NEW UFO PHOTO Revealed by Lue Elizondo
A recent congressional briefing in Washington focused attention on a striking image that was initially described as evidence of an unexplained aerial phenomenon. The photo, shown by a presenter during the event, was said to depict a mysterious, silver object at high altitude, captured by a civilian pilot with an ordinary camera. The object’s appearance and the subsequent analysis raised immediate questions about its authenticity and origin.
Following the briefing, online communities and subject experts quickly examined the image, identifying it as a misinterpreted ground feature rather than an unknown flying object. The incident highlighted the importance of thorough vetting before releasing such information to the public and underscored ongoing challenges in the reporting and investigation of unusual sightings.
Key Takeaways
Congressional briefings can bring attention to unverified claims.
Rapid analysis and feedback are critical for credibility.
Proper procedures are essential in presenting evidence of aerial phenomena.
Congressional Briefing on UAP Investigation
Overview of the Public Session
The UAP Disclosure Fund organized a congressional session in Washington, D.C., aimed at increasing transparency on unidentified aerial phenomena. This event was streamed live for four hours, offering real-time access to all proceedings and presentations. Technical challenges such as poor audio quality were noted during the live stream, yet the key segments were still made visible to the audience.
Key Features of the Broadcast:
Duration: 4 hours
Platform: Social media and direct streaming
Technical Issues: Audio problems, including volume and clarity
Detailed Look at the Displayed Image
During the session, a photo was shown featuring a lenticular, silvery object captured at 21,000 feet by a civilian pilot using a standard camera. Emphasis was made that this was not taken with military or infrared technology, but rather an everyday device. The dimensions of the object were estimated by the pilot to be between 600 and 1,000 feet wide, based on altitude and personal experience.
Aspect Details Type of Object Lenticular, silvery, possible shadow present Altitude 21,000 feet Camera Standard camera (not military-grade) Estimated Size 600–1,000 feet (according to pilot) Photographer Civilian pilot
After broader online scrutiny, viewers and independent analysts found the object in the photo matched an irrigation circle visible on Google Maps. An overlay comparison showed a near-identical match, revealing that the "shadow" was another overlapping irrigation circle. This finding fundamentally changed the initial interpretation of the photograph.
Luis Alzando’s Role and Response
Luis Alzando presented the photo to Congress after receiving it from a private pilot earlier that same day. He clearly stated that the image had not been independently verified and that he could not guarantee its authenticity. The photo was displayed primarily to highlight the lack of centralized reporting options for pilots who witness unusual objects.
Alzando responded to the subsequent debunking by reiterating the facts:
The image was obtained and shared with limited time for evaluation.
Size and altitude estimates were provided by the pilot, not Alzando.
The decision to share the photo emphasized the need for an official reporting channel rather than claiming scientific proof.
He acknowledged the error in presenting an unvetted image at such an important forum and pointed out that mistakes like this should inform how future disclosures and briefings are handled. Alzando also addressed the wider challenge that pilots face — that public disclosure of anomalous sightings often leads to ridicule instead of constructive discussion, discouraging others from coming forward.
Examination of the Pilot's Photograph
Visual Features and Initial Impressions
The image was displayed during a congressional UAP briefing and immediately caught the attention of everyone present. It shows a large, silvery, lenticular shape that, at first glance, appears suspended in the air at an estimated altitude of 21,000 feet. Lacking data from specialized sensors—like FLIR or infrared—this photograph was captured by a civilian using a standard camera.
The immediate response from viewers was one of confusion and surprise, emphasizing the unclear and unusual look of the object. The speaker noted that even seasoned observers found it perplexing on first view.
Allegations Regarding Unusual Characteristics
The main assertion surrounding the photo was that it depicted something anomalous, potentially a craft or object between 600 to 1,000 feet in diameter. The object's reflective, metallic appearance and perceived shadow gave it an otherworldly impression.
However, after further scrutiny online, users pointed out a striking similarity to patterns created by agricultural irrigation circles on the ground. Overlay comparisons demonstrated a near-exact match with images from mapping services. The shadow, initially believed to be evidence of size or altitude, was shown to be another overlapping circle rather than a cast shadow. Luis Elizondo, who brought attention to the photo, later admitted it was not vetted prior to sharing and acknowledged the misidentification after these findings came to light.
Key Points:
Object described as “lenticular” and “silvery”
Size estimated by pilot, not independently verified
Later identified as a misidentified ground feature
Image Quality and Technical Information
This photograph was taken from an altitude of 21,000 feet by a civilian pilot using an everyday camera. No advanced imaging techniques—such as thermal or infrared—were involved.
Aspect Details Altitude 21,000 feet (as reported by pilot) Equipment Standard consumer camera Estimated Object Size 600–1,000 feet (pilot’s assessment, unverified) Object Color Silver, metallic Photo Vetting Not vetted before public release
The photo lacked metadata or additional contextual information that could authenticate its claims. The image quality and the absence of corroborating data made it difficult to confirm any extraordinary aspects. The reliance on the pilot's own judgment for interpreting scale and distance also limited the technical reliability of the photograph.
Refuting the Alleged UAP Photograph
Community Reactions and Detailed Review
Once the image was shared during the congressional session, reactions from viewers and social media users were immediate and mixed. Some believed it to be compelling, while others quickly began scrutinizing the details.
Luis Alzando addressed the criticisms by stating that he had not verified the image before presenting it. He clarified that he received the photo from a private pilot on the morning of the briefing and was given permission to share it shortly beforehand. This admission emphasized the rapid response from the public and highlighted a need for stronger vetting processes in such high-profile situations.
Discovery of Irrigation Pattern Explanation
Multiple users investigated the image through satellite mapping and public sources. They proposed that what was interpreted as an unknown object was actually an irrigation circle visible from above.
Searches linked the photographic features directly to these circular agricultural patterns, commonly found on farmland. These findings contradicted the hypothesis of a mysterious aerial object, instead pointing toward a terrestrial explanation.
Key observations:
The supposed "shadow" was revealed to be a second irrigation circle overlapping the first.
The shape and pattern was consistent with widely recognized irrigation systems.
Direct Image Comparison and Overlay Findings
An overlay analysis was conducted, aligning the photograph in question with satellite images of known irrigation circles. When matched, the features of the "object" were shown to be virtually identical to those found on the ground.
Feature Analyzed Alleged UAP Photo Satellite Image Overlay Shape Lenticular Circular Irrigation Shadow Interpretation Dark Section Second Irrigation Ring Size Estimates Pilot's Visual Matches Ground Circles
This side-by-side approach demonstrated that the photograph’s main features could be explained without invoking any exotic or aerial phenomenon. The direct visual match eliminated the need for further speculation about unidentified aerial origins.
Statements in Response to the Photo Incident
Luis Alzando’s Remarks to the Public
Luis Alzando addressed the situation directly by explaining the circumstances in which he shared the image during the Congressional forum. He noted that the photograph was provided to him by a private pilot on the morning of the presentation and that he had only just obtained permission to show it. Alzando emphasized that he mentioned multiple times his inability to personally verify the authenticity of the image.
Key Details:
The image came from a private pilot, with dimensions estimated by that pilot.
Alzando specified he did not capture the photo himself or conduct extensive checks before the forum.
His stated reason for presenting the image was to highlight the lack of a proper channel for civilian and commercial pilots to report unusual aerial sightings.
Problems With Confirming and Reviewing Evidence
Alzando acknowledged significant issues in vetting the photo before it was shown. According to his statements, the photo had not undergone any formal verification. The details, such as the size estimate and possible anomaly, were based solely on the pilot’s observations and assumptions.
Challenges Identified:
The photo’s origin and content were not confirmed through independent methods.
Rapid debunking by others showed that the "object" was actually an irrigation circle visible via satellite imagery.
There was a notable absence of a structured process for verifying evidence before public or official display.
Problem Description Lack of vetting No independent review before presentation Reliance on pilot Size estimates and claims based solely on pilot’s perspective Rapid debunking Internet users quickly matched the image to known ground structures
Admission of Errors and Handling of the Situation
Alzando openly discussed the misstep. He indicated his willingness to admit mistakes and clarified that he made repeated statements about the photograph not being verified. He noted the embarrassment caused by the incident but maintained that such errors should be openly acknowledged.
He expressed understanding that mistakes occur in live situations.
Alzando stated that such incidents underline the need for careful preparation and robust procedures in future briefings.
He also commented on the larger challenge faced by those sharing potential UAP sightings, noting that negative feedback and public scrutiny can discourage future reports.
Summary List:
Admitted to not vetting the image before showing it.
Reiterated the importance of transparency regarding mistakes.
Called attention to the broader issues of reporting and discussion in the UAP community.
Takeaways From The Briefing
Need For Thorough Verification
Before sharing any evidence, especially in official settings, it’s critical to verify its authenticity. In this briefing, a photo from a civilian pilot was presented without thorough background checks. The result was quick public debunking, causing unnecessary distraction and confusion.
Key points:
The image was provided just hours before the meeting.
Verification was missing, leading to mistakes in reported details, such as size and what the object truly was.
Lessons include prioritizing rigorous review and independent validation before disclosure.
Step Was It Completed? Source evaluation No Provenance confirmed No Peer review No Quick release Yes
Problems With Current UAP Case Submissions
The lack of a centralized, clear reporting mechanism for pilots and other witnesses is an ongoing obstacle. Civilian and commercial pilots encounter unusual phenomena but have no standardized way to report these incidents. This absence of structure contributes to uncertainty, misinterpretation, and lost data.
Observation: Pilots sometimes don't know where or how to report.
Consequence: Genuine data may be overlooked, and confusion is more likely.
Recommendation: Establish a clear and accessible reporting process for all witnesses.
Pilots and witnesses need tools and channels to safely and efficiently share what they see.
Effects On Those Interested In UFOs
Incidents like this have a strong influence on the wider UFO research community. When unverified material is shared publicly and rapidly dismissed or debunked, it can draw criticism and skepticism from both believers and skeptics. This environment can discourage further sharing of sightings and reduce open discussion.
Rapid public scrutiny highlights the need for careful handling of information.
Repeated errors prioritize spectacle over substance, weakening trust.
Community feedback includes both supportive dialogue and direct criticism, shaping future interaction.
Tip for the community:
Maintain open, constructive dialogue and focus on accuracy to support ongoing scientific and public investigation.
Final Thoughts
Mistakes happen—even in high-profile settings such as congressional briefings. This recent incident highlighted the importance of thoroughly verifying materials before making them public, especially when discussing subjects as widely debated as unidentified aerial phenomena.
A key takeaway from this situation is the need for a reliable reporting channel for both civilian and commercial pilots. Lack of such a platform leaves room for confusion and missed opportunities for meaningful investigation.
Common challenges observed:
Unvetted materials can create distractions
Technical difficulties can hinder effective communication
Missteps can overshadow broader discussions
Issue Suggested Solution Unverified imagery Careful vetting before sharing Audio/tech problems Pre-event equipment checks Public ridicule Encourage constructive feedback
Moving ahead, fostering an environment that supports accurate reporting and careful preparation will help improve future briefings and discussions.
