On October 1, something unique is happening in Stockholm.
Beyond Institute is bringing together international whistleblowers, researchers, military personnel, legal experts, and investigators for an evening dedicated to one of the most widely debated questions of our time: UAP -- Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (formerly known as “UFOs”).
On stage, you will meet Jake Barber, Dylan Borland, Jonathan Caplan KC, John Blitch, Jeff Nuccetelli, Marik von Rennenkampff, Beatriz Villarroel, and Jesse Michels, alongside Stephen Bruehl, Jordan Flowers, Mart Sander, Ted Persson, and Dennis Åsberg.
What do we really know? What have people within the military, scientific community, and government agencies seen and experienced? What data exists—and what remains unexplained?
This will be an evening of testimony, research, discussions, and questions that are now being addressed at the highest levels internationally.
📍 Hilton Stockholm Slussen
📅 October 1, 2026
⏰ 6:00–11:00 PM — doors open at 5:00 PM
Only 270 seats are available. We expect considerable interest, so don’t wait too long if you want to join us.
🎟️ Tickets: https://t.co/UC7ltfRdp3
This is only the beginning.
Beyond Institute
@CptcurtX You won’t see me making fun. Unconditional love is priceless and our 4 footed best friends leave a hole in our hearts when they are gone. My sincere condolences on the loss of your best friend, Buster.
Fellow introverts, it’s my birthday today.
I guess this is the one day I can ask for something.
I’ve been trying hard to grow this page for 6 years and we still haven’t even touched 50k.
Just need a little push from you all.
RT this if any of my posts ever felt relatable, and help me connect with more introverts.
Thank You!
@EricBurlison You are inferring that a patient could somehow manage the cost of a medically necessary surgery if they knew the bill upfront. This isn't the case.
@DrNeilStone I think I am. I’m vaccinated and boosted. And I’ll be getting it again as soon as the new booster is available. Ignore the ignorant. They are impervious to evidentiary data and logic.
@UAPConvergence He has a sweater on so I was thinking it had to be longer ago. I didn’t think it fake rather I wanted to watch the entire interview but wasn’t able to find it.
@hiddenseraph The following should be required listening/reading for anyone that wants to fully understand this situation. Richard Dolan lays out the entire illogic of this story about Elizondo: https://t.co/jzPGtHFfxx Murgia proves Gerb's factual misstatements here: https://t.co/nlxheWzspq
"Elizondo is...convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~NYT 2020
🛸 If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job 🛸
Take the Time to Read This All - May 2019
Tucker: "You think the [USG] has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?"
@LueElizondo: "Simply put, yes."
(Debris. Odd way to control the narrative AWAY from crash retrievals. See the entire transcript to see what I mean.
We also have this 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 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 the craft that Lockheed was going to divest itself from but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.
~
The problem I have with what Ross said.)
Ross: "I think Lue needs to be more forthcoming about his past roles."
Also Ross: "[Lue is] bound by his security oath about what he can reveal about his past roles. I know he can't talk about it."
(If he can't talk about it, how is he going to be more forthcoming?")
~~~
@rosscoulthart: "I have been quite delicately outspoken in my belief on previous Q and As that I think Lue needs to be more forthcoming about his past roles, and I like and respect Lue a lot, and I think he's in a difficult position because he's bound by his security oath about what he can reveal about his past roles. I know he can't talk about it. It's a ridiculous situation.
"But there are people who bitterly resent and don't think it's a good idea that Lue be appointed to a position of power in UAP transparency because they think that he was part of a previous agenda that was, essentially, to try to control the narrative to restrict what the public is entitled to know about the UAP disclosure.
"And I think a lot of this was an intention by James Clapper, General James Clapper, to try and impose a narrative on the public domain using Lue as a front man - highly-urbane, articulate, and likable front man - to try to restrict what the public was told about crash retrievals."
~~~Rewind back to 2019~~~
This is from my Wilson/Davis MegaBlog I published in June of 2020...
On March 15th, 2019, Mellon’s colleague at “To The Stars,” Luis Elizondo, who ran the Pentagon’s UFO program, known at AATIP, gave a lecture at the Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy in Alabama. During the Q&A portion, the subject of crash retrievals came up.
Q: Have we attempted to shoot down any UAP? Have we succeeded? Have we recovered any tech or beings, dead or alive?
Elizondo: "(shaking his head back and forth) I can’t answer those questions."
Hoffman: "Out of curiosity, did AATIP program look at or consider any of the stuff that like maybe, Len Stringfield did with the crash retrievals or look into any of those crashes?"
Elizondo: "I can’t."
Fourteen months later, on May 31st of 2019, Elizondo was a guest on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” a highly-rated cable opinion show on Fox News. For whatever reason, he was more willing to answer a similar question.
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?"
Luis Elizondo: "Whoa. Umm…I do, yes."
Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?"
Luis Elizondo: "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."
Luis Elizondo: "But…simply put, yes."
~~~
The best thing about that interview has always been Carlson rewording his question to include UFO and debris, and trying to get Elizondo to respond again. Carlson was ready to take, “I really have to be careful” for an answer and leave it at that. But Elizondo answered anyway: “Simply put, yes.” There’s nothing simple about that. A highly respected, career intelligence officer believes the U.S. government has in its possession, debris from a UFO. It may be one of the most important statements ever uttered on a national television program.
Researcher James Iandoli was immediately able to get a reaction to the Elizondo statement from Dr. Davis:
“Luis Elizondo’s brief answer to Tucker Carlson’s question about where the U.S. government is in possession of recovered, crashed and landed UFO technology hardware is 1000% accurate. My national security NDAs prevent me from adding any further comment on this.”
Landed UFO technology. Think, “intact craft” and Wilson. And not 100% accurate. Or 200%. He used 1000%, and to me, that sounds like someone trying to drive home a point. Is something of monumental proportions being kept hidden in a highly restricted, Unacknowledged Special Access Program? Yes. Does our government (or a private, aerospace corporation, with little to no oversight) have material and technology from crashed and landed UFOs? Yes. Or, is it “just” small pieces of exotic material, allegedly from elsewhere? No. To me, there’s a huge difference between the two. Displaying a piece of metal or material and saying it has anomalous properties pales in comparison to trotting out a full-sized, flying saucer with “Made on Zeta Reticuli” etched on the side.
~~~End Excerpt from My 2020 W/D MegaBlog~~~
Then we have this 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."
(So, if the edict was to direct our attention away from crash retrievals, Lue did a poor job.)
~~~Back to Ross~~~
Coulthart: "I refuse to accept that the people like Lue Elizondo, who were part of that attempt at a controlled disclosure (allegedly ~Joe), were motivated by bad things. They're patriots, they love their country."
(Agree 100%. Doesn't mean we can't disagree with how things were done, and ask for clarity and details on EVERYTHING. But let's not demonize Lue and/or others who were allegedly part of that effort. I think it's obvious that Lue tried to share as much as he could and is still limited by what he can say due to NDAs and promises made to his former boss, Clapper, and possibly others.)
Coulthart: "And I've spoken to people in the Legacy program who knew Lue (laughs). Lue, I know a lot of people, and they know you, and I know you can't speak about the role that you've held within the Legacy program, but you did."
(Did? A little nit-picky by me, but, again, that's according to the people Ross spoke with. I also think Lue had a role in the Legacy program but that's just my opinion on what I have heard/seen/read since 12/16/17. I can't prove it.)
Coulthart: "And I think we've got to stop this nonsense, because it's becoming destructive."
(What nonsense? Again, if (as he said) Ross knows, Lue, "can't speak about the role that [he's] held within the Legacy program," what is Ross calling for Lue to do?
Here's what I would suggest (IF it hasn't already happened): Lue should, privately, meet with people in the Legacy program who have issues with him and hash it out. And if Lue IS appointed as a UAP-Czar or something similar, in the Trump administration, and these folks who worked/work in the Legacy program are mad and won't come forward because of THAT, it will be disappointing. Not coming forward because you have concerns about personal protection, security clearances being lost, and needing immunity or amnesty, is one thing. Not coming forward because you don't like how things were done in the early years after 2017 is, again, disappointing, IF it happens.)
Coulthart: "There are factions and bitternesses beginning to develop within the UAP world, and I think it's in danger of blowing the whole thing apart."
(I am NOT worried about this blowing the whole thing apart. Again, if these Legacy-program folks haven't already met with Lue to express their feelings, make it happen and let's move on.)
@Mr_BenPrime But he appeared, not on the internet, but on a podcast hosted by a national news network. Perhaps that shouldn't change how we feel about doxxing but then neither should a news network be able to skirt the laws concerning slander by putting a story on a podcast they host.
@I_D_Official Thanks so much for doing this! Someone of your stature in the community pointing out the illogic and gaping holes in this “story” or hypothesis by Coulthart and Gerb is much needed.
@iLLuminuttee@QualiaQuanta@FettuccineSplit@TheUfoJoe@robjonesreports On many occasions Lue said he would not reveal classified information and would only discuss what he had been cleared to discuss by the DOPSR process. You realize by insisting he reveal all he knows that you are asking him to risk imprisonment and to be tried for treason?
@iLLuminuttee@QualiaQuanta@FettuccineSplit@TheUfoJoe@robjonesreports I favor full disclosure also. I think the fears regarding how the public will respond are overblown. But I think a great deal of the criticism leveled at Lue is just factually inaccurate and/or betrays a poor understanding of the situation.
@QualiaQuanta@iLLuminuttee@FettuccineSplit@TheUfoJoe@robjonesreports Lue has stated that he is for a controlled disclosure, one that shares we are not alone while maintaining national security advantages. You can disagree with his position but it is inaccurate and illogical to call it anti disclosure.