Personal Entertainer 👀💕 Ngl I've never felt so called out on a comic before... Salamat Aeritea sa paglalantad sa akin ng ganito, I guess lol Comic - @Aeritea Girlfriend- @nami955 Boyfriend - LewdDmonVA Sound/editing - CumSkeleton 🔞(!!) Commissions CLOSED! Sound pack - OpenNSFW 🟣 Available Now
227,397 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
相关视频
0:33
Sensitive content
THIS IS SO PURE AND SWEET~~ lom got herself such a fairytale type of love 🫠🫳🏻🫳🏻 #เสน่หาวาโย *SPOILERS* :) . . . "lom?" the beautiful woman called out the name of the person she shared the house with. however, since she had woken up a little later than usual this morning and wayo hadn't come to wake her, when she got up, she found the house empty. after celebrating with wine last night, she was feeling a bit hungover, but not as much as the sickness caused by the local liquor that had made her feel ill before. "where could she have gone? she didn't leave a note" it had become an unspoken rule between them ever since they had to face the rebels that they always inform each other before going anywhere, so they would always know the other was safe. but today, catherine didn't understand why wayo had broken that rule. if she didn't hear from her, she would have to go look around the house or ask the villagers. "blew" "what are the kids doing here?" "come on, let's go" catherine looked at shasha, who eagerly grabbed her hand, pulling her to walk along. the other children surrounded her, leaving no chance to ask where they were going. having been there for a week, catherine had become close with the children, just as she had with wayo. the kids often invited her and wayo to play or to teach them activities during their free time. "where are we going, shasha?" "it's a secret" the little girl giggled and led her to a resting area on a hill. then she instructed her to stop and wait there, telling her to close her eyes and count in her mind. catherine agreed to follow the instructions, but as she was counting, she heard the sound of children running down the hill. perhaps it was a prank. or maybe just their idea of fun. "you can open your eyes now" "lom! what's going on? don't tell me you planned this with the kids" "yes, i asked the kids to help bring you here" wayo smiled as she appeared to reveal the surprise that had been planned. she had come up with this idea the night before and successfully prepared it with the help of the children early that morning. "don't do that—i woke up, and you were gone. i was worried" "sorry, but i've been with you the whole time. i didn't know when to prepare the surprise. i woke up early today to get ready" in truth, she had spent the whole night planning it, as she had felt a deep desire in their relationship that had been there long before anything had become clear between them. but as they spent every day together, their love grew stronger, making it harder to pull away. wayo wanted to make everything clear, to show catherine that she was committed to their love more than anything. "surprise?" "a flower crown. it might be a little crooked and not as pretty as rose's, but i made it for you" "it's beautiful.." "it's not as beautiful as you—but let me put it on you" catherine nodded and let wayo carefully place the flower crown on her head. she loved the surprise so much that she wanted to take a picture and keep it as a memory. she would treasure the effort of the one she loved, who loved her in return. "but that's not all" "there's more of a surprise?" "do you know, in my eyes, you're always a princess, and you'll always be my princess" "a matching ring?" wayo opened her hand to reveal a simple silver ring, two matching bands that she had found from the local area. they weren't royal diamonds, but every bit of their simplicity held pure love. "even though we've only known each other for a short time, we've been through dangerous situations and life-or-death moments together. we've built so many memories, proving the love we have for each other. i don't know if time matters in love. but i've never once doubted loving you—not even for a moment. i've always been confident in the love i have for you, and from this moment on, i always will be. and if you feel the same, there's one thing i want to ask you right now" "..." "blew, will you marry me?"
r
30,649 次观看 • 2 个月前
0:29
Sensitive content
OMG, what a loyal boyfriend 😭 This is AI. Modern AI tools already make it possible to create almost any realistic video with almost any story — if you know how to work with them. Here’s how I made this video pretty quickly with Seedance 2.5: 1. I found a funny video with a similar idea, fed around 10 frames from it into ChatGPT, and explained what was happening so it could understand the story. 2. I added my own prompt techniques for making the footage look more realistic, then worked with ChatGPT to build a 30-second prompt — with ZERO references. I’ll drop the full prompt below. not even hiding it in the comments for extra reach lol 3. I got an acceptable result on the third attempt, but there were still a few problems, so I fixed them: a) I edited one moment with an AI video editor. I used Aleph from Runway, although I’ll probably switch to another service soon. In the original generation, the woman didn’t open the towel, so I fixed that part. b) The guy entered the room incorrectly, so I took screenshots of him and the girls, used them as references in Seedance, and generated a couple of simple 5-second clips showing him running into the room and reacting in surprise. 4. I manually stitched everything together in CapCut. I also added a couple of transitions to hide small imperfections and a few sound effects (although that part isn’t really necessary). Done! :) Main scene prompt: ⬇️ Create a 30-second, ultra-realistic fast-paced comedy skit that looks like a genuine viral home video casually filmed on a smartphone. The footage should feel spontaneous and imperfect rather than professionally staged: natural handheld shake, slightly crooked framing, quick reactive pans, occasional autofocus hunting, realistic motion blur, minor exposure changes, ordinary daylight inside a real home, realistic skin texture, natural hair movement, and believable room acoustics. CHARACTERS WOMAN 1 — THE TOWEL WOMAN: An exceptionally beautiful 24-year-old platinum-blonde woman with long hair, a striking feminine face, expressive eyes, full lips, a slim waist, a very curvy figure, large full bust and rounded hips. She begins wrapped securely in a large white bath towel. WOMAN 2 — HIS GIRLFRIEND: A clearly different-looking beautiful 23-year-old brunette woman with long dark-brown hair, a different face and hairstyle, fitted casual black top and olive shorts, slim waist and curvy figure. MAN: A handsome young man with short dark hair, fitted black T-shirt, gray pants and a simple chain necklace. Keep all three identities completely consistent. Woman 1 and Woman 2 must never look like the same person. LOCATION A bright modern suburban home during daytime: - open kitchen / living area - front door close to the kitchen - driveway immediately outside - parked car very close to the entrance ACTION / TIMING 00:00–00:04 — THE SURPRISE Start immediately inside the kitchen. Woman 1 stands wrapped in the white towel, holding it closed naturally against her chest. The front door opens and the man walks inside. She notices him, gives him a mischievous smile and a small friendly wave. He stops, surprised and immediately distracted by her. No shopping bag or unnecessary props. 00:04–00:07 — THE REVEAL Woman 1 gives him a playful look and briefly opens the FRONT of the towel toward HIM. IMPORTANT CAMERA RULE: During the entire towel-opening moment, the camera moves BEHIND Woman 1 and stays behind her. The viewer sees only: - her bare upper back - shoulders - long hair - the towel opening away from the camera The camera NEVER sees her breasts, nipples, genitals or frontal nudity. The MAN is visible beyond her, facing her. His eyes go wide in stunned disbelief. He suddenly turns and bolts out of the house. 00:07–00:12 — THE CAR Fast handheld cut to the driveway. The man runs directly to his parked car. He opens the car, leans across to the dashboard and opens the GLOVE COMPARTMENT. He searches quickly and finds ONE small unopened condom packet. Close-up: the packet is clearly visible in his hand. His expression changes to excited relief. He immediately runs back toward the house holding the same packet. 00:12–00:17 — TOO LATE Cut back inside the kitchen. While he was outside, HIS GIRLFRIEND has arrived. Woman 1 is now fully wrapped in the SAME white towel again. The girlfriend and Woman 1 are already standing together talking. The man rushes back through the front door holding the unopened condom packet. He sees his girlfriend standing beside Woman 1. He instantly freezes. The girlfriend turns toward him. 00:17–00:21 — HIDE THE EVIDENCE The man looks down and realizes the condom packet is still clearly visible in his hand. In immediate panic, he quickly stuffs the unopened packet completely into his mouth and visibly swallows it to make the evidence disappear. His eyes remain wide while he tries to act completely innocent. Woman 1 notices exactly what he did and suppresses an amused smile. The girlfriend does not notice the packet. 00:21–00:27 — THE MISUNDERSTANDING The girlfriend happily walks toward him and says: “She told me you turned her down. You’re such a good boyfriend!” Now the reason for her praise is completely clear: Woman 1 has already told the girlfriend that the man rejected her. The girlfriend enthusiastically jumps into his arms and wraps her arms and legs around him. He catches her and hugs her back awkwardly. She is genuinely proud and affectionate. He forces an innocent smile while still looking slightly devastated by the situation. 00:27–00:30 — FINAL PUNCHLINE While holding his happy girlfriend, the man slowly looks over her shoulder toward Woman 1. He gives Woman 1 a tiny regretful look. Woman 1 immediately understands. Still wrapped in her towel, she gives him a knowing smirk and a small playful goodbye wave. He watches her with disappointment while his girlfriend continues hugging him happily. End on his awkward expression. CAMERA / EDITING Fast viral-sketch pacing with frequent natural handheld cuts every 1–3 seconds: - medium kitchen shots - close facial reactions - over-the-shoulder towel reveal - quick running shot outside - glove-compartment close-up - doorway reaction - condom-packet close-up - girlfriend hug - final exchanged look The footage should feel like a casually edited real home video, not a movie. LIGHTING / REALISM Bright natural daytime household lighting. Window daylight mixed with ordinary indoor fixtures. Realistic skin pores, individual hairs, subtle facial redness, natural shadows, ordinary fabric textures and imperfect smartphone exposure. No glossy AI skin. No beauty-filter look. No dramatic glamour lighting. No cinematic color grading. AUDIO Natural synchronized English dialogue and household ambience. Only one important spoken line is required: Girlfriend: “She told me you turned her down. You’re such a good boyfriend!” Natural footsteps, front-door sounds, car-door sound, glove-compartment click, fabric movement and room ambience. No narration. No subtitles. No music. CONTINUITY / HARD RULES - Woman 1 begins in the white towel and is back in the SAME towel when the man returns. - The towel reveal is seen ONLY FROM BEHIND Woman 1. - No frontal nudity is visible. - The man runs specifically to the parked car. - He retrieves ONE unopened condom packet specifically from the GLOVE COMPARTMENT. - He returns holding that exact same packet. - His girlfriend is already inside talking to Woman 1 when he returns. - The girlfriend knows what happened because Woman 1 has already told her he rejected the offer. - The man panics and swallows the packet before his girlfriend notices it. - The girlfriend praises him because she genuinely believes he rejected Woman 1. - The girlfriend jumps into his arms and hugs him. - The final punchline is the regretful look between the man and Woman 1. - Woman 1 ends by giving him a small knowing goodbye wave. - No extra characters. - No duplicated women. - No random dialogue. - No disconnected actions. #AIVideo
Alpha Mom
551,419 次观看 • 7 天前
!["Tell us this isn't true." "They had a live being out [near Area 51]." "There were human experiments that went on." 👽🛸 Roswell: A Non-Human Craft or a Darker Secret? 🤫😶 (Transcript is shorter than clip. I don't have room to type more in this post so I'll just wait for replies.) ~ Lex Fridman: "In your book on 'Area 51,' you propose an explanation that I think some people have criticized, at the very end. That this might have been a disinformation campaign from, I guess, Stalin, that the Roswell incident was a remotely-piloted plane with a quote 'grotesque, child-sized aviator.' Just looking back at all that now, years later, what's the probability that it's true? What's the probability it's not?" Annie Jacobsen: (AJ): "So, you know, I've never revealed who that source is." Lex: "Yes." AJ: "You know that? Want me to tell you?" Lex: "Okay, who was the source?" AJ: "So, before I say anything on that, let me speak to the question that you asked, right? So, you asked me, 'What's the probability that that is still standing as an idea, 12, 13, 14 years later,' right? So, I continued to work with that source for years, afterwards. We talked about this. Look, I mean, his whole family knew it was him. And I knew his family because I was an integral part of, you know, I was at his house, met all his kids, grandkids." Lex: "And we should say, the source is the main expert advisor behind the story that it was. Maybe you can explain what the story is that your report in the book, that it was a disinformation campaign created by Stalin to cause mass hysteria in the United States. The very kind that we've been speaking about with the CIA and so on." AJ: "Yes! Predicated on the narrative of the 'War of the Worlds,' right? And the 'War of the Worlds,' when it was a radio program in the United States, made people go crazy. 'Oh, my God, we're being invaded by aliens!' Well, the government was always interested in the story and Joseph Stalin was, too. We know that from declassified documents, right? "And so, the source told me that the reason for this program, and that the real Roswell crash remains, were in fact, it was a black-propaganda hoax infiltrated, you know, or rather, predicated at this idea that you were gonna overwhelm America's early-warning, air-defense system, cause mayhem and maybe be able to attack the United States. That was the plan. And Stalin was also messing with the United States, messing with Truman, who sort of, you know, turned his back on him, right? At Potsdam. "And so, this idea, and the reason that the source is important... And unlike, you know, a lot of people, 'I saw this, I saw that, I learned that.' Was, according to the source, once it was determined that this was a hoax and that Stalin was able to get a craft over the United States, and it crashed. And it had, you know, people inside of it, they were people that were sort of deformed and meant...surgically altered to look like aliens. "The United States government decided that it needed to know what on earth that was all about, and if it was possible for us to have the same program. This, according to this source, right? And so, it sounds preposterous, and if it was just someone saying, 'I...,' you might say, 'Well, it's ridiculous, get them onto another subject.' But, the difference was, is this source, who was very well placed, and friends with all of the other 75 people, you know, told me this as a confession, right? A real, tearful confession, because what he said is he was involved in the American program to do the same thing. And people died, because there were human experiments that went on." "And I write about this in the last 12 pages of 'Area 51.' It was an explosive, you know, revelation, and I felt very confident in writing this because the source wanted it written. Why? Because he said, 'I'm dedicated to my country. I know about being committed to national security, and this kind of thing must never happen. And if you give people too much power, they will take advantage of it.' And he wanted it on the record. "And his wife of 60 years did not know until after the book published. Nor did His children, okay? So, after the book published, I was called to his house and sat there with his family. And they said, 'Tell us this isn't true.' And he said, 'It is true,' right? (We need a tape of this confession or...for his family to confirm they heard this from him.) AJ: "Now that source is Al O'Donnell, who is the nuclear-weapons engineer who armed, wired and fired 186 nuclear weapons, okay? So if you wanna talk about someone..." Lex: "Woooooow." AJ: "You're the first person I've told that on the record, but it's kind of about time." Lex: "Woooooow. Well, you received a lot of criticism over this story, and it confused me why, because it's...given the context of everything you've described with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, it is reasonable that such action would be taken. AJ: "And, the source is extraordinarily credible, right? If you wanted to take the position, 'Well, that person isn't very reliable,' then you have to ask yourself, 'Why did they have Top-Secret clearances that are higher than any in the United States whatsoever?' Because he was responsible for arming nuclear bombs. He was called the trigger man. "And by the way, he told me that I could tell the world who he was. There's a lot of details that are really dark, involving that program. And when is it appropriate, right? Well, it feels appropriate now. First of all, because you and I have been talking for several hours. So this is what is truly a long-form conversation and it's the outcome of, you know, a very long time of my reporting, and also being judicious about what, you know, closing the loop on that, right? Because I do think it's important for people to know that sources have revelations." Lex: "And, like you said, the programs, both on the Soviet side, and the American side, conflicting, I think's the term we used previously? Ethically, morally, on all fronts. People have done some horrible things in the name of security. In your book, 'Surprise, Kill Vanish,' you write about the CIA." ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "So, today, I want to focus on a really important story that you once told me, that has never been told all the way [from the] beginning, to all the way to the end. And I just think it's just so cool we get to do this today. So, the question I want to ask is: After you got hooked on the UFO thing, with Bob Lazar, and you as a journalist said, 'I'm gonna start getting sources.' Like, 12 people coming at you, people shut down by the government. You can tell that. But you finally, finally got to a credible individual who had direct, firsthand knowledge about UFOs, exploitation, reverse engineering, and beings. And, oh my God, I want the world to hear this story. Tell us the story." George Knapp: "I've shared some of it in very broad strokes over the years- little bits and pieces of it - without ever actually referencing, in my statements, the guy the source. But this will be the first time I've told it in totality. "And it takes me back to when I first started in this. It's 1989 KLAS-TV, we put together, we spent eight months working on this project called 'UFOs: The Best Evidence.' Nine-part series. It airs on television, it's the biggest thing that's ever been produced for local TV, to this date, and still. "And, along the way, as I'm trying to find...telling the story about Bob Lazar, and his allegations about what was out there at S-4, near Area 51 - recovered discs, alien technology being reverse engineered - I'm looking for people who would support that. And I found about two dozen people, witnesses who had worked out there, who had seen bits and pieces, who could corroborate parts of what Bob had said about these kinds of craft being out there in the Nevada desert. But there wasn't anybody big picture who knew as much as Lazar claimed to have known, so I was still looking for them. "In 1990, I started working on a follow-up series to Best Evidence, looking for new witnesses. And I got a hint from an elected official that I had known, I'd covered him in Nevada politics. He says, 'You know, you should talk to my dad one of these days.' 'Your dad?' 'Yeah.' And he told me what the dad's name was and what he had done, what job he had had. And I said, 'Ah.' So I started stalking the guy. I just started showing up at events where I knew he would be. One of those events was a reunion for employees of EG&G." Corbell (JC): "So I'm assuming that this source was working within EG&G in some capacity, which is, by the way, who Bob [Lazar] said, hired him to go out to Site-4, S-4 at Area 51. So you're like, 'Okay, I can now find out if this is bullshit, or if there's an element of truth to it.' Do I have that right?" Knapp (GK): "Pretty much correct, yeah. So, I'm looking for someone whose credentials are impeccable. Unlike Bob, whose credentials were questioned, and people still attack him on where he went to school and where he worked, and was he at Los Alamos? This guy is documentable. There's a paper trail of where he worked, what he did. There's no question that he was in a position to know. He was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada. His name was Al O'Donnell, and he has a prominent family. "When I heard that EG&G was having a reunion, I went there. We took a camera [and I figured], 'This is a great chance to get him on camera before I start asking him the questions I really want to ask.'" JC: "And when you say he is a general manager, like, does that give him certain roles and responsibilities that would give him insight? Like, he's not a secretary, so what does that mean?" GK: "He's the boss. He was the boss of the Nevada office. And I'll tell you a little bit about EG&G. So, it was a company that was created in Boston, right around the end of World War Two. Al O'Donnell had been in the Navy, serving during the war. He got out of the Navy while the war was still underway and went to work for a company called Raytheon, which became this massive, gigantic defense contractor that's still around today, still in Nevada in fact." JC: Yeah, they've got a big connection to the UFO topic, right? But, when you say Boston, like, where in Boston was it created?" GK: "Well, MIT is where the company was born. Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier were the three guys, the EG&G in that. They were at MIT. Scientists, engineers, they created this company there. And Al O'Donnell, who had been working for Raytheon, working on the Manhattan Project. He didn't know he was working on the Manhattan Project, but they were building these devices, complex triggers, that allowed them to detonate nuclear weapons. He learned later what he was doing was part of the Manhattan Project. "He goes to MIT, starts working with EG&G. Their company in those days had, I think, 15 employees, Al said. So it was a very small startup. But it suddenly exploded because the American atomic program exploded in those years. In 1950, Harry Truman decides that we need a permanent, nuclear testing site somewhere in the continental U.S., so they looked at a bunch of places, and they settled on Nevada. "Prior to that, Al O'Donnell had been sent out to the Pacific. They had five of these massive, atomic bomb tests out in the Pacific, and they decided to move it into a continental U.S. location and Nevada's Test Site - it was called the Nevada Test Site in those days - was chosen. Al O'Donnell leads the exodus from Boston, out to Nevada. They start hiring engineers and scientists, physicists and other security, spies." JC: "What are they working on at this time when they make that move?" GK: "Atomic bombs. They're building, testing atomic bombs. EG&G was a really precise organization that was created in order to detonate, measure and photograph atomic weapons. If you look in the history of photography, you'll see some of these amazing photos that they took of, you know, water drops dropping in water and...they're pretty famous shots because of these cameras that they developed. And it was perfect for use and testing atomic weapons and documenting what the process was. "So, EG&G comes out to Las Vegas, they are the managers of the Nevada Test Site. They, subsequently, years later, become the managers of Area 51 when it opens in 1955. So Al O'Donnell is the top guy. He oversees the nuclear testing program out there, manages it for EG&G, works with the Atomic Energy Commission. He has a Top-Secret security clearance and he can go anywhere and see anything. There's, basically, no restrictions, nothing that is outside of his ability to find out and see." JC: "So, this is an impeccable resume. This is somebody who was in position to know, and would know if someone like Bob Lazar was telling the truth or not telling the truth. I find it, personally, humorous that EG&G was, its genesis, its seed, came from MIT, right?" GK: "So, late 1990 or early 1991, I'd have to look up the dates. But somewhere in there is this event, this EG&G reunion. I go there, we got a camera, I interview Al O'Donnell, introduce myself, and say, 'Hey, I'm really interested in this, can we continue this conversation?' So he invites me to his home. He says, 'Come on over, we'll arrange to come over on a Saturday or something. We'll sit down, I'll go through my scrapbooks and show you some documents and memorabilia and photos from that era.' I was like, 'Great.' "So I go to his house and meet this wife. And we sit down, he opens up these big scrapbooks, and he starts showing me all the stuff that he had done. Photos that had been taken out in the proximity of these gigantic nuclear tests. They had great stories about the camaraderie that developed among the engineers and scientists. And he's going through all this stuff and showing me all this. And I love it, I loved every bit of it. I've never had a bad day at the Nevada Test Site, by the way. Every time I've gone out there to do a story, it's just a terrific way to spend some time." JC: "Secrets should be kept, secrets are kept, and you are a proponent of keeping secrets when it's that kind of thing." GK: "Sure, absolutely. And I respected the boundaries that they set up for us in doing these kinds of stories. So I did go out to the Nevada Test Site a lot over the next 40 years or so and put together a lot of different stories. And they knew of my interest in that area that's just outside what the Nevada Test Site, a place called Area 51. In 1955, Area 51 was, basically, created and EG&G got the contract to manage Area 51, and had kept it for the next 30, 35 years. So, whatever went on out there, they had an inside knowledge of what was going on." JC: "So, you meet this guy, Al O'Donnell, for the first time when he's at this public thing. You probably say something like, 'Your son told me to talk to you,' or something. Whatever. It ends up, he invites you to his home, and you're going through scrapbooks, and he's showing you all this atomic testing stuff that he was involved in. GK: "Yeah, and I'm telling him, 'Boy, this is really interesting. That's fascinating. I'd love to do a story on it.' And after we're there for maybe two hours, he closes this one big scrapbook and he goes, 'You're not here to talk about this, are ya?' I said, 'Well, not exactly.' He says, 'I know what you're here to talk about. I know what you want to ask about.' And right about that point, his wife walks in and she says, 'Don't start telling them that stuff! Don't even tell him!' And he kind of joked about it.' JC: "What were you there to talk about?" GK: "UFOs, UFOs. Area 51, Bob Lazar, crashed saucers, reverse engineering, to see if he had any knowledge of that, because I'd been led to believe that he did. So he closes that book and he says, 'We'll have we'll get together another time and we'll talk about it in private.' And over the course of the next two years or so, he and I would meet at coffee shops and talk about it. And I would ask him questions, and really, it was like pulling teeth. He wanted to tell me stuff but he made me work at it." (AJ says his family was there for the confession. Knapp has over two years of meetings with him. A bit confusing.) GK: "And the condition was, I couldn't take any notes. I couldn't record it, I couldn't take any notes. So each time I'd meet with him, I'd rush back to my car and start scribbling notes on pieces of paper so I'd remember everything that he said. And the story that he told me, that evolved over those couple of years was pretty fantastic. "He said that they did have a flying saucer that had been recovered from New Mexico. I think he indicated that it had been taken from New Mexico to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which is... He never said Roswell, but I think it was the Roswell incident is what he [was] talking about. And it confirmed some of the details about what we know, likely, happened with the Roswell craft." JC: "When he's telling you, 'We have recovered a craft,' did he say it like, this is secret, don't tell anybody?" GK: "Yeah, it was just for my knowledge, my background and information. It wasn't a story I could do then. We were negotiating about how, or when, or if I could ever use that information or make it public. He told me the details about this craft. He said that it had been stored at Indian Springs. Indian Springs is an Air Force Base that's been there for a long time. It's now called Creech. Indian Springs existed before Area 51 was made. "But he says it was there, they kept it there. It might have been in an underground facility, I'm not quite sure. But then when Area 51, after it opened in 1955, they moved it to an adjacent facility. He didn't say it was S-4, he didn't say it was Papoose, but I think that's what he's talking about. Papoose Lake is where Bob Lazar said he worked, and where they had built nine hangars underground, disguised to look like the desert, and where they had other recovered craft. "He says they worked on this recovered craft, reverse engineering, trying to figure out how it worked, who built it. Whether or not they could duplicate the technology because, apparently, they thought this was pretty advanced, and they'd like to be able to build more of 'em. "And he says it was a very closed program, very small. It was only, I think, five of them that were aware of it, at least in the early stages, that were working on this project. And it was very hush hush, and they didn't share it with anybody else in the company, or anybody else in the area, or the military. They just kept it to themselves. "So, after we're having these meetings - and I go back and write down all these notes and stuff, details about what he had shared with me - we have another meeting at a coffee shop, and I said, 'Well gosh, you know, aren't you worried that it would get out, that the word would get out?' "And he says to me, 'We were worried It would get out?' That's right. 'I mean, what...it? What do you mean, it?' It. Meaning a live being, they had a live being out there. I go, 'You had a live being, an alien as well?' [O'Donnell said], 'Tell you the truth, we didn't know what it was.' I said, 'You know, maybe it came from millions of miles away, out in space, and you're keeping it in a cage near Area 51?' He said, 'To tell you the truth, we couldn't communicate with it in the beginning. We didn't know what it was, we didn't know where it was from, and we didn't know what to do with it.'" JC: "When Al O'Donnell says to you, 'We had a live alien, a being,' obviously from another world, what was your feeling?" GK: "Well, I was overwhelmed, because it was, in effect, confirmation of things that I had come to believe, because of the reporting we'd already done. And then the evidence of cover ups and lies that had been told to the public. Here's this guy in a high position, with a high security clearance, telling me that it was true. That they really did have a craft and they had a being. "My second feeling was, one of overwhelming sadness for the being, whatever it was, you know, that was kept out there. I asked him, you know, what had happened to it, what became of it? He says, 'I don't know. I don't know whatever happened to it.' But it was out there for a while, alive, and eventually they figured out a way to communicate with it. "And so I asked him, 'Well, what did it look like?' And he made me guess, as he did with all these questions. He made me guess. He said, 'Well, it kinda looks like a certain political candidate.' I said, 'Well, who? A political candidate? Who?' And at the time, Ross Perot was running for president. He said, 'It looks like Ross Perot. A little skinny guy with a big ears and tiny head.' Not a classic Gray-looking alien, but a very odd-looking creature with really big ears, that looked like Ross Perot. And I laughed. "And so we had these conversations for a while, and I was blown away by the information that he shared. I took all these notes. I was hoping that someday, I might be able to get the information out. And I asked him, 'Look, you're getting up there in age. If I can't record something with you, could you record a statement to the effect of telling me the story on camera, and then when you pass on, I can have the tape?' And he said, 'Yeah,' he would do it." JC: "You know, look, I've heard a lot of wild stories that I can't verify. A guy's telling you something, and you get a sense as a journalist, when you go down a road with somebody, and you take your time and you vet it... Did you feel...I mean, is there any world where he's trying to f*ck with ya? Or is there a world where he's trying to, you know, dissuade...kind of put crazy information into your brain? Like, how did you feel when he was telling you this? Was he like, straight with you?" GK: "Yeah, he was very straightforward. And again, this was not information he was giving up, willingly. I mean, I had to really dig and coax and arm twist to get him to cough things up. And it was very slow-going over about a two-year period, maybe a little bit longer. And I know that this...you always have to be wary of people with different agendas and people that just make stuff up. I didn't get that sense from him because of his standing in the community. He had shared this story with members of his own family." JC: "And that's why they came to you, is because they kind of [gave] you a tip. And these members of his family, they're serious people, too." GK: "Yeah. One of his sons is an FBI agent, or was, he's passed on now. One was an elected official in Nevada. That was the one that gave me the tip." JC: So, I just want to nail this [down] so I understand. You were approached because he had shared this with his family, privately, and then you had to kind of coax to get through to him about the story?" GK: "Right." JC: "I think that's important because look, these things don't happen, like, people [don't] just come to us and say, you know, crazy stuff, and we're like, 'Hh, yeah, cool. Sounds good.' Like, the dynamic of that, socially, as a journalist, like getting in there, taking time. You know, we have to verify if what he said is true, and there are some major bombs coming about that. But it's like, that process is so important. "So here you are, you're sitting with him, he tells you now, they have a live alien. And you felt sad because you're an animal-rights activist, you love animals. I know with your cats at home and you've done horse stories and all the stories about like, the inhumane stuff to animals. So it made you personally sad, makes me sad, too now thinking about it." GK: Yeah. Well, we had these series of meetings, and then the last time we met, after he'd agreed to go ahead and record a tape - and give it to me after making an arrangement so I got it after he passed on - he said that he had been told to not talk to me anymore. He said he had been given a warning [and] it was not a good idea for him to talk to me any more about anything. Not just that topic, but anything." JC: "Well, who knows that you're talking? Who would warn him?" GK: "I don't know. I don't know. But you recall, back in those days, there was surveillance. We had our phones tapped at KLAS-TV. There were guys following us around. Me, Bob Lazar, Gene Huff, maybe Robert Bigelow." JC: "People were also coming to your news station, OSI. And they would come in and try to like, get to you and then they'd show you their card...and take it back. And you know your phones are tapped. So it's like, because of this story, all of a sudden you're on high alert. So, anybody could have called him, been watching you, had meetings with the guy. So what you're saying is one day he just said, 'I can't...I'm not allowed to talk to you any more.'" GK: "Yeah, I've been told not to talk to you anymore. I've been told not to."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2079616298435400152/amplify_video_thumb/2079612656366112768/img/mxq1uM4Cp0iG8pyw.jpg)
![The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036795243681423518/amplify_video_thumb/2036794127560613888/img/52_cdbzzL6_foTSI.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)
!["Anyone who leaked a [UFO] report...could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act...life in prison, or death." "Maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world." 🔥 Dr. Phil Had Me at The Bolender Memo 🔥 (Dr. Phil continued to kill it yesterday and this was better than the last one! Link to full video (21:52) is in the replies.) "Our government has been lying to us for more than 80 years. Ask yourself why? Why do they not want you to know this is going on?" (He starts out by showing that Google searches for "UFO" have allegedly nearly tripled since last Friday night, along with searches for UAP being up 400%. And "Dr. Phil UFO" is one of the fastest rising searches in the country. If all of that is true, it's a very good thing. Especially since he's been putting out some really good videos. He mentions the latest release (#4) of UFO/UAP files from the Pentagon last Friday.) "My team and I were granted early access, exclusive access to those documents before they went public." "Our government has been lying to us, by omission AND by intentional misdirection, for 79 years." "Look at these documents. You go back as far as 1947 where they have had clear information that there are objects not of this Earth, both technologically, metallurgically, performance-wise. But yet, that has been hidden from us. They've denied that, they've actually threatened people from talking about this. Threatened with careers, imprisonment, and some, with death, because they would consider it treason." (He backs it up with documents. See below.) Dr. Phil: "For 80 years, every time there was a legitimate UAP sighting and the U.S. government had a chance to get in there, they essentially told us, 'Nothing to see here. Move along.' To be clear, a UAP sighting is not proof of little green men or alien life. It means something happened, something was observed, something occurred for which we have no explanation. That's it. "Now, let's talk about that for a second. Things happen, and we don't have any explanation for it. We don't have technology that explains that. There's something that is observed in the sky, going at a speed, stopping, making a sharp turn, reversing direction, accelerating, changing altitudes, and we don't have anything on this Earth that can do that. That's what's called unexplained. "Now, do we know where it's from? How it does that? Well, if we did, it would be explained. But we don't. We go look at all of our secret weapons. We go look at what we know through intelligence, other countries have. And let me tell you, a lot of these (laughs) - they're not close calls. They are not close calls. And some of the things that have been observed, we damn sure didn't have anything like that in the 40s or the 50s or the 60s, and we still don't, now in 2020s. "But at the very same time, our government was telling us, 'Nothing to see here: weather balloon, reflection off of an airplane, just a weather anomaly.' And, the government was simultaneously threatening its own people with criminal penalties if they ever disclosed UAP information. "If somebody that was credible, that had seen this, spoke about it, they were threatened with all kinds of penalties. We were gaslighted. 'No big deal here. Probably weather balloons, misidentified aircraft.' And a jumpy public that watched, 'Close Encounters' one too many times, thinking, 'Look, what's really going on here?' "Behind the curtain, the government was spending generations of time and resources protecting this information. Was it happening? Yes, it was happening! Do we have proof of it happening? Yes, we have proof of it happening. And what I mean by that is we have this on radar. We have credible, military pilots reporting it. "We have aircraft that have guns, and when you open a gun and go live on a fighter, there's a camera that activates, so you have video of what the gun is shooting at. You have gun cameras. If they see one of these things in front of them, they open their weapons, in case they need them, and so it shoots video of what they're seeing. "Now let's talk about some of the proof. JANAP 146 - Joint Army, Navy, Air Force publication 146 - made it a criminal offense for military personnel and commercial airline pilots to discuss UFO sightings outside official channels. The penalty, 'up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.' "So, you might see some guy down on a lake, drinking beer, that talks about something he saw over the lake. Yeah, they don't mind that guy talking. But credible people? Trained observers with instrumentation? No. They say something, they're going to prison. "Well, that took effect upon receipt. No hearings, no debate. The regulation says, 'All persons aware of the contents or existence...are governed by...espionage laws.' So not just the pilot who filed a report under JANAP 146, anyone who leaked a report. Radio operators, airline staff, anyone in the chain could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. "You can see this yourself. Declassified copies are online today, including on the NSA's website. Now what is the Espionage Act? That's the same law used to prosecute spies. Section 793: Up to 10 years in federal prison for every violation. Section 794: If the information reaches a foreign power, life in prison, or death. "Imagine you're a TWA captain in 1955. You see something over the Pacific you just simply can't explain. You file your report like the regulation requires. And from that moment, talk to a newspaper, tell your own wife, puts you in the same legal category as a spy. "Ask yourself why. Why are they so interested in muzzling all this conversation? Why do they not want you to know this is going on? Why are you not entitled to know what's happening in the air around you? "Now, let's fast forward 20 years, 1971. Oliver Harry Turner was an Australian nuclear scientist and intelligence officer, head of the nuclear branch of Australia's Joint Intelligence Organization. He was asked to assess the American response to the growing UAP issue. "If you're thinking, what does an Australian know about U.S. military secrets? Well, the possibility of life beyond this planet is bigger than any one country. Australia and the rest of the world has a legitimate interest in what the U.S. knows. And Australia is one of our closest intelligence allies. What we now call Five Eyes. "The Five Eyes countries are the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These countries have shared their most sensitive intelligence with each other since World War II. When a senior, Five Eyes nuclear intelligence officer writes a report about what the United States knows, well, that's serious. "He was outside the American classification system. He had no career to lose. He pieced this together from official CIA, Air Force, Congressional, and Project Blue Book records. Now this report was written May 27, 1971. Original classification: Secret. Title: Scientific and Intelligence Aspects of the UFO Problem. Report declassified by the National Archives of Australia in 2023. "On June 9th of 2026, whistleblower David Crusch (Yes, he said Crusch) stood on Capitol Hill and told the public to read pages seven through sixteen." ~ David Grusch: "There is a declassified 1971 Australian, formally-classified, Secret assessment that a couple years ago was put in the Australian National Archives. I encourage people to read page seven through sixteen, and that was the nuclear branch chief of the Australian government discussing the U.S. cover-up and the involvement of the CIA back in the 70s. And that's actually a little-known document that is publicly available." ~ Dr. Phil: "Now here's the kicker: foreign intelligence describing an American cover-up is now referenced in the files that our government is just now releasing. And here are six key findings in the Turner report. "Number one, what Turner called the facade of ridicule. Turner documents that early Air Force intelligence concluded, 'Some of these objects, 'had flight characteristics' that could best be explained as having 'extraterrestrial origin.' (The actual language says: "The early analysis of UFO reports by USAF intelligence indicated that real phenomena were being reported which had flight characteristics so far in advance of U.S. aircraft that only as extra-terrestrial origin could be envisaged." ) Dr. Phil: "Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. "Now let that sit with you for a minute. Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. We've got to get these people believing this isn't real. We've got to debunk this. "January 1953, Turner's own words: 'By erecting a facade of ridicule, the U.S. hoped to allay public alarm, reduce the possibility of the Soviet taking advantage of UFO mass sightings...and act as a cover-up so the U.S. can develop vehicles that emulate UFO performances.' "What's the point? Well, the point is, they were thinking, 'All right, let's keep this secret,' like we're the only ones seeing this, 'and maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world.' "That's a great goal, I guess, if you can go from flying-prop planes or early jets to this incredible speed. If these are extraterrestrial, and the nearest galaxy is Andromeda, which it takes two and a half million years to get to, flying at the speed of light, we're pretty far from being able to do that. "Today, in 2026, can we move at the speed of light? No. If we could, it would take two and a half million years to get to the next galaxy. We can't move at the speed of light, even now in 2026. But that was the goal. They'll find one of these and reverse engineer it." (I don't know whether or not any black program has tech that can move at the speed of light and I doubt Dr. Phil knows, either. Someone should show him what Lacatski said about being able to reverse engineer some of this acquired (alleged non-human) tech but "not to its full extent.") Dr. Phil: "Finding number two. He then talks about Project Sign. This was the U.S. Air Force's first official UFO investigation set up in late 1947. Its analysts reportedly concluded that extraterrestrial origin was the best explanation. Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg rejected that conclusion, and copies of the report were ordered destroyed. Destroyed! "And per Turner, in February 1949, members of Project Sign, 'either volunteered to leave or were compelled to leave,' and they were replaced by people, 'willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs.' "Think about this! We have sightings by legitimate observers with scientific instrumentation, and the people who are doing the observing are voluntarily leaving or compelled to leave, and replaced by people willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs. "Finding number three, what I spoke about earlier: JANAP 146. Up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for discussing sightings outside official channels. And per the regulation's own text, Chapter One, Section 102, it covered not just military personnel, but U.S. and Canadian civilian and commercial pilots. "That's legal force over airline pilots, arguably the most credible witnesses in the sky! What jurisdiction they had over Canadian pilots, I have no idea, but they listed 'em. "Turner documents a meeting between military intelligence and airline pilots at the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood. At that meeting, pilots were, 'coerced' to keep their sightings out of public view and inside official channels. Am I overstating it to say that there's been a cover-up, that we're being lied to? "Finding number four. But they missed the retirees. JANAP 146 only covered active service. Once you retired, you could talk. And three very senior men did so between 1953 and 1960. Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the CIA, Captain Edward Ruppelt, the man the Air Force put in charge of investigating UFOs, Major Dewey Fournet, the Pentagon's project officer on UFOs. Per Turner, all three publicly stated the U.S. government knew UFOs were extraterrestrial and was withholding the fact from the public! So when those three retired, they told the truth! "Finding five. The government then silenced retirees. Per Turner, the revised regulation JANAP 146e made UAP disclosure by retirees an offense under the Espionage Act. Then finding number six. 1969, 17 years, the Air Force ran a public-facing UFO investigation called Project Blue Book. If you wrote your congressman about a sighting, it went into the Blue Book. And in 1969, the Air Force shut down the Blue Book and told the country, 'We looked at more than 12,000 sightings. No problems. No national security threat. No need for the Blue Book.' "But a memo from General Carroll Bolender, the Air Force general, said the reason Blue Book showed no national security threats was because any national security threats were gag ordered under JANAP 146 and were quote, 'not part of the Blue Book system.' The serious reports never stopped; they just moved out of public view. "Now, I know that was a lot of information. You may need to listen back to that, but those are facts. Those are in the government's documents that have now been declassified! "If the government has known for decades that unidentified objects are flying through our skies, and therefore, we may not be alone in the Universe, then the greatest revelation in American history has also been the target of a huge cover-up. "One of the challenges of social media and TV news is taking something this complex and reducing it to sound bites. And you're getting bits and pieces from the media. That's why I invest so much time and energy giving you the real story. I don't want to tell you what you believe or don't believe, but I want to give you the information so you can make up your own mind. "This information is in the files, we just haven't had access to the files. And then when we get the files, we're given the files without any context. You see a radar screen and you see a blip, and then it moves. Well, what do you have to compare it to? Is it moving fast? Too fast? Unexplainably fast? Without any context, how are we supposed to interpret that? "Well, I'm digging in, I'm talking to experts, I'm finding out what the scale is. And what we're learning, is we don't have anything that'll move that fast. We don't have anything that'll turn that sharp. We don't have anything that will withstand those kind of G-forces."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2077448964731965459/amplify_video_thumb/2077445400177541120/img/vqZyFFYVRdk6G7tt.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)