physical. 12. You can’t get rich by doing the same thing as everyone else. 13. It’s in my nature to go for the highest-risk/highest-reward option. That’s my cross to bear. 14. Once a course has been plotted, I sail a long way off and burn my boats. 15. People reflexively resist change. 16. Silicon Valley is a killing field. Very few technology companies survive. 17. It never ceases to amaze me how the product name can be the difference between success and failure in the technology industry. 18. I never had the discipline to do things I didn’t like. 19. My father had told me that I would never amount to anything. 20. I thought it would be smart to avoid very competitive markets. 21. I liked the fact it was risky. The bigger the apparent risk, the fewer people will try to go there. 22. Whenever you travel an untraveled path there’s risk. 23. The first version of our database was called Oracle Version 2. I didn’t think anyone would buy Version 1 of a database from five guys in California. 24. If we built the right products the right way, we would win. That was my view of the world then, and that’s my view of the world now. 25. The most effective way to grow sales is to make the product better. 26. [On Oracle almost going out of business in 1991] I couldn’t run away. I had to save Oracle to save myself. I had no choice. 27. You cannot run a company without strong checks and balances. 28. I believe that every process within an organization—marketing, sales, service, everything—should be carefully engineered. 29. I hate losing. 30. If customers don’t believe you’re going to survive—you won’t. 31. If you work in Silicon Valley long enough, you can’t help noticing how much the technology industry resembles the women’s clothing business. Both are fashion-driven. Fashionable ideas are hot, while the others are not. 32. Writing checks is easy. Writing software is hard. 33. We pick our enemies very carefully. It helps us focus. 34. Most people are so in love with their own ideas that it confines their thinking— it creates boundaries and limits their ability to solve problems. 35. People are more interested in personalities than technologies. 36. If you’re a fighter, the only way up is through the top fighters in your division. 37. You cannot lead if you’re filled with uncertainty. 38. Whenever I got too close to a goal I’d raise the bar for fear of actually clearing it. 39. What we want to do with our lives is the most important question we all have to answer. 40. It took me a long time to understand that we all want to be loved. Even me.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1988699553504047477/amplify_video_thumb/1988683378812407808/img/YHUl1vcOt1BWC8Co.jpg)
![So Jefferson Morley says that "the evidence does not support the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president." Jeff relies on the eyewitness account of one of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK at Dallas, Bob McClelland. And he says I failed in Case Closed to challenge Dr. McClelland's credibility. Below is an excerpt from CASE CLOSED, Chapter 13, “He Had A Death Look: Parkland and Bethesda." Read it and decide for yourselves what you believe. And check my source notes, almost all based on my own interviews in 1992 with the chief attending Parkland doctors. It is their judgment of Dr. McClelland's account that is critically important. “However, some of the Parkland doctors who treated the President described a gaping wound in the rear of JFK’s head (the occipital region), not the right side (the parietal). If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front, with a large exit hole in the rear of the head. Several Parkland doctors also thought they saw cerebellum, tissue from the base of the brain, on the stretcher or in the operating room. Yet, the autopsy photos of the brain show the cerebellum intact. If the Parkland descriptions of the cerebellum were true, this raised legitimate questions over the authenticity of the photographs of JFK’s brain, which showed no such damage. Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, in their book High Treason, devote more than thirty pages to highlighting this conflict between the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the head wound. However, it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertion about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail. When Dr. Kemp Clark looked at the wound to determine whether the President could be revived, it was the first time it had been examined. “From what I read in later books, everyone looked at it in detail from the beginning, but that is not true,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. As for the head wound, they couldn’t look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants.”83 “We never had the opportunity to review his wounds,” Dr. Carrico told the author, “in order to describe them accurately. We were trying to save his life.”84 Dr. Adolph Giesecke agrees: “We had no time to examine the wounds. That was to be done by a forensic pathologist, not by us.”85 “I don’t think any of us got a good look at the head wound,” confirms Dr. Perry. “I didn’t examine it or really look at it that carefully.”86 “And when we realized he was dead,” Dr. Baxter recalls, “none of us had the heart to go and examine the head wound while Mrs. Kennedy was in the room. We all just made our way out of the room.”87 “When things were over with,” Dr. Jones says, “you felt it was her time and you should get out of there and let her be alone with him.”88 Dr. Baden of the Select Committee concurs: “Parkland was not concerned with whether the bullet was going from front to back or vice versa, they were only treating the symptoms, not the wounds. Some of them could be good surgeons but lousy pathologists. A third of the time, an autopsy shows something was missed by the treating doctors at the hospital. In unnatural deaths, it is common for the treating physicians to mix up stab wounds and gun shots, and they are wrong half the time about exit or entrance. The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy off—there is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about that wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they don’t know what they are talking about since there is nothing there but the entry injury in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies. “One of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. It’s very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head.”89 Yet mistaken descriptions of what the Parkland doctors did and saw continue to be published. High Treason asserts that some doctors examined the wound with a flashlight and that Dr. Jenkins picked the head up from the stretcher to show other doctors the extent of the rear wound.90 The eight principal doctors who attended to JFK on that day all told the author that such reports were false. Moreover, Groden and Livingstone cite early interviews and some testimony before the Warren Commission to support their hypothesis that the Parkland doctors saw a different head wound than the one described at Bethesda.* Yet the Parkland physicians, in their discussions with the author, were almost unanimous in supporting the autopsy findings that the massive exit wound was on the right side (parietal) of the President’s head, not the rear (occipital), and that there was no sign of damaged cerebellum tissue. They insisted that the explainable differences in the wound descriptions between them and the Bethesda doctors have been exploited by conspiracy writers, who created a controversy where none exists. Some admitted that their early statements about the wounds, which they now consider to be mistaken, may have contributed to the confusion. Dr. Bill Midgett, who helped wheel the President from the limousine into trauma room one, says, “The President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue. All of us were so shocked … and to have Mrs. Kennedy there—none of us stared very closely to see the wound. But it was more parietal than occipital—that much I could see. I did not turn the President over to look, but there was no cerebellum in that car or on the people.” “We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound,” recalls Dr. Carrico. “We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders, and you could see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don’t believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken.”91 Dr. Giesecke also admits an error in his original testimony when he described the wound as more occipital. “I guess I have to say that I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. But, for instance, Lifton spent six hours with me trying to get me to say the wounds were like he wanted them. The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didn’t do that, nor did I see anyone else do that.”92 Dr. Peters had said that the cerebellum was damaged. “I saw the photograph of the brain when I was in Washington for the Nova program, and I saw the cerebellum was depressed, but it was not lacerated or torn. It is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to in 1964.… The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear.” Dr. Jenkins’s original report also stated he saw cerebellum. “The description of the cerebellum was my fault,” he says. “When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital.”93* “I did not really look at it that closely,” says Dr. Perry. “But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/ parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where that wound started or finished. I did not see any cerebellum.”94 Dr. Baxter agrees that it was difficult to determine the precise location of the wound when treating the President: “He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn’t tell what was wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That’s just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.”95 Dr. Jones makes the same observation, saying he did not even know there was a head wound for several minutes, and then finally realized it was a “large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there.”96 Dr. Giesecke agrees “that the occipital and parietal region are so close together it is possible to mistake one for the other.”97 The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of the head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw. “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,” says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompson’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99 “I am astonished that Bob would say that,” says Dr. Malcolm Perry. “It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.”100 “I don’t think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,” says Dr. Peters. “He wasn’t in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.”101 “Bob is an excellent surgeon,” says Dr. Jenkins. “He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right. In 1988, when I went to the National Archives, the photos showed the President’s brain was crenelated from the trauma, and it resembled cerebellum, but it was not cerebellar tissue. I think it has thrown off a lot of people that saw it. I guess a last point is that Bob and Groden [co-author of High Treason] are such good friends, I believe it has changed his attitude.”102 “McClelland may be a fine surgeon, but he is a lousy pathologist,” says Baden. “I am sure he thinks he saw that, and has developed it in his mind. But his memory is just completely wrong, and the autopsy photos and X rays prove that.”103* Dr. Crenshaw wrote a book in 1992 in which he claimed he examined the wound, that the hole was in the rear of the head, and that the cerebellum was lacerated.104† Crenshaw, a junior resident at the time, arrived late at trauma room one and assisted for only a few minutes near the end. He was in no position to make the judgments he sensationally proclaimed in his book. In fact, his role was so minor that most of the other doctors do not even remember him. “I don’t remember Dr. Crenshaw in the room,” says Dr. Ron Jones. “I don’t remember him in there at any time, but he may have been,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “Neither do I,” says Dr. Baxter. “I feel sorry for him,” says Dr. Perry. “I had thought about suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate.… He is a pitiful sight.” A senior Dallas doctor who is a close Crenshaw friend told the author, “I think it is a bag of worms of ego, going over the hill, the last hurrah.” While almost all the Parkland doctors who treated JFK support the findings of the autopsy team, their confirmation may not be as important as the studies conducted by subsequent panels of experts. The Clark and Rockefeller commissions, as well as the House Select Committee’s medical panel, affirm the original autopsy conclusions about JFK’s head wound. The most detailed work was done by the Select Committee. All nine forensic pathologists agreed that the beveling of the skull and the damage to the brain meant the small rear hole in the President’s head was an entrance wound.105 The exit hole was consistent with a wound caused by the two large bullet fragments found in the front of the President’s car.106* SOURCE NOTES 83. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 84. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 85. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 86. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 87. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 88. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 89. Interviews with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992, and November 7, 1992. 90. Groden and Livingstone, op. cit., p. 46. 91. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 92. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 93. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 3, 1992. 94. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 95. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 96. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 97. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 98. Interview with Dr. Robert McClelland, March 9, 1992. 99. Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 140. 100. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 101. Interview with Dr. Paul Peters, March 10, 1992; Dr. Peters also drew a diagram that showed the doctors’ positions around the table and provided it to the author. 102. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 103. Interview with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992. 104. Charles Crenshaw, op. cit., p. 88. 105. HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 110, 115. 106. Ibid., p. 128. AND the Footnotes to that section *Although no one at Parkland saw JFK’s back wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins later told Dr. John Lattimer that he had felt it with his finger when he positioned the President’s head and neck to facilitate the passage of oxygen (Kennedy and Lincoln, p. 153). * After the autopsy, Humes and Boswell wrote their report from memory, without the benefit of the photographs or X rays. Robert Kennedy, who feared the public display of the X rays and photos would be offensive to the Kennedy family, reached an agreement with the Warren Commission not to publish the materials, and except for Earl Warren, the commissioners did not examine them. When the film was turned over to the custody of the National Archives in 1966, a metal box containing the President’s brain was missing from the inventory, together with some tissue slides. Humes had given everything from the autopsy, including the brain, to JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley. “He told me,” said Humes, “that the [Kennedy] family wanted to inter the brain with the President’s body” (Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, Vol. 267, No. 20, p. 2803). The House Select Committee concluded that Robert Kennedy likely disposed of the material for fear it would become a lurid public exhibition (HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 367–68). * In 1988, four of the Parkland doctors—Pepper Jenkins, Richard Dulaney, Paul Peters, and Robert McClelland—went to the National Archives at the invitation of a PBS documentary show, Nova, about the assassination. They were the first Parkland physicians to see the autopsy photographs, and each confirmed the photos represented what they remembered seeing that day, including a picture of the rear of President Kennedy’s head, which shows no defect. It has been suggested that the reason the photo shows the rear of the President’s head as undamaged is because the doctor (whose fingers are present in the picture) is holding a large flap of skin to cover the rear defect. “False,” says Dr. Michael Baden. “There is no flap of skin there. There is a bony protrusion from the right side of the head, but the rear is undamaged, except for the entry hole near the top of the skull” (Interview, January 23, 1992). * High Treason asserts that Jenkins originally said JFK was shot in the chest. Jenkins laughed when the author read him the Groden and Livingstone charge. “I don’t know where they get this stuff from. We put tubes into the President’s chest, but there were no chest wounds caused by anything else.” * In his original report, McClelland said there was a wound to the left temple, one that does not show up on any autopsy X ray or photograph. This has caused some to charge that Kennedy was shot by a second gunman from another location at Dealey, and that the autopsy team either negligently or intentionally overlooked that wound. “I’ll tell you how that happened,” Dr. Jenkins explained to the author. “When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, ‘Where are his wounds?’ And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President’s temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.” † Crenshaw also said the autopsy photograph of the tracheotomy opening on Kennedy’s neck shows that it was larger than it had been at Parkland, implying that additional surgery might have been done between Parkland and Bethesda. “That’s ridiculous,” Dr. Malcolm Perry told the author. “I did the procedure. Tracheotomies are not pretty things, as speed is of the essence. Tissue can sag and stretch after death, but the photos I have seen look like the opening I remember making.” * While the Select Committee’s forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President’s head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side “could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.” In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President’s head, a front shooter fired into the wound created by the rear bullet. That is Wecht’s way of explaining why there is not another entry hole on JFK’s head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit for a front bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that “the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.” He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which would have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, “Yes, that’s true, there should be more fragments.” Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible—except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination. * The author viewed a video taken of the execution of a journalist by army troops in Central America. When the victim, who was lying flat on his stomach on the ground, was shot in the rear of the head, his upper torso and legs arched off the ground, in the opposite direction of the bullet. It was similar to the neuromuscular reaction JFK suffered. Also, when Governor Connally was struck in the rear shoulder by a bullet, he did not fall forward, but is clearly visible on the Zapruder film, his wounded shoulder pushing back into the car seat, toward the direction from which he was shot.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1907374209979842573/ext_tw_video_thumb/1907371183789539328/pu/img/H5emFOslkouoPfyv.jpg)
!["I may be wrong about Elizondo...but I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature [and], potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort." ~Dolan (This is WAY too long, and I probably should have spent my time on something else. But here it is. The video clips give you a taste of Richard Dolan's excellent 31-minute video.) "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." ~Dolan "I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further." ~Dolan ~~~ Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public. You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." (As I've shown before, that's just not true. Did Gerb not do his research on that? I'll share A LOT of quotes from this Richard Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) podcast, and from my previous posts detailing the various times Lue has addressed crash retrievals. Plus, my take on various points. Dolan starts out by praising Gerb's research. I agree. Then he moves on to the Lue-was-brought-in-by Clapper claim.) Dolan: "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." Dolan: Gerb claims Elizondo had to adapt his public position on crash retrievals because Grusch coming forward changed the game. "Gerb called this, adapt or die. "I think I understand what [Gerb] means by the controlled narrative and what it was intended to reveal and what it was supposed to hide (crash retrievals). What I still do NOT understand is why anyone protecting a retrieval program would initiate this type of a strategy." Dolan: Before 2017, one of the most significant protections for any alleged Legacy program was ridicule, silence and ignoring. "As long as UFOs remained culturally disreputable, any claims of crash retrievals were easily just brushed aside without any bother to investigate. That didn't change until December of 2017," and the two NYT articles. "That kickstarted a major, mainstream, national-security discussion. "So, if this was a controlled-disclosure program, my question simply is: You get the government, eventually admitting, that non-human intelligence seem to be operating advanced craft here, who could not know that the next questions would be inevitable? Like, have any of these crashed? Were any of these recovered? Where did the material go? Who's been studying it? In other words, this would, obviously, increase pressure on the retrieval secret. It would not protect it in any logical way. The most safest option would have to be continued silence. "Maybe this strategy could become plausible if insiders believed that something was about to emerge beyond their control, right? Some kind of trigger. Maybe there would be an imminent whistleblower that we do not know about 'til this day, that they were afraid of and they wanted to get out ahead of the narrative. Or some kind of foreign disclosure. Some other reason, some other cause that would prompt the secret keepers to think, 'Okay, we need to get out a controlled disclosure.' But, there really is no evidence that's presented, in any of Gerb's analysis, for such a triggering event. Why would the custodians of this secret, voluntarily, weaken the whole system that had protected them for decades and decades?" (Agree. I've had this convo with friends over the years about the theory that TTSA was created to get ahead of a disclosure effort that was coming from someone/somewhere else. But it never made sense because we could never find anything (disclosure-wise) that was happening before 2017 that would force the hand of the gatekeepers into starting some type of controlled disclosure such as what TTSA was allegedly doing. Except maybe... Dolan talks about how, when Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2015 and 2016, she mentioned UFOs and UAP in various interviews on the campaign trail. Dolan: That was gradually making UFOs, "slightly, and I would say, very slightly, becoming more acceptable to discuss." Plus, John Podesta (her campaign manager) was pushing for declassification of UFO files. "There were people at that time who really did believe that Hillary Clinton would become the Disclosure president." (I wanted to vote 3rd party in 2016 and didn't want to vote for Hillary, but did so, in part, in the hopes (slim hopes) that she would engage in some sort of disclosure, if she won.) Dolan: "I've always interpreted [Hillary talking UFOs during her campaign] as a much more, just pragmatic, you could almost say, cynical, if you want, treatment of the [UFO] subject, just to win some votes. The most that she ever said as a candidate, I think was, she would try to get to the bottom of this, whatever that means." (Well, she said more than that... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ “I think we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” ~Hillary Clinton That was covered in the NYT in 2015 My full post on that Hillary quote is here. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ And let's not forget the photo of Hillary from August 1995 where she's with Laurance Rockefeller on his ranch and holding Paul Davies' book, "Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life." She and President Clinton have an interest in this subject.) ~~~ Dolan: "I just think that the leap from a political opportunity - talking about UFOs during the campaign - to a kind of, James Clapper-managed disclosure operation? I just don't think that's been demonstrated and I don't find it very persuasive." ~~~ Dolan then gets back to this claim by Gerb... Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public (in 2023). You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." Dolan: Gerb said that, "Elizondo, essentially, avoided discussing crash retrievals, except for Roswell, And that is just not accurate." (The Lue-avoided-crash-retrievals-until-Grusch quote from Gerb in March didn't include an exception about Roswell so maybe Gerb saw my posts on that and updated his claim? But it's still wrong. Dolan brought up Lue's comments on Tucker Carlson in May of 2019, but no other comments from Lue. I covered that and much more in various posts, which I'll share here.) Did Lue Avoid Talking About Crash Retrievals Before Grusch Went Public in 2023? From the 12/16/17 NYT article that started it all. "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, [BAASS] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (Not a direct quote, and not exactly "crash retrievals of vehicles" but the seed had been planted in that first article. We know now (allegedly) that at least one of those buildings was supposed to store exotic materials that Lockheed was going to divest itself from, but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.) ~May of 2019~ Tucker Carlson: "Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the U.S. government, on this question, that the U.S. government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?" Lue: "Whoa. Umm…I do, yes." Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?" Lue: "Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA. I really can’t go into a lot of…more detail than that." Tucker Carlson: "Okay." (And that could have been the end of the interview. But Lue decided to add this.) Lue: "But…simply put, yes." ~ NYT article in July of 2020... "Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~ "My personal belief in Roswell? 100%. But I cannot speak officially and I cannot discuss about anything else that may or may not have transcribed." ~Lue on "Disclosure Tonight in Feb. 2021 Source: ~ Lue on Clubhouse in July of 2021 Lue: "Am I aware of the notion that there was some sort of retrieval of biological samples? Yes, I am aware of that notion. Am I aware that there may have been some U.S. government involvement in that? Yes, I am aware of that as well. I am aware that people have talked about it and I have heard it as well...regarding, anecdotally, of biological recovery." Source and longer transcript... ~ Lue on Dossier X in April of 2021 Lue: "You said something...that (Roswell) was the 1st time the U.S. gov't was engaged, and I'll share with you, that may not necessarily be true. There may be anecdotal information that indicates that perhaps the U.S. government was involved even before that, in purported, recovery-type activities." Host: "You mean probably 1942, in Los Angeles or something?" Lue: "I don't wanna elaborate, yet. I think some information's gonna come to light here, probably pretty soon, about some interesting incidents. Again, it's not up to me...there are some people out there are willing to come forward, I think. I'm just providing you the information that was indicated to me. I think we need to be careful jumping to presumptions or assumptions that Roswell was the first event similar to what we're thinking about." Source: ~ "I think people would be surprised to know there's more to Roswell than I think most people are aware of. Some people are aware of it. But, you know, there's more to Roswell and there's other similar incidents that are equally compelling." ~Lue on UFO Garage in 2022 Source: ~~~ March of 2022 - My Interview with Lue Murgia: "You said you believe Roswell was real. Are you as confident in other incidents as you are with Roswell?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Yes?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Okay." Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: After you were on Tucker and said you believed the U.S. government had material and debris from a UFO, "Eric Davis came out and said, '100%!' And he said landed craft, too. Did you see that when that came out?" Lue: "I'm aware of that." Murgia: "(laughs) Okay." (Probably an inappropriate laugh by me as Lue was dead serious and probably pushing the limits of what he was allowed to say in public about crash retrievals. He later said this in his November 2024 congressional testimony.) Lue in 2024: "I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss, specifically, crash retrievals." (I wonder what would have happened if he had refused to sign that?) ~~~ Dolan: "Grusch definitely went further (than Lue), much further, yes. That's a lot different from claiming that Elizondo kept retrievals outside the public narrative until Grusch forced his hand. And you really have to ask, if Elizondo's job was NOT to reveal the crash retrieval program, why, in 2019 - again, four years before David Grusch, is he going on and putting it out there? It just seems like there's a chronology problem there." (1000%, Richard! Makes no sense. My June 29th post was entitled... If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job 🛸 Nice to see Richard and I on the same page with that. Richard speculates how the disclosure effort would look like right now if Lue hadn't gone public. Would we have several UAP hearings in the books by now? Would David Grusch had come forward? No way to know.) Dolan: "But I will say, or suggest, that it's entirely reasonable to think that Elizondo helped to create the institutional and cultural conditions that made someone like David Grusch possible. Elizondo did not keep retrieval out of the discussion." (In July of 2023, I directed this tweet to Lue.) "None of this would be happening without you." ~Murgia (Over the top and a bit fan-boyish? Probably. But... Knapp talking with Senator Harry Reid about Lazar and UFOs in 1989 - in a limo headed to the airport that would later bear Reid’s name - was a vital part of getting this whole thing started. Lacatski and Stratton launching the more recent effort around 2005, which eventually led to AAWSAP, AATIP and the UAPTF, was also REALLY important. But Lue going public in 2017 was MASSIVE. The media coverage that followed brought a ton of new people into the topic, and I’m not sure where we’d be today without it. Dolan goes on to talk about Clapper and how it's conceivable he would be on top of any alleged Legacy UAP/crash retrieval program. But he failed to note what Grusch said this past January on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Grusch: "General Clapper was well aware of the crash retrieval issue, managed the crash retrieval issue, and...he placed people in critical roles to manage this issue." (Is Lue one of the people Grusch was referring to? Does he have proof of that? From my own information, I have no doubt that Clapper was instrumental in Lue being connected to the UFO topic. But exactly how that went down and what did it entail? I don't know. I hope Clapper speaks to all of this in detail one day soon.) ~ Dolan: "Gerb has stated that Clapper gave cover to AATIP and, basically, directed the National Security Council retrieval activities. And that he selected Elizondo as the front man. Gerb described Clapper as the mob boss of the NSC crash-retrieval portfolio. "Those are very, very powerful allegations. I'm not saying they're NOT true, but that interview with Ross Coulthart, I would say, did not produce anything in the way that anyone would actually call evidence. Like, there was no documents...or firsthand witnesses that were named, or anything like that. "So you have this, basically, a link from Clapper, to the NSC operation, to AATIP, to Elizondo, to controlled disclosure. This could be true, but no one's seen any receipts on this, and I would like to. "And there's more things that I think raise questions about this whole scenario, frankly. I mean, I think of the Pentagon campaign against Lue Elizondo, which lasted for many years. Any theory that has Elizondo as a controlled-disclosure frontman, I think has to account for the documented, institutional effort by the Pentagon to undermine Lue Elizondo." (When the Pentagon spokespeople said that Lue had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP, it's not so clear cut to say they were trying to undermine Lue, since AAWSAP also had the nickname of AATIP, which I'll call AATIP 1. So, if we're talking about AATIP 1 (AAWSAP), Lue did NOT have any assigned responsibilities, except early on when he did some counter-intelligence. And if we're talking AATIP 2, which Stratton said he created in 2015, Knapp explained in 2019 that it was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies." And on April 8th of this year, Lacatski told Knapp that, "they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their uh...what would you describe that as, more lunchtime get togethers? And George Knapp is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it." That tells me Lacatski felt AATIP was REALLY informal, and that could explain why Lue's role wasn't clear cut in the minds of those spokespeople, and why so many of my contacts told me he wasn't the director of AATIP. But those same folks also told me Lue played in an important role in that effort. My guess is that, since AATIP was so informal, there really was NO official director, but that should be clarified when Stratton's book comes out. Semantics? Maybe.) Dolan: Gerb's hypothesis featuring, "the management of an approved public representative (Lue) of a controlled-disclosure narrative...just doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense to me is something like a factional conflict. I think [that's] much more of a logical explanation for everything that we have seen. You have one group that may have supported some kind of opening - not even necessarily a complete opening - while another fought to preserve the secrecy as much as possible. "But that's a bureaucratic struggle. That's not, necessarily, a unified, controlled-disclosure operation. So I think that is a contradiction that was not really adequately discussed in this hypothesis. "I may be wrong about Elizondo, and I'm not here, again, to be his defense attorney. But I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature. It strikes me also as, potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort, frankly. We can investigate serious allegations without first assigning everyone the role of either hero or villain. "So, I guess I would say that Gerb may have genuinely identified some real relationships and hidden activity. In fact, knowing his excellent research track record, I would be surprised if he didn't. "Elizondo - probably - does have undisclosed elements in his background, and I have no doubt he knows much more than he has said. When I look at the this idea of, like. you look at TTSA coming out at the end of 2016, and you see, basically, a kind of faction that had a very managed narrative indeed. Like, they did not come out and talk about crash retrievals. They did not at all. They talked about these military encounters and sensor readings and this type of thing. And that's a lot less interesting than crash retrievals. "But I try to look at it from, let's say you're a Pentagon insider and you are trying to fight for an opening in the public conversation. You're not gonna start with crash retrievals. First of all, you may not have the receipts on them yourself, to provide to the public. And also you're gonna know, right off the bat, that that's going to be a bigger hill to climb than just trying to get Congress to look at some of the more easily-verifiable reports that you probably have available. So, you're probably going to take it in a very tactical, strategic way. "That's not the same thing as saying that they're lying. It could simply be that was a strategy that was decided upon by these insiders. It's also possible they may not have believed in an uncontrolled, catastrophic disclosure. We can disagree with them on that, or you can agree with them on that. But again, I don't know that that's the same thing as saying that they're actually being dishonest. "If the factional thesis that I believe in is correct, then you'd have to assume that these people have to have their strategies and tactics in this broader struggle. Like, it would be ridiculous not to assume that. "So, I think, you know, it's entirely possible that someone like Elizondo has elements in his background that we would want to know about that are not there. It is very intriguing, and even plausible, perhaps, that someone like Clapper belongs somewhere in this deeper history. I would like to know what that is myself, and I would like to see something, you know, in the way of what we would call genuine evidence for that. Not saying it's not there. "I'm just suggesting that the current theory on Elizondo and controlled disclosure is asking us to accept several unsupported links, and, essentially, I would say a disclosure strategy that appears self-defeating and really illogical. Again, like, why initiate a disclosure program? Especially if you go back to the beginning of the AATIP era, like 2009-ish, 2010. Where was there any perceived need that we have to do disclosure?" (Not sure why Richard is not calling the 2009-ish, 2010-era, AAWSAP. I wonder if he knows that Stratton says he created AATIP in 2015? Could be relevant to this controversy.) Dolan: "Like, I look back at the situation at that time, and again, I was very, very on top of the scene at that time during those years, and I just was not aware of any public pressure, whatsoever, that would cause someone to say, 'We have to initiate a controlled disclosure of this, in order to protect crash retrievals.' "There's no logic there, it seems to me. It's, in fact, the exact opposite. "Also, the the current hypothesis, I think, really understates Elizondo's 2019 acknowledgement of recovered UFO material. That really has got to be understood. And it leaves the whole Pentagon campaign against Elizondo, in my view, anyway, largely unresolved and unexplained, and really not making sense. "And, I would just add, now that I'm thinking of it, this current hypothesis about Lue Elizondo, I think, actually reverses the the genuine historical sequence. In other words, I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further. "So, these are just logical questions that I have. You may have different questions. You may have rebuttals to what I have to say here. By all means, put them in a comment, I will read them. And again, I'm not here to defend Lue Elizondo, I am just questioning an account that does not yet, in my view, explain its own logic, or match the full chronology. "It is entirely possible that some of this story is well-known to researchers, including Gerb. I think, however, what has been presented so far does not show how all the pieces actually fit together, and I would like to see that. "And again, I say this with total respect to UAP Gerb and to Ross Coulthart, and in fairness to Lue Elizondo, who I think, if nothing else, this aspect of the history really needs to be understood by the broader community. So that is my statement. "And that doesn't mean that I'm right here, but I do think from time-to-time, it's okay to take a stand on a topic where I can see many people are going to disagree with this, but certain things I think need to be understood on this, and I hope that we can have a reasoned dialogue and discussion about this as we move forward with it, because it is a topic that we do need to understand. "My hypothesis has, pretty much, from the beginning, always been that what we are seeing and what we have been seeing since 2017 is, essentially, the result of a factional battle." (I believe Lue spoke about factions early on when he first went public.) "You go back through the history of this phenomenon, and if you read the old books going back to the 1950s, you see it then, too. You see that there were always factions within the Pentagon who did actually support some level of openness on the UFO subject. "You read the books of Donald Keyhoe, read the book by Edward Ruppelt from 1956: 'Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.' A lot of this is in there. And I think that's really never gone away. And so to somehow assume that there are no more factions in a massive labyrinthian structure as large as the U.S. military industrial complex, I think that's kind of ridiculous. There's always going to be factions. And I think that what we are seeing has always struck me as the result of a factional war that is taking place. "And that doesn't mean, by the way, that, you know, the two sides are just white hats and black hats. Everyone's got their own angle, everyone's got their own motivations. But I, nevertheless, tend to think that that is what we are looking at."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2084538028572430772/amplify_video_thumb/2084536612109860864/img/9DvVsfAYTKl5EUNt.jpg)
