El Programa Avanzado de Identificación de Amenazas Aeroespaciales (AATIP), Tom DeLonge, Luis Elizondo y las Reclamaciones de la Academia To The Stars

agosto 4, 2019

Estado de la investigación: en curso – Última actualización 5/06/2019

“Yo diría que sigas escéptico. El escepticismo saludable es muy importante, de hecho es imperativo. De hecho, en mi trabajo como oficial de inteligencia, me pagaban por ser escéptico. Creo que siempre debe cuestionar toda la información que le ofrece cualquier persona que diga algo, y creo que eso es cierto no solo con personas como yo, creo que es cierto con el gobierno, la religión y todo lo demás. "
-Señor. Luis Elizondo Testimonio registrado del Congreso internacional de ovnis 2018


Tabla de contenido


Fondo

por John Greenewald, Jr., The Black Vault

El 16 de diciembre de 2017, la Academia de Artes y Ciencias To The Stars (TTSA) de Tom Delonge lanzó dos de los tres videos de ovnis que están bajo su custodia, declarando que fueron oficialmente desclasificados por el gobierno de los EE. UU.

También se anunció que estos videos eran parte del programa secreto de Investigación OVNI conocido como el Programa Avanzado de Identificación de Amenazas Aeroespaciales (AATIP). Esta existencia se basó en el testimonio de uno de los miembros del equipo de la Academia de Artes y Ciencias To The Stars, el Sr. Luis Elizondo. Según el sitio web:

“Luis Elizondo es un oficial de inteligencia de carrera cuya experiencia incluye trabajar con el Ejército de EE. UU., El Departamento de Defensa, el Ejecutivo de Contrainteligencia Nacional y el Director de Inteligencia Nacional. Como ex agente especial a cargo, Luis condujo y supervisó investigaciones de espionaje y terrorismo altamente sensibles en todo el mundo. Como oficial de casos de inteligencia, dirigió operaciones clandestinas de fuentes en toda América Latina y Oriente Medio. Más recientemente, Luis administró la seguridad de ciertas carteras sensibles para el Gobierno de los EE. UU. Como Director del Personal de Gestión Especial de Programas Nacionales. Durante casi la última década, Luis también ejecutó un programa sensible de identificación de amenazas aeroespaciales centrado en tecnologías aéreas no identificadas. La formación académica de Luis incluye Microbiología, Inmunología y Parasitología, con experiencia en investigación en enfermedades tropicales. Luis también es un inventor que posee varias patentes ”.

Cuando se anunció la inclusión del Sr. Elizondo en este proyecto, y se publicó su biografía anterior (junto con la conferencia de prensa celebrada por el Sr. Delonge) rápidamente presenté múltiples solicitudes de FOIA para registros relacionados con este, "programa sensible de identificación de amenazas aeroespaciales" como referencia por la Academia de Arte y Ciencia To The Stars.

A continuación, encontrará la extensa investigación realizada para intentar confirmar las afirmaciones hechas por el Sr. Elizondo y la TTSA. Hay muchas banderas rojas esbozadas a continuación que me impiden decir que el programa AATIP fue un "Estudio Secreto del OVNI del Pentágono", como lo anuncian los medios.

Cronología de AATIP

Para ilustrar mejor todo lo que nos han contado, elaboré una extensa línea de tiempo sobre las afirmaciones hechas por los medios de comunicación, el Sr. Luis Elizondo, el Dr. Hal Puthoff y el Senador Harry Reid. He creado una página específica solo para esta sección, ya que es increíblemente larga y tiene muchas fuentes. VISITA EL CRONOGRAMA para ver cuán desordenado es toda esta historia.

[[Volver a la cima ]

Denegación del Departamento de Defensa

Carta oficial de la FOIA indicando que "no había registros" en el programa.

En el momento de la conferencia de prensa original de TTSA, y al presentar mi solicitud de FOIA, el nombre completo del Programa avanzado de identificación de amenazas aeroespaciales no se publicó, sino que solo se mencionó como el "programa de identificación de amenazas aeroespaciales sensibles" en el sitio web y el "Programa de amenazas aeroespaciales DOD" por medios de comunicación como el Huffington Post. Por lo tanto, en mi solicitud, pedí lo siguiente:

“Solicito respetuosamente una copia de los registros, electrónicos o de otro tipo, de lo siguiente: todos los documentos relacionados con el esquema, declaración de misión, objetivos, etc. del Programa de amenazas aeroespaciales del DOD. Tenga en cuenta: este puede no ser el título exacto, pero se deriva del testimonio del Sr. Luis Elizondo, ex empleado del Departamento de Defensa. De acuerdo con el Huffington Post (como se publica aquí: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fmr-manager-of-dod-aerospace-threat-program-ufos_us_59de2f4be4b0b992a8214874) "

Notarás que para burlar cualquier juego de palabras del Departamento de Defensa, dije: "Tenga en cuenta: este puede no ser el título exacto, pero se deriva del testimonio del Sr. Luis Elizondo, ex empleado del Departamento de Defensa". En otras palabras, A pesar de que sabía que probablemente estaba un poco fuera del título, les di testimonio del personal del Departamento de Defensa y un enlace a lo que era el programa. De esa manera, no había manera de que pudieran alegar ignorancia de que yo "no era lo suficientemente específico".

El 27 de noviembre de 2017, el DOD respondió con una determinación de "sin registros", como se ve en la carta a la derecha.

Apelé la respuesta "sin registros" inmediatamente después de recibir la denegación, y en marzo de 2019, se me CONCEDIÓ la apelación. La carta que me enviaron el 18 de marzo de 2019 se encuentra a continuación.

Carta del Departamento de Defensa QUE OTORGA mi apelación desde el 19 de diciembre de 2017.

Me dijeron que iban a realizar otra búsqueda, y recibiría otra respuesta. Dentro de DOS DÍAS (después de una apelación que tardó más de un año en otorgarse), recibí una respuesta extraña que solo profundiza el misterio.

Respuesta del Departamento de Defensa a mi apelación, tal como me la enviaron por correo electrónico el 20 de marzo de 2019.

“La Oficina de Programas Nacionales y Apoyo a las Políticas (NPPS) para el Subsecretario de Defensa para Inteligencia (USDI), un componente de la Oficina del Secretario de Defensa (OS D), informó que no se buscaban registros que respondieran a esta solicitud realizado. El Director, NPPS, declaró que el Sr.Luis Elizondo era un empleado del Departamento de Defensa que renunció el 10 de octubre de 2017 o aproximadamente. NPPS no tiene información sobre la afirmación del Sr. Elizondo de haber sido el Director de Programas para investigar Amenazas aéreas no identificadas para OSD. "

En otras palabras, el Departamento de Defensa continúa (a partir de marzo de 2019) para negar las afirmaciones del Sr. Elizondo de que hay información en su oficina, donde el Sr. Elizondo dice que trabajó, y ha sido confirmado, que demuestra que hubo investigación sobre "amenazas aéreas no identificadas" en OSD.

He presentado muchas más solicitudes de FOIA, pero parece que algo no cuadra cuando se trata de conectar la documentación oficial y la historia que hemos recibido. Hay mucho más a continuación.

[[Volver a la cima ]

Intellipedia de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional Negación Reconocimiento

Otra solicitud de FOIA que presenté, que recibió una respuesta final el 8 de enero de 2018, fue a la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA). En esta solicitud específica, solicité cualquier Intellipedia referencias a este programa (y lo denominé: "Programa avanzado de identificación de amenazas de aviación" y presenté una segunda solicitud al "Programa avanzado de identificación de amenazas aeroespaciales" ya que los medios informaron ambos nombres.

Intellipedia es un sistema en línea para compartir datos en colaboración utilizado por la Comunidad de Inteligencia de los Estados Unidos (IC). Esencialmente, es como Wikipedia para la Comunidad de Inteligencia (IC). Dentro de las tres bases de datos de Intellipedia separadas, encontrará, literalmente, millones de páginas sobre todo tipo de material, clasificadas y sin clasificar (dependiendo de la versión de Intellipedia que esté utilizando). Cuando presento mis solicitudes de entradas de Intellipedia, solicito búsquedas de las tres. También solicito una búsqueda de las entradas para palabras clave, por lo que posiblemente un término no tenga una página específica de "entrada", pero tal vez el programa en sí se mencione en una entrada diferente. Intento cubrir todas mis bases.

El 8 de enero de 2018, la NSA me dijo que "no había registros" que respondieran a mi solicitud, lo que significa que el millones de páginas dentro de toda la colección de Intellipedia, no había una sola referencia al programa "Programa avanzado de identificación de amenazas aeroespaciales" (o la alternativa "Aviación") en este momento. Además, también presenté una solicitud el 2 de mayo de 2018 para las entradas de Intellipedia relacionadas con el "Programa Avanzado de Aplicaciones del Sistema de Armas Aeroespaciales (AAWSAP)". Este es el nombre que se rumorea que es el proyecto precursor que finalmente fue renombrado y se convirtió en AATIP, o también podría ser el proyecto más grande del que nació AATIP. Independientemente de cuál sea el origen, la NSA también dio un "no hay registros" respuesta sobre el nombre de este proyecto, y el hecho de que no hay referencias a él.

Sin embargo, en septiembre de 2018, descubrí que la página de Intellipedia para Objetos voladores no identificados (ovnis) se actualizó para incluir una referencia AATIP. Mi solicitud específica (como se señala en la carta de respuesta de FOIA al final del .pdf) fue buscar entradas que mencionen a Bigelow Aerospace. Lo extraño es que esta solicitud se presentó el mismo día que la de AATIP anterior, y quedó vacía. Por lo tanto, se puede determinar que las actualizaciones en esta página de OVNI se produjeron entre el 8 de enero de 2018 y el 12 de septiembre de 2018, cuando se imprimió y me entregó la entrada recién lanzada. Por lo tanto, podemos concluir que mi solicitud original arrojó una respuesta "sin registros" porque no había nada en ese momento, por lo que cerraron el caso el 8 de enero. Sin embargo, probablemente encontraron registros receptivos en mi solicitud de Bigelow Aerospace, lo que puso este caso en una cola diferente para el procesamiento. Una vez procesada, Intellipedia se actualizó para incluir una referencia AATIP, y listo, apareció como uno de los documentos receptivos.

Ahora, como puede ver, AATIP se describió brevemente en la página OVNI. El texto pertinente dice lo siguiente:

Notará que también hubo referencias citadas, que incluyen lo siguiente:

¿Cuál es la información oculta? La exención (b) (3) es una exención en la que la información retenida se hace porque está exenta por un estatuto. En este caso, es la Ley Pública 86-36: Ley de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional de 1959. Es posible que la información a continuación haga referencia al nombre del empleado de la NSA que escribió la cita u otra marca de identificación, pero está redactado para proteger las identidades del personal de la NSA. Esto es comun.

Ahora, de vuelta a la información. Que significa todo esto? Bueno, señalaré algunas cosas que siento que son dignas:

  1. Toda la entrada se designa con marcas (U). Esto señala que la información contenida en cada párrafo no está clasificada en su totalidad. Ha habido muchos debates sobre cuán secreto fue realmente este proyecto, y aunque no tengo dudas de que el proyecto tenía aspectos clasificados, esto respalda la declaración del senador Harry Reid de que aproximadamente el 80% de la información relacionada con AATIP no está clasificada. Creo que este hecho muestra que, aunque este programa fue importante, las revelaciones que hizo pueden no haber sido tan extraordinarias como algunos quieren que creamos. Cualquier cosa que se encuentre de una naturaleza extraordinaria (tecnología extranjera extraterrestre / altamente avanzada / etc.) probablemente estaría muy clasificada.
  2. AATIP no apareció en Intellipedia hasta que el NY Times publicó su historia. Esto es interesante porque Intellipedia es increíblemente grande y contiene millones de páginas sobre proyectos relacionados con inteligencia, operaciones, referencias pertinentes, etc. del pasado. y presente. Como alguien que posiblemente haya presentado más solicitudes relacionadas con Intellipedia que cualquier otro investigador, eso es increíblemente extraño. Cualquier cosa importante para la comunidad de inteligencia, clasificada o no, generalmente está en algún lugar del sistema Intellipedia. Sin embargo, AATIP nunca fue hasta que se muestra la "última fecha de modificación", 22 de diciembre de 2017. En base a este hecho, creo que la NSA ahora cometió un error durante el procesamiento de mi solicitud, ya que solicité no solo todas las entradas con ese nombre, pero también todas las entradas que aparecen en el motor de búsqueda. Creo que la última parte de la solicitud fue ignorada. A pesar de ese error, esto también muestra claramente que AATIP no apareció en Intellipedia hasta el 22 de diciembre de 2017, la pregunta sigue siendo, ¿por qué? Algunos han argumentado en el pasado que AATIP estaba "demasiado clasificado" para aparecer en Intellipedia, o la NSA me mintió cuando recibí la respuesta original "sin registros". Cuando se encuentran páginas clasificadas durante las búsquedas, por ejemplo, muchas de las revelaciones de Edward Snowden (como Vaquero), la NSA reconocerá que están allí, pero los exime de la liberación. Otro ejemplo, es mi solicitud de Escalón. Es posible que esta solicitud específica haya entrado en el reino de las clasificadas aún en gran medida hasta el punto de que ni siquiera pueden admitir que está allí, y me dieron una respuesta GLOMAR ("no puedo confirmar ni negar"). Mi punto con estos ejemplos es que la posible explicación de que está "demasiado clasificado" o "todavía clasificado" o "están mintiendo" simplemente no encaja en un historial comprobable relacionado con algunos de los temas más clasificados dentro de la comunidad de inteligencia. Podemos, en mi opinión, dejar de lado ese argumento.
  3. No se utilizó ni se citó ningún recurso único, no público. Como investigador, esto es extremadamente desafortunado. Una de las razones principales por las que uso el sistema Intellipedia y solicito las entradas que tengo es esta sección en particular que aparece en la mayoría de las entradas de Intellipedia. Las referencias a menudo (no siempre, pero a menudo) se refieren a informes internos, regulaciones y otros recursos que sirven como clientes potenciales para otras solicitudes de FOIA. Sin embargo, el autor simplemente basó su información en los periódicos que informaron sobre AATIP. ¿Porqué es eso? No está claro.
[[Volver a la cima ]

La carta de renuncia y la negación de los esfuerzos de desclasificación

El 12 de febrero de 2018, el Departamento de Defensa, la Oficina del Subsecretario de Defensa, la Oficina de Jefes de Estado Mayor Conjunto, en el caso FOIA 18-F-0324, dio otra extraña "Sin respuesta de registros" a una solicitud que tenía múltiples partes.

Específicamente, solicité:

1) La carta de renuncia del Sr. Luis Elizondo, personal del Departamento de Defensa que desempeñó un papel en el Programa de identificación de amenazas de aviación avanzada.
2) Cualquier / todas las respuestas del Secretario de Defensa James Mattis, o cualquier otro funcionario del Departamento de Defensa al Sr. Elizondo con respecto a su renuncia.
3) Cualquier / todas las cartas, notas, recomendaciones, correos electrónicos, etc. enviados por el Sr. Elizondo, a cualquier funcionario del Departamento de Defensa, con respecto a la desclasificación o publicación pública de videos, según lo obtenido por el Programa de identificación de amenazas de aviación avanzada.
4) Cualquier / toda respuesta al Sr. Elizondo, y su esfuerzo por obtener videos o evidencia material en el Programa de Identificación de Amenazas de Aviación Avanzada publicado al público.

Aunque tengo una apelación abierta sobre lo anterior con el Departamento de Defensa, se observa que solo querían enviar mi solicitud a la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa. Sin embargo, debido al hecho de que el Sr. Elizondo declaró claramente que trabajaba dentro de OSD (no DIA), y el NY TIMES, entre muchos otros medios de comunicación, citó la carta de renuncia del Sr. Elizondo al Secretario de Defensa James Mattis, al menos esa parte de mi solicitud estaría en la oficina que acaba de dar la respuesta "sin registros".

(Cabe señalar que la adhesión de "cartas de renuncia" a través de la FOIA es impugnada. No está claro si una carta de renuncia sería accesible a través de la FOIA, o estaría exenta por ser una carta de "naturaleza personal" y posiblemente no considerada un registro de la agencia. Esto puede explicar la respuesta "sin registros", si OSD no considera la "carta de renuncia" del Sr. Elizondo como un documento de la agencia. Lo que no he podido abordar DEFINITIVAMENTE, ya sea por la jurisprudencia o la solicitud anterior de FOIA, es si o no, una agencia emitiría una respuesta de "no registros", aunque exista la carta de renuncia, pero no se considera un registro de la agencia, o emitiría un rechazo en los registros, reconociendo que están allí, pero exentos debido a la exención de FOIA (b) (6). He encontrado evidencia de esto último en respuesta a una solicitud de la FOIA para la supuesta "carta de renuncia" que el Fiscal General Jeff Sessions había redactado potencialmente. Si hubiera una carta de renuncia, el Departamento ent of Justice decidió que no confirmarían ni negarían que existiera, basándose en la exención de FOIA de "información de privacidad" (b) (6). Esta era la carta enviado al Huffington Post en el caso FOIA DOJ-2017-005525.)

[[Volver a la cima ]

La negación de la marina

La carta de denegación del Departamento de Marina de los registros relacionados con la comunicación o el suministro de información a las oficinas del programa AATIP (ya sea en la DIA o en la OSD).

Entró otra negación de los militares que contradice la historia y el testimonio que se está dando al público.

En una entrevista dada por el Sr. Elizondo, declara lo siguiente:

“AATIP recibe los casos de varios canales diferentes, por lo que donde nuestra oficina se encontraba en la parte superior de la oficina del secretario de defensa, teníamos múltiples vías de acercamiento, por lo que en algunos casos los informes surgirían a través de canales de la marina, en otros En algunos casos, llegaría a través de los canales de la fuerza aérea, en otros casos, llegaría a través de la comunidad de inteligencia, y como punto focal, si lo desea, para esta capacidad, supongo que todos los caminos conducen a Roma en este caso en particular. Todos los caminos llevaron a nuestra oficina con respecto a los fenómenos ".

Basado en este testimonio, presenté una solicitud de FOIA al Departamento de la Marina el 14 de marzo de 2018, que pedía lo siguiente:

1) Todas las fotografías / videos / informes / cartas / notas / etc. que fueron enviados por su agencia, a la Oficina del Secretario de Defensa (OSD) / el Subsecretario de Defensa de Inteligencia (USDI), o la Inteligencia de Defensa Agencia (DIA) en lo que respecta al "Programa de identificación avanzada de amenazas de aviación" o AATIP. También se conoce como el "Programa avanzado de identificación de amenazas aeroespaciales", también AATIP.

2) También le pido que incluya todos los procedimientos / métodos / instrucciones / manuales / directivas de informes, etc. que obligan al personal de su agencia a informar este tipo de informes bajo el programa AATIP. Según el Sr. Elizondo, había protocolos establecidos que, si se veían objetos no identificados, debían ser reportados a su oficina, como él indicó anteriormente. Por lo tanto, debe existir un procedimiento de informe, de algún tipo.

El testimonio literal también se incluyó en la solicitud de referencia de la FOIA.

La solicitud fue presentada y se le dio el número de caso FOIA DON-NAVY-2018-005476. En el curso de la tramitación de mi solicitud, la Marina buscó en el Comando del Sistema Aéreo Naval (NAVAIR), las Fuerzas Aéreas Navales del Pacífico (AIRPAC) y el Jefe de la Oficina de Operaciones Navales de Información Warfar (OPNAV N2 / N6) para obtener registros receptivos.

Todas las oficinas buscadas produjeron resultados CERO y me dieron otro Respuesta "sin registros" por una agencia clave mencionada por el Sr. Elizondo.

Aunque he apelado esta respuesta "sin registros" basada en el testimonio del Sr. Elizondo, esta es otra negación que no respalda las declaraciones públicas. Sin duda, si el Sr. Elizondo afirma que la Marina fue una de las pocas fuentes de información, existiría al menos un documento que muestre la transferencia / presentación de información (en forma de carta, memorando, video, foto, etc.) Sin embargo, la Marina no reclama ninguno.

Algo no parece correcto, y publicaré los resultados de las apelaciones y otras solicitudes de FOIA cuando estén disponibles.

[[Volver a la cima ]

La Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa (DIA)

Cabe señalar, además de lo anterior, que se dice que la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa (DIA) es la Oficina de Responsabilidad Primaria (OPR) para los documentos publicados en AATIP. Por lo tanto, desde el día 1 del anuncio de esto, he tenido múltiples solicitudes de FOIA abiertas a la agencia. Solicité, pero perdí, una solicitud para acelerar la solicitud. Aunque apelé la decisión, también la perdí. En enero de 2019, se lanzó el primer documento. Aquí hay algunos antecedentes:

En julio de 2018, el Sr. George Knapp lanzó un filtrado versión de los 38 informes creados bajo el Programa de identificación de amenazas de aviación aeroespacial (AATIP). Sobre esto, hubo varios informes, altamente científicos y técnicos, de varios autores, sobre fusión, propulsión avanzada, etc. El papel exacto que desempeñaron en el programa AATIP no está claro.

El 16 de enero de 2019, el DIA respondió a mi solicitud de FOIA para la carta enviada al Congreso (explicada con más detalle a continuación) con una lista de los informes creados bajo AATIP. Este fue mi lanzamiento, que me envió la DIA, con fecha del 16 de enero de 2019:

Existe cierta confusión sobre por qué las listas son diferentes. Se cree que posiblemente, la versión "filtrada" lanzada por el Sr. Knapp fueron informes creados bajo el "Programa de aplicación de sistemas avanzados de armas aeroespaciales" (AAWSAP) y el publicado oficialmente por el DIA es de AATIP. Sin embargo, en algunas declaraciones escritas del Pentágono, AAWSAP es el mismo AATIP. A menudo he planteado la idea de que AAWSAP era un proyecto general y AATIP era un subproyecto subyacente. Nada ha sido confirmado oficialmente sobre el estado exacto de eso.

[[Volver a la cima ]

Mis preocupaciones

Hay muchas cosas que realmente me preocupan sobre el descubrimiento de este programa, que creo que será necesario abordar en las próximas semanas y meses. Permítanme presentar mis inquietudes, pero agradezco y felicito a Tom Delonge, al equipo de la Academia de Artes y Ciencias To The Stars, al Sr. Elizondo, y a todos los demás involucrados por divulgar esta información. Mis inquietudes no son de naturaleza personal, y no deberían desviarme del trabajo que están haciendo. Pero, siento que esto debería abordarse.

  1. Los medios de comunicación, e incluso gran parte de la Comunidad OVNI, están representando mal esta historia como la "primera vez" que el gobierno ha llevado a cabo la Investigación OVNI desde el cierre del Proyecto Libro Azul en 1969. Esto, de hecho, no es cierto. Para aquellos que siguen a The Black Vault, lo harán durante más de una década, di una conferencia, hablé y describí un Manual de la Fuerza Aérea (esa misma agencia que ha negado el interés de los ovnis durante tanto tiempo) que habló específicamente sobre los procedimientos de notificación de ovnis. Cuando existen procedimientos para informar algo, probablemente sea seguro asumir que esos informes realmente van a algún lado y significan algo, por lo tanto, algún tipo de proyecto de Investigación OVNI estaba en marcha. Prueba: http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/air-force-instruction-10-206-vanishing-ufo-regulation/Notarás en la página anterior, que aunque hablé sobre esta publicación durante aproximadamente una década, e incluso la puse en algunos documentales de ovnis que produje en History Channel, fue eliminada misteriosamente cuando el Huffington Post iba a perfilarla. Una historia fascinante, pero prueba de que un programa de investigación de ovnis de algún tipo estaba en marcha, incluso antes de que el "Programa de amenaza aeroespacial DOD" supuestamente existiera, y existió mucho después. ¿Hubo sinergia entre los dos? Solo el tiempo lo dirá, pero esa es otra historia en sí misma. Dicho esto, este "nuevo" programa del que todos estamos escuchando suena mucho más grande que la evidencia manual de la Fuerza Aérea, pero un aspecto de por qué no creo que sea el comienzo de "divulgación" es el testimonio del propio Luis Elizondo. Dijo que nadie estaba "tomando la amenaza en serio", lo que jugó un papel en su renuncia y salida del Departamento de Defensa. Puedo respetar eso, pero ¿muestra que nadie más involucrado (un poco de suposición allí) vio algo digno de investigación? Sentiría que si esto realmente fuera una "divulgación", y el gobierno comenzara a aclararse, tendríamos mucha más evidencia, un enfoque más serio, y el gobierno se mantendría en silencio y dejaría que la información goteara. Sin embargo, por el contrario, respondieron a algunos medios de comunicación diciendo que sí, que existía, pero que no encontraron nada digno de dólares adicionales o tiempo / esfuerzo.
  2. Robert Bigelow recibió la tarea de albergar aleación y material recuperado? Según el artículo de NY TIMES:

    "Bajo la dirección del Sr. Bigelow, la compañía modificó edificios en Las Vegas para el almacenamiento de aleaciones de metal y otros materiales que el Sr. Elizondo y los contratistas del programa dijeron que habían sido recuperados de fenómenos aéreos no identificados. Los investigadores también estudiaron a personas que dijeron haber experimentado efectos físicos al encontrarse con los objetos y los examinaron en busca de cambios fisiológicos. Además, los investigadores hablaron con miembros del servicio militar que habían informado sobre avistamientos de aviones extraños ".

    Bueno, eso es simplemente intrigante, ¿verdad? Quiero decir, ¿aleaciones capturadas y material de UAP / UFO? Eso tiene que ser extraño, ¿verdad? Esto rivaliza con los escombros de Roswell que van al Hangar 18, ¿verdad? Probablemente no. He aquí por qué:

    ¿Por qué el gobierno confiaría en la "tecnología alienígena" (sé que estoy dando un salto suponiendo que eso es lo que puede estar oculto) a una entidad corporativa con el objetivo de obtener ganancias en la privatización de los viajes espaciales y la exploración espacial? Parece que es un secreto bastante grande para guardar, y aunque se confía en las corporaciones con muchos problemas de seguridad de alto nivel y las especificaciones de algunas de nuestras piezas de tecnología más avanzadas, creo que EE. UU. Puede mantener ese material un poco cerca su pecho

    Porque, si esto fuera una prueba, la pistola humeante o la "tecnología alienígena" que no podría ser refutada, ¿por qué Bigelow lo mantendría en secreto? Obviamente sabía / sabe que Elizondo se haría público, y cuando lo hizo, la gente comenzaría a hacer preguntas. Entonces, ¿por qué no se uniría y diría que esto es lo que tenemos (o esto es lo que NO tenemos)?

    Lo que es más probable es que el Sr. Bigelow haya podido hacer un trabajo "privatizado" y moderno. Proyecto Moon Dust, en el que estaba en el extremo receptor de posibles recuperados de tecnología china, rusa, iraní, etc. El Proyecto Moon Dust capturó escombros espaciales durante la carrera espacial, buscando respaldar la ingeniería de tecnología más avanzada y capturada de una entidad extranjera. Es posible, y probable, que esta sea simplemente una versión moderna de eso.

    Me parece que hay algo sospechoso o sospechoso en la raíz de esto, pero no puedo decidir cuál es la verdadera. Simplemente siento que con el interés personal de Bigelow y su fascinación por esto, y el hecho de que no tiene problemas para promocionar su creencia de que los extraterrestres pueden estar caminando entre nosotros, que si él supiera de aleaciones alienígenas o algo más allá del mundo, él mismo está viviendo. ? Me imagino que no sería un secreto guardado por mucho tiempo.

  3. El Programa avanzado de identificación de amenazas aeroespaciales probablemente no encontró nada, al menos, según el propio Sr. Elizondo. Creo que es maravilloso que el Sr. Elizondo haya publicado esta información, y respeto su contribución. Sin embargo, según su propio testimonio, creo que podemos determinar que el programa que dirigió no encontró nada. Aquí está la razón: no dio respuestas definitivas, aparte del fenómeno UAP (o UFO) es muy real. Bueno, todos lo sabíamos, pero ¿por qué? ¿Porque hay imágenes infrarrojas de la cámara de la pistola? Nosotros también lo sabíamos. ¿Porque el gobierno ve cosas que no puede identificar? Ok, eso también lo sabíamos. En la superficie, esto se ve y suena increíble. Pero al analizar lo que se nos dio, todavía nos faltan respuestas. El gobierno admitió que el programa secreto es real, eso suena innovador, pero también dijeron con el mismo aliento que lo cancelaron después de unos 5 años. Duró de 2007 a 2012. Aunque el NY Times dijo que los miembros del grupo aún continúan investigando los avistamientos, tenemos que asumir un par de cosas aquí. a) lo están haciendo "oficialmente", lo que puede ser un salto yb) esta afirmación es cierta, quiero decir, ¿cómo lo sabemos? Entonces, todo en lo que podemos confiar es en lo que se ha hablado oficialmente, y es que hubo un programa secreto que duró 5 años. Pero esa realidad me lleva a mi último punto.
  4. Tenía un presupuesto de $ 22 millones. De Verdad? $ 22 millones? Detente y piensa en lo pequeño que es un número. $ 22 millones divididos por 5 años (suponiendo que la longevidad sea cierta). Eso es $ 4.4 millones por año. Eso es $ 367,000 por mes. Eso es $ 91,750 por semana. Suena mucho, pero ¿según los estándares del gobierno de EE. UU.? Eso no es nada en absoluto. Cuando miras el proyecto en general, como lo indican los medios, la financiación fue encabezada por el senador Harry Reid, de Nevada. Como mencioné anteriormente, y según el NY TIMES, "la mayor parte del dinero" fue para Robert Bigelow de Bigelow Aerospace. ¿Sabes dónde reside el Sr. Bigelow? Lo has adivinado, Nevada, el estado natal del senador Harry Reid. Por curiosidad, busqué las donaciones del Sr. Bigelow para las campañas del senador Harry Reid. El monto en dólares se extiende a $ 10,000 y posiblemente más allá.

    Contribuciones de la campaña al Senador Harry Reid del Sr. Robert Bigelow, Bigelow Aerospace.

    Dado este hecho, ¿qué estamos viendo? El senador Harry Reid no me parece un aficionado a los ovnis, pero sí me parece alguien que ama a sus electores que donan mucho dinero. Creo que es una gran posibilidad que este proyecto, con la mayoría del dinero destinado al Sr. Bigelow en Nevada, encabezado por el senador Harry Reid, de Nevada, no sea más que carne de cerdo, y no esté motivado para mejorar la humanidad, obtener respuestas o descubrir la verdad.

[[Volver a la cima ]

Videos "desclasificados" lanzados

Los siguientes fueron los videos lanzados por To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science el 16 de diciembre de 2017, y publicados en gran parte por los medios. Según el Sr. Luis Elizondo, los videos se obtuvieron mediante la presentación de un DD Form 1910, SOLICITUD DE AUTORIZACIÓN DE PUBLICACIÓN PÚBLICA DE INFORMACIÓN DEL DEPARTAMENTO DE DEFENSA. Se cree que los documentos de la "Cadena de Custodia" a los que hace referencia la Academia To The Stars es el formulario DD 1910 presentado por el Sr. Elizondo. Sin embargo, por definición, esto no es un registro de "Cadena de Custodia", sino simplemente una prueba de desclasificación adecuada. Dicho esto, tengo solicitudes abiertas de FOIA para el Formulario DD 1910 real presentado para obtener los videos a continuación (¿y otros?)

Para hacer las cosas más confusas, ahora el ex miembro de la Academia de Artes y Ciencias To The Stars, el Dr. Garry Nolan, que anteriormente figuraba como Consultor de Tecnologías Genéticas, dijo lo siguiente sobre los videos publicados (según lo publicado por la Red de Noticias UFO en Facebook ):

‘El término LIBERACIÓN es donde todos están tropezando. Estos videos se obtuvieron de una presentación de la Ley de Libertad de Información. Fueron preparados internamente en el Departamento de Defensa a través de un proceso de investigación que les permitió ser liberados a través de FOI. No va a lograr que el Departamento de Defensa salga y "anuncie" que hay ovnis zumbando alrededor de nuestros grupos de portaaviones. No "liberaron" activamente. Permitieron pasivamente que ocurriera el proceso FOIA. Ahora, si hubo aquiescencia interna a esto que es un proceso activo "oculto" por personas distintas de Lue … probablemente nunca se sabrá. Pero deberíamos estar contentos de que terminó de la manera en que lo hizo (ya sea a través de ayuda activa, somnolencia burocrática pasiva o de otra manera). El anuncio / lanzamiento activo probablemente alteraría a cualquier Casa Blanca para ser eclipsada en un proceso que claramente debería ser un anuncio a nivel gubernamental. Lo que obtuviste fue gente interna en el Departamento de Defensa que decidió que valía la pena divulgar esta información, se aseguró de que el video se verificara adecuadamente para no divulgar datos "patentados" o capacidades militares de los EE. UU., Y luego se preparó para el eventual acceso de FOI. Luego se accedió a él.

Esto contradice lo que el Sr. Elizondo ha dicho y dijo cómo fueron liberados. Un formulario DD 1910 solicita la divulgación pública de información. Once that request is granted, it should not require (if Mr. Elizondo himself was attempting to take the information into the public domain) him to file an additional FOIA request to do so, that is, after a DD Form 1910 is processed and granted.

Let’s assume for a moment that Mr. Elizondo was forced to file a FOIA request after the videos were approved for release. If that’s the case, there is no evidence he did.

Under the FOIA, you can request a copy of FOIA Case Logs, which I have made an effort to archive. Since To The Stars released the first video in December, that means a FOIA request would’ve been filed in either 2017 or even 2016, if Mr. Elizondo filed well before his retirement/resignation.  So, these logs, which I have obtained from the Department of Defense / Office of the Secretary of Defense / Joint Staff, are available here: 2017 [146 Pages, 1.9MB] 2016 [275 Pages, 1.7MB]. Also cross referenced were the Defense Intelligence Agency FOIA Case Logs, available here: 2017 [87 Pages, 2.3MB] 2014-2016 [209 Pages, 52.7 MB]. And the Department of the Navy FOIA Case Logs, available here: CY 2017 [220 Pages, 9.5MB] (2016 is not yet available).

Let me preface the breakdown of this with the fact that in March of 2018, I filed a FOIA request for the DD Form 1910s, relating to these videos. I did so based on the fact that Mr. Elizondo stated to Mr. Knapp directly on Coast to Coast AM, that it was this process and those form(s) in which these videos were released by the DOD. That request, is still pending for me on an official level, but to see the DD Form 1910 as posted by Mr. Knapp; it was exciting. I did not have to wait for the FOIA request to go through, so who wouldn’t be excited?

However, and it is not fun to say, there are a lot of issues with the document above. These issues precisely reflect my disdain for “leaked” documents. Whether about UFOs or any government secret, you need to rely on blind faith that the document is genuine with absolutely no proof or source reference. This particular story makes no reference to a source for the DD Form 1910, and although does not specifically state it is a “leak”, the exact way it was obtained remains unknown and does not appear official.

Let me be clear – that does not mean that I am saying the document is a fake.  What I am saying, is it makes discrepancies a bit more blaring and problematic.  Regardless of procedural issues, this document surfacing may arguably do more harm than good for the credibility of Mr. Elizondo and TTSA.  Before you jump on me for saying that – let me back it up with verifiable sources and not leaked records.

First, it is important to understand what a DD Form 1910 even is. In short, according to the actual form itself,  it “is to be used in requesting review and clearance of DoD information proposed for public release in accordance with DoDD 5230.09.” In other words, civilian or military personnel within the DOD can request information for public release. Whether it be to post on the internet, appear in a book, or whatever it may be; a DD Form 1910 is the first step in getting the information released.  It then is sent to the Chief, Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR), also indicated on the form (.mil source reference link)

The review is then conducted, and various determinations can be made.  Obviously, this particular DD Form 1910 as published by KLAS-TV, has a “CLEARED for Open Publication” stamp on it.  That seems promising; but the form is not protocol as it stands.

What KLAS-TV did not publish was the reverse side of the DD Form 1910, which contains instructions on how the form is to be filled out. Here is a copy, as sourced to the .mil address above, of the reverse side of the form:

I invite you to read the entire page, but I want to focus on instructions for section 7. It states, in part:

7. RECOMMENDATION OF SUBMITTING OFFICE/ AGENCY. It is of paramount importance to components, as large and complex as those which comprise the Department of Defense, that coordinated and consistent security and policy determinations are made; therefore, Item 7 must be completed by an individual who is a government employee (civilian or military), and possesses the authority to communicate a particular component’s policies and recommendation. Contractors may not sign this form.

I highlighted in red, the most important part of the instruction. Yet, on the DD Form 1910 in question, it’s entirely blank. This section is for the requesting agency, in the case here Mr. Elizondo was with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to certify that the requested information is cleared by their department for release with no objections or concerns. In other words, not every DOD employee can start requesting releases by filing DD Form 1910s on their own. Their department must produce an authorized signature that gives the first step in the clearance process. It also allows DOPSR to have the knowledge upon review, that the requesting agency has already given their clearance authorization.  As stressed directly on DD Form 1910, this procedure is of “paramount importance” for coordinated and consistent security determinations.

Now, some may say this is nitpicking, and military forms are probably rarely filled out properly. So, to further prove the point that this is a bit abnormal, I present to you 18 different DD Form 1910s that I dug up. They are as early as 1989 and stretch all the way through December of 2018.

These are all sourced directly to various military and government (.mil and .gov) sources.  They include the following (in order of the above gallery):

Fuente: https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/oral_history/OH_Trans_LACEY%20Mary1-16-09.pdf?ver=2017-12-07-093146-747
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1039679.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a640445.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a603516.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a603749.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034560.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a575861.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1036036.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a215200.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608403.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a588078.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a300047.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a318780.pdf
Fuente: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1043438.pdf
Fuente: https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/OE/Concept%20of%20Operations%20for%20Military%20ECUs.pdf
Fuente: https://navysustainability.dodlive.mil/files/2017/03/USS-MONTEREY_SC_CompletePackage.pdf
Fuente: https://adlnet.gov/uploads/SF298%20Final%20Report%20SenSe.pdf
Fuente: https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/oral_history/OH_Trans_BUNNBradley9-12-08.pdf?ver=2017-12-07-093136-903

These 18 references are incredibly important when dissecting the new, leaked, DD Form 1910. The above 18 DD Form 1910s are 100% genuine, and were all accompanied by the document they aimed to release.  A few things you need to note about these documents that span 29 years.

  1. They all have a portion of section 7 filled out, either partially or entirely. I only found one example that did not have a name, but still had a portion of that section filled out.  I invite anyone to find a genuine DD Form 1910, accompanied by the record it aimed to release, with an entirely blank section 7. As a result, I will gladly update this section, with credit to you. That is not a challenge, but an invitation. I simply have been unable to find one.
  2. Most of the above examples, all had corresponding case numbers on the bottom (in some cases top) of the form. This allowed the specific requests to be properly tracked. It is fair to note not all had a case number, but it is another piece of information potentially missing from the leaked DD Form 1910.

It may seem like nitpicking, but off the bat, from a procedural standpoint, there are already concerns about the process not fully taking place, as mandated by the very form itself. It was reported that this process unfolded “by the book” — but we start to see signs that it was not.

To be incredibly clear here, based on the evidence I give above, Mr. Elizondo could also have authorized his own request (if it’s determined he fits the outlined prerequisites), and en haste, or carelessness, or whatever, left section 7 blank. However, authorizing your own form, although happens, the guidelines are still followed.  Out of the evidence above, here are two examples that show a situation when the requester authorized their own form, and they still are required to fill out section 7:

And here are two situations where they were different, and section 7 is signed by an authorized person:

Let’s move away from the formalities of DD Form 1910s. Let’s just assume for a moment, these are all coincidences and nothing to note. Fine — so now the assumption is, the DD Form 1910 was filed, and the material was approved for release, and the entire process was “by the book” and the document is genuine and videos are released in an authentic form.  So we will move forward with that scenario.  However, this now paves the way for a whole new set of problems.

Let’s start from the top. If Mr. Elizondo was part of an ongoing effort to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena as he has stated, and the effort was not cancelled in 2012 as the Government stated, than his filing of the DD Form 1910 was during the time he was investigating the phenomena.  Mr. Elizondo said the Pentagon did not take Unidentified Aerial Phenomena seriously, so this led to Mr. Elizondo’s resignation in October of the same year he secured the release of the videos.  What is strange is that KLAS-TV decided to redact Mr. Elizondo’s name – since it was Mr. Elizondo who has been credited since day one for securing the release of the videos, ie: he filed the DD Form 1910.  In addition, Mr. Elizondo outlined the entire process he undertook, in his February 25, 2018, interview with Mr. George Knapp on Coast to Coast AM. This interview is what motivated me to file a FOIA request, specifically for these document(s). So, why is this redacted since it’s already long established public knowledge?

Moving on from that oddity; in section 1, item d, Mr. Elizondo (based on reporting, I will move forward he is the name redacted that filed this document), told DOPSR that the subject matter of the three videos (referenced in item b) were, “UAV, Balloons and other UAS.”  UAV, to the DOD, means “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” or better known as a drone.  Balloons are just that, but a really bizarre way to describe these videos of “unidentified aerial phenomena.” And lastly UAS, to the DOD, means Unmanned Aircraft System. (Source: DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms)

Why would these descriptions be falsely attributed to the videos, as submitted to DOPSR, when according to Mr. Elizondo, his conclusions based on the program he was heading, said they were “unidentified?” Therefore, it’s misleading as they can not be UAVs, UASs or balloons. Did he fabricate this line just to get the form pushed through?  Although I do not make the accusation that getting these videos out was under false pretense, others have, like the Washington Post, which Mr. Elizondo decided to address. In his interview with Open Minds for the UFO Congress, Mr. Elizondo said:

“No, there was no trick and there was no false pretense. The videos were released in accordance with the strict manner that DOD prescribes to DOD manuals and regulations involving the release of information. It went through the official DOPSR process and then furthermore an additional step was taken to have the videos reviewed by foreign disclosure representatives. In fact, the most senior foreign disclosure representatives in the department, and ultimately required OCA or original classification authority approval and review to release the video. So in essence, I didn’t release anything, the department of defense released those videos. The documentation is held by the department of defense and the justification for releasing those videos were exactly as stated, and that was to create an unclassified database that people could then access and help us identify the signatures we were seeing.”

He clearly says there was no false pretense, except he led DOPSR to believe that the videos were identified craft, including military drones (UAVs or UASs) or even insinuated they were just balloon[s]. None of that coincides with his conclusion as the head of the AATIP program, nor does it align with what he has led the public to believe.

That leads us to section 3, as filled out presumably by Mr. Elizondo. Section 3 of a DD Form 1910, is a description of why the person is requesting the information to be released. This clues DOPSR into the reasoning and the future use of the material, in order to make the best, and most informed, decision about a release. Mr. Elizondo stated:

“Not applicable. Not for publication. Research and analysis ONLY and info sharing with other USG [U.S. Government] and industry partners for the purposes of developing a database to help identify, analyze and ultimately defeat UAS threats.”

So, in a nutshell, Mr. Elizondo said these videos were for research and analysis ONLY (with emphasis and CAPS on ONLY), and they would only be used by the U.S. Government and their partners, which I take, would mean contractors.  The database portion partially lined up with Mr. Elizondo’s statement to Open Minds (even though he didn’t say it would be for government or contractor use), however, the rest does not line up all. In the end, once the videos were “released by the Pentagon” if that scenario is true, Mr. Elizondo did not put them to use by the U.S. Government and their partners; but rather, he resigned from the agency. only about 6 weeks after DOPSR gave their approval for use based on what Mr. Elizondo said they would be used for. After resignation, he then utilized them in a for-profit venture he is now involved in, known as To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science. There is no database (yet) even though it has been teased by this corporation, but rather, they watermarked the videos as their own, and have largely touted said videos to garner attention for their corporation, a non-government entity, to invite investments into their venture.

I ask you to again reference the 18 real, DD Form 1910s I offer above. In nearly every case, they offer detailed descriptions on what the use of the information being requested will be for. In many cases, they also specifically make mention of records intended for various websites.  These 18 DD Form 1910s serve as example after example, of detailed (and accurate) descriptions on what the use is, in order to best inform DOPSR, so they can make an informed determination.

The above is all documented, and can not be disputed. It uses the words of Mr. Elizondo, and the words directly from his filing of a DD Form 1910. By the wording of the document, he led DOPSR to believe it was for internal use, and never stated he would use them to benefit from, in the private sector. Therefore, if we read this in plain English, the Pentagon did not release the videos to the public. They cleared them for “Open Publication” for use in a database used by the U.S. Government and its contractors.

I will let you decide, on whether or not that all constitutes “false pretense” and if in the end, you feel the Pentagon released this to the public. But what Mr. Elizondo did with those videos, vs. what the DD Form 1910 stated he was going to do with them, are two wildly different scenarios.

In conclusion, I personally feel there is an issue with the current state of the leaked DD Form 1910 from a procedural standpoint. More so than that, I feel there are huge discrepancies regarding what is on this form (if proven genuine) and what we have been led to believe.  I feel there is something to be said for how Mr. Elizondo phrased the wording on the “subject” of the GoFast, Gimble and FLIR video, calling them UAVs, balloons and UASs.  I also feel strongly, based on the information within DD Instruction 5230.09, DD Instruction 5230.29, and the specific instructions on DD Form 1910 itself, there is enough evidence given the 18 verified examples above, to call into question if the DOPSR process truly took place “by the book.”  DOPSR was given erroneous information, and false descriptions on what they were reviewing. There is no way around that, based on this form, that has been reported on.

If we see a blatant disregard for the truth by Mr. Elizondo on display with this DD Form 1910, as the “subject” along with the “presentation/publication data” sections of Form 1910 are clearly not accurate — how can we believe everything or anything else from the same source?


“The GIMBAL Video”

According to the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science:

GIMBAL is the first of three US military videos of unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) that has been through the official declassification review process of the United States government and has been approved for public release. This footage, and all official USG footage you will see on TTS Academy’s Community of Interest (COI), comes with essential chain-of-custody documentation validating that it is received in its original and unaltered form and is authentic. The US Department of Defense uses this process in order to meticulously ensure that information and material retain their integrity without revealing sources and methods. This documentation is what sets this footage apart from anything else that has previously made its way to the public domain, by establishing its authenticity and thereby giving it enormous historical significance.

While that fact alone is of historical significance, what this 34 seconds of video provides is remarkable. Several key observations are contained in this one video that may help us collectively better understand the physics and technology being employed. In addition, we hear US fighter pilots struggling to determine the nature of object. Key findings include:

• Low observability in both electro-optical and electromagnetic spectrums.

• No distinguishable flight surfaces.

• Lack of obvious propulsion system.

• Never-before-seen flight capabilities.

• Possible energy or resonance field of unknown nature.

The filename “GIMBAL” seems to be traceable to the unusual maneuvering of the UAP.

[[Back to the Top ]


The NIMITZ Video

According to the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science:

GO FAST is an authentic DoD video that captures the high-speed flight of an unidentified aircraft at low altitude by a F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIR forward-looking infrared system. While TTSA was the first to obtain a copy, it should be available to any member of the press or public via the Freedom of Information Act.

This video, GO FAST, was captured by a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet using the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pod.  This sensor has two imaging modes – mid-wave infrared and visual.  It has high resolution and can locate and designate targets at distances exceeding 40 nm.  The video imagery represents the image displayed in the cockpit to the pilot and Weapon Systems Operators (WSO).  Major features of the display are shown in Figure 1.

The date, location, and other information has been removed by the originating authority as part of the release approval process.

GO FAST was selected for release, like GIMBAL and FLIR1, after review by multiple government organizations.  The object in this video remains unidentified.

Based on the above information, I did request numerous documents and videos from various government agencies.  I will be updating this case file as the investigation progresses.

[[Back to the Top ]

The OFFICIAL Line

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Office of Public Affairs

Since nearly day one, a debate has raged on what the name of the “Pentagon’s Secret UFO Study” as touted by the media, really was. There was, for quite some time, a discrepancy on whether it was “Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program” or “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.”  Since the media reported the name both ways, it was a standing debate. To some, this was a frustrating question to ask, but it was one that needed to be answered. As you will see below, a Major from the Pentagon was confirming it was “Aviation”, however on February 12, 2019, I got confirmation from the DIA it was, in fact, “Aerospace.”

This will cause some, who were frustrated at the question being asked, to feel vindicated. However, as one question becomes answered, many more arise. It is with this reason alone, that research is key, and questions are crucial to understanding the bigger picture. Blind allegiance to one source of information is the absolute recipe for major let-downs and disaster. I stand by asking that question and pushing for answers, because in the process of doing so, more information comes to light.

Research is sometimes slow and boring. But I ask questions until they are adequately answered. After more than two decades of researching government secrets — I feel that is the only way to do it. That – and I trust no one.

On February 12, 2019, the DIA Public Affairs Office answered multiple questions that I had for clarification, but in the process, brought up some new ones.

  • It is now confirmed by the DIA, that the name was, in fact, “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.”
  • It is now confirmed by the DIA, that Bigelow Aerospace was the ONLY bidder for the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP) contract, which later became (or is the same) as AATIP. I clarified this statement to ensure I was accurate in reporting this, and the DIA confirmed my follow-up that Bigelow Aerospace was the sole bidder for this contract.
  • The DIA was also not aware of any report or study produced, outside the 38 reports listed in the “Attachments” section of the letter to Senator’s John McCain and Jack Reed.  This contradicts multiple statements that there is a 490 page study produced about UFOs.
  • It was determined that the approximate 5 year study known as AATIP, was going to be cancelled (or moved out of DIA) about 2 years after it started. In other words, not even half way through it, the DIA was giving up on it.
  • I asked if there was any knowledge that the DIA had, if it was moved. They said they had no information after it was ended in 2012 at DIA.
  • When asked about UFOs specifically, the answer was about aerial threats and projecting ahead 40 years on what those threats could be. That part is not new, however, it appears the DIA is standing strong that was not a UFO research program, or at least, will not address it.

See below for the questions I originally asked the DIA. Please note – I am in the process of doing a television series (as of February 2019), where I am being asked about AATIP. In regards to question #1 below – I said that question was the “most important.” For well over a year, I have always said the name discrepancy is NOT the most important issue, so that may be confusing to some. However, I said this was the most important question in this e-mail, due to the fact it was about accuracy in talking about AATIP for the television series. I knew I would not get all the answers I wanted, but I wanted to make sure when referencing AATIP, I did so accurately with the name itself. Plus, it would settle the long standing debate. I am sure some will attack me on that, but wanted to clarify that is not the most important in the overall skepticism about what AATIP was about, but rather, was the most important framing it around a television interview for accuracy.

The Pentagon

I spoke to the Public Affairs office at the Pentagon many times over the telephone in late December 2017 through the first six months of 2018, specifically with Major Audricia Harris, official spokesperson for the Department of Defense.  I asked for her releasable facts on AATIP to be sent in writing, that way I had a firm confirmation from their side on what the program was (and was not).

Below, you will find the official e-signed response from Major Harris (Please note: I decided to redact the identifying contact information for Major Harris.  Regardless of it being public domain, I did so to stop her from getting flooded with UFO type requests.  She was kind enough to respond to me, as I am also working on a television show concept that deals with this, and therefore my work in television [History Channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, etc.] does put me in a “member of the news media” category. Her email address is not for general public use, so I opted to withhold it here.):

In the above letter, she confirms:

  1. The program was cancelled in 2012.
  2. The DOD did NOT release the videos below, as said they did by the To the Stars Academy.
  3. Funding for AATIP was from a July 2008 Supplementation Appropriations Bill.  This contradicts it was a “black budget” program funded by “black money” as touted by many news articles, including the heading of the original NY Times article (“Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program”)

These are discrepancies that need to be addressed, by the media, TTSA and maybe even the Pentagon itself if the first two stand strong behind their statements.

In addition to the above, on April 10th I did share another e-mail exchange with Major Harris.  I chose a few questions which I felt were the most pressing that her side may be able to address.  You will find the letter exchange below.  Again, I opted to remove direct contact information to Major Harris, for obvious reasons. In the text version, I put my questions in blue.  For Major Harris’ responses, I left them black/bold.  The screen shot is also available.

Screen shot of the letter exchange between Major Harris and myself. My questions are highlighted in blue, while Major Harris’ responses are highlighted in yellow (just click on the image for a larger version) or I offered the text to the left for easier reading (and search engine capability).

John,

My responses are below:

1) In regards to its mandate that you mention, as outlined in a 2009 letter from Reid to DSD, is this letter/document public? Is there a way to get a copy of this, or would it needed to be obtained under the FOIA?

I do not have a copy of this letter in my possession.

2) There is one man who used to head the program, Mr. Luis Elizondo, who is speaking en público and received quite a bit of press.  His exact story varies with various news articles, but in short, he claims the program is still ongoing and using funds from other projects.  My concern over this claim, is that it doesn’t quite sound right that there was money taken from line items for one budget, and slid over to continue AATIP.  Do you have any response to his claim that AATIP continues?  (Please note: I understand you already stated it was cancelled, I just had a concern that he continues his claim that it continued well after 2012.)

The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program ended in 2012. It was determined that there were other, higher priority issues that merited funding and it was in the best interest of the DoD to make a change.

3) Mr. Elizondo, and a “public benefit” corporation he is now tied to (trying to raise $50,000,000 to do various projects), has released three videos claiming they were “declassified by the U.S. Government” but I note your statement the “DoD has not released videos related to this program.”

It is assumed that it was either OSD or DIA (possibly NAVY?) that released the videos, but I take from your statement, that would not be true?

According to Mr. Elizondo, he filed a DD Form 1910 for the videos to be released, but will not produce any evidence to prove his claim.  Does this seem accurate to you?  Any information you could give on this, even if you think they are not genuine, would be very helpful.

DD Form 1910 is the form used in requesting review and clearance of DOD information proposed for public release. The Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review(DOPSR) is responsible for managing the Department of Defense security review program, reviewing written materials both for public and controlled release. This includes official government and defense industry work products, as well as materials submitted by cleared or formerly cleared individuals pursuant to their voluntary non-disclosure agreement obligations. DOPSR also coordinates official work products with Defense enterprise stakeholders to ensure that information being released is both accurate and represents the Department’s official position. This organization conducts a security review of products proposed for release – it does not approve the release of DOD information.

4) There was initially a lot of talk in many media outlets about “metal alloys” discovered and sent to Bigelow Aerospace for investigation, but I am getting the feeling the magnitude of this part of the original NY TIMES story has been walked back. This is where most of the rumors preside, as you could imagine. Is there any light that you can shed on the “metals” involved with the AATIP program?

I have no information on this at this time.

5) Last question — which loosely ties to the above. Some media outlets and online blogs are writing the idea that all of AATIP’s material, documents, research etc. was contracted out to Bigelow Aerospace and therefore hiding the entire program from the use of FOIA.  Personally, this also doesn’t seem right to me, since it sounds like Mr. Elizondo led the program through OSD, and had nothing to do with Bigelow. Can you comment on Bigelow Aerospace’s involvement, and was it primarily done at Bigelow? Partially? They had a small involvement?  In short, I am trying to put that controversy to bed, but would appreciate any official address to these points.

I have no information on this at this time. Have you reached out to Bigelow Aerospace?

Sincerely,

Maj. Harris
direct: XXX-XXX-XXXX
mobile: XXX-XXX-XXXX

A few notes here on this exchange.  Although the narrative continues that AATIP ended in 2012, of course, there is a possibility (albeit a small one) that the objectives of AATIP continued under a different name.  Her exact words were, “The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program ended in 2012. It was determined that there were other, higher priority issues that merited funding and it was in the best interest of the DoD to make a change.”  One could argue this is safely worded that AATIP as a name was ended, but another name with the same objective began.  To me, this is very unlikely. The program was not announced until the end of 2017, in fact, there was never even a rumor or a “leak” about it… ever.  So the likelihood they felt the need to make such a change to cover-up AATIP’s existence, 5 years before it was known to the public, seems rather unlikely, but always possible.

Second, Major Harris offers additional details about DD Form 1910s and the DOPSR process. Regardless of Mr. Elizondo filing DD Form 1910s to get these videos “reviewed” or not — to the Pentagon — it’s irrelevant.  The only thing that matters, in this instance, is that the DOD never released the videos.  According to Mr. Elizondo and TTSA — the DOD released these videos.  Both can not be right, so someone is not being truthful.

Third, she recommended reaching out to Bigelow Aerospace, which I have already done.  I tried via telephone, where I was stonewalled and told to email specific questions to the PR personnel. I did that, however, have yet to receive any response whatsoever.

I appreciate her time that she spent answering the above, and as I receive more information that adds to the story, I will post it here.  I think it’s important to point out, the Pentagon has taken quite a bit of time as evidenced above with me — TTSA has yet to offer a single answer to any of my questions.

[[Back to the Top ]

George Knapp Story About “Tic Tac UFO Analysis” Document

On May 18, 2018, investigative journalist George Knapp of CBS Channel 8, Las Vegas, broke a story about a document said to detail the Tic Tac UFO sighting (the same “Tic Tac” video released by TTSA above) and analyzed the importance of the encounter.

De acuerdo a Mr. Knapp’s story, it states:

Since the Pentagon’s release of three UFO videos, armchair experts have speculated that maybe the objects are birds or balloons or something mundane.

But now, the I-Team has obtained an in-depth report prepared by and for the military, and it analyzes the so-called Tic Tac UFO using the most sophisticated sensor systems in the world.

Over a two-week period in late 2004, an unknown, 45-foot long Tic Tac shaped object played cat and mouse with the U.S. Navy off the coast of California. The mighty U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier, and its support ships including the U.S.S. Princeton, carrying the most sophisticated sensor systems in the world, repeatedly detected recurring glimpses of the Tic Tac but were unable to lock on.

… SNIP …

But in the months since the release, the Pentagon has clammed up. It has declined to release official documents about the Nimitz Tic Tac encounter, or similar incidents.

… SNIP …

Pilots reported a large disturbance just under the surface of the ocean, round and 100 yards across. It appeared as if the Tic Tac was rendezvousing with the underwater object.

Among the key findings in the report — the AAV is not something that belongs to the U.S. or any other nation. It was so advanced, it rendered U.S. capabilities ineffective. It showed velocities far greater than anything known to exist, and it could turn itself invisible, both to radar and the human eye. Essentially, it was undetectable, and unchallenged.

… SNIP …

The report including statements from seven F-18 pilots as well as radar operators on the ships. Despite the seriousness of the encounter, the pilots faced ridicule after their encounters. The Navy’s initial report was buried, not forwarded to command. It was decided the AAV was not a threat.

Five years later, a more comprehensive assessment was compiled but was never made public and has been seen by few, even inside the Pentagon.

Former intelligence official Chris Mellon opined in the Washington Post that the Pentagon’s unwillingness to discuss these encounters or share information with other military branches is a threat to national security, comparable to when the CIA and FBI failed to share information prior to 9/11

The analysis report is not dated and has no logo, but four separate people who are familiar with its contents confirmed to the I-Team it is the real deal and was written as part of a Pentagon program.

I have used only portions of the article that I feel are relevant here. I invite you all to click on the link above to see the entire breakdown of Mr. Knapp’s story.

The document that was obtained, and released by Mr. Knapp / I-Team, is here:

I would like to point out, before I critique this story, that Mr. George Knapp is a personal friend of mine, and someone I respect highly.  My analysis on this document is based on my opinion, and I in no way want to insinuate Mr. Knapp has falsified the document or is misleading the public with this story. Rather, I offer my critique in hopes to bring some insight into understanding what this may, or may not, ultimately be.  Mr. Knapp should be commended for his long standing reputation in reporting about the UFO phenomenon, and my critique here is solely based on my opinion about this particular document.

Now, that being said, there are some issues with the above story that need to be pointed out.   First and foremost, the document itself does not, in any way, resemble a report prepared by the Pentagon or any branch of the U.S. Military.  Although there are many types of report and briefing formats, and they vary from agency to agency, there are still common characteristics that you will find in documents such as this.

The most obvious, to me, is a lack of any classification stamp or  header/footer. It is noted in Mr. Knapp’s story the document was “unclassified” — however, most “unclassified” documents still contain the identifying marks to stipulate the classification level of the document. (EXAMPLE #1 El | EXAMPLE #2) Of course, there are exceptions and mistakes, but this is a sign it was probably not prepared by the Pentagon, or it would contain such a classification level stamp or mark.

Second, there are no headers, contracts numbers or any cover page. Most, if not all, reports of this nature contain a cover page identifying what the information in the report is, what it refers to, what contract it pertains to, etc. (EXAMPLE #1 El | EXAMPLE #2) In these examples cited here, from different time frames and agencies, they both have cover pages and reference pages about what the reports are about. This is another indication this document in question, is not official.

Third, the names are blacked out with the exception of Commander David Fravor.  At first, I noted this as being suspicious, but later got clarification that Mr. Knapp was the one who did the redaction, based on a tweeted comment he posted on Twitter.  Although that explains the discrepancy, it does bring up another fact, and that is, nothing about the document’s release is close to being “official” or “by the book.”  Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), when documents such as these are released, ALL names are redacted/blacked out. This is due to FOIA exemption (b)(6) which stipulates that for privacy reasons, names (and other personally identifiable information) are redacted to ensure their identities remain private. Whomever gave this document to Mr. Knapp, obviously did not care to conceal identities of those mentioned, and I think Mr. Knapp deserves credit for taking the step to ensure these names remain outside the public domain (except Commander Fravor who has gone public). I will note, Mr. Knapp never claimed this was obtained under a FOIA release. However, I note this FOIA exemption because this is a standard rule/practice when agencies release documents, they will follow the same policies and procedures when they proactively release information to the public, but not under the FOIA.  These facts support the document was a “leak” rather than a “release.”

But the same red flags that I have noted above about the exact provenance of the videos released by TTSA, are displayed here. Was this document really written/prepared BY the Pentagon as this news article states? If so, then the circumvention of the review process to get a document in the public domain was skipped, and we are seeing a record that may not be officially in the public domain (yet). In today’s world we live in, it’s news cycle after news cycle of “leak” after “leak” — drip after drip.  The question on whether or not this is a healthy news environment I will leave for a different discussion, but this does make us question who gave it to Mr. Knapp, and if it was prepared by the Pentagon, will there be repercussion for this type of record to be “leaked” to a journalist (regardless of it being “unclassified”)?

Further to this point, I feel with the red flags above, along with the fact that we may not see any repercussions as time goes on, there is a large possibility this was not prepared BY the Pentagon, but rather, was sent TO the Pentagon. We can probably assume by a contractor, like BAASS, which is connected to the AATIP program.   This is supported by the style of the report itself, and the footnotes used on the bottom of the record. It’s fairly rare to see non-government sources, especially Wikipedia, which is used quite often as a source. But what is rather even more strange, is AATIP, “Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program” (or even the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program”), or the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (see below) etc.  are not named in the report, AT ALL.  The report lacks any “objective” to why it was written (ie: it does not stipulate any information as I noted above) or stipulates on whether it was a “quarterly report” or a “weekly report” or a “significant case study” or anything.  It just seems like it was cobbled together, which also, is highly suspicious that it is anything of an “official” nature.

Away from analyzing the record itself, the backstory to it raises some questions that need to be addressed. The CBS 8 / I-Team’s story states it is a “Confidential Report” in the title of the news release yet the body of the story itself says that it is “Unclassified”.  This may be semantics, but since “Confidential” is an actual classification level, it can not be “Confidential” and “Unclassified” so either this was just for some flair to the title of the article, or the record itself was “Confidential” but was declassified to a “Unclassified” level. If this is the case, declassified by whom? Safe to assume the latter is probably not the answer here, but it should be noted.

Also, the article states, “But in the months since the release, the Pentagon has clammed up. It has declined to release official documents about the Nimitz Tic Tac encounter, or similar incidents.” This is actually inaccurate. If documents related to the Nimitz encounter were created under AATIP (which it sounds like they were/are), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is the Office of Primary Responsibility or OPR for declassifying the records. The DIA has not declined one request on these records for AATIP or anything related. Rather, they are so behind with processing their FOIA Case backlog, it may take literally years for records to be released.  That isn’t fun, exciting or helps us here, but that is the reality of it, and it is a reality I have dealt with for many years. Now, some in the UFO Community for quite some time have insinuated this is a cover-up denial by the government to release information, and that is not accurate. Sadly, that often touted belief in online articles and blogs is echoed in this article here, and it should be noted that is not accurate.

In closing, the document itself comes up with intriguing and interesting conclusions. The question, is intriguing and interesting conclusions by whom? Who was the author? What was the context of the document? Why was it written? When was it written? Who was it written for?

The social media / Facebook post by Investigative Journalist Leslie Kean. She confirms in her post, that the document in question was a BAASS record, and not one prepared by the Pentagon. See notes to the right regarding why this is odd.

Although some of this is addressed and confirmed by anonymous sources in the article, sadly to the investigation of this program, we can not consider it gospel until additional records turn up and official documents are further released. We need to do better than “anonymous” or unnamed sources, and especially with documents which appear to be leaked, or non-government records.

To make matters a bit more confusing, investigative journalist Leslie Kean (one of the authors of the original NY TIMES article that broke the AATIP story) sent out a post on Facebook on May 19, 2018, the day after Mr. Knapp’s news story was published, and she stated she had this record back in 2017, and she said that it was from BAASS.

This contradicts the story, because BAASS is not the Pentagon, and if they did prepare it on an official basis/submission as part of their contract, then private contracted reports/analyses follow the same guidelines (like a classification statement/stamp/header/footer) as I noted above.

I’ll use a report by Dr. Eric Davis to prove that point: http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/advanced-propulsion-study-air-force-research-laboratory-september-2004-dr-eric-w-davis/

This was a private contracted report back in 2004, paid for by US Tax Dollars.  You’ll see what I mean with the cover page and in this case, a “Distribution Statement” showing the document was UNCLASSIFIED and approved for public release.  This, and many other examples, show what official records/reports look like, even from a private contractor having not been prepared by the Pentagon itself.

UPDATE May 23, 2018

When the above document was published, I went to my contact at the Pentagon, Major Audricia Harris, official spokesperson for the DoD.  On May 23, 2018, she gave this short response to my inquiry, asking for comment on the document, it’s origin and whether or not it was a real/official record, or rather, something else.  Her response:

Official response by Major Audricia Harris, when asked to confirm the document, and comment on it. As with other instances, I have decided to remove her identifying information, to ensure she does not receive an onslaught of messages pertaining to this.

[[Back to the Top ]

Congressional Record Documents Cites AATIP

In mid August of 2018, the blog, “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena – scientific research” published an article of a discovery that references the, “Advanced Aerospace Threat and Identification Program.” It came from the April 9, 2018, Congressional Record, and reads as the following:

“4381. A letter from the Chief, Congressional Relations Division, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, transmitting a list of all products produced under the Advanced Aerospace Threat and identification Program contract for the Defense Intelligence Agency to publish; to the Committee on Armed Services.”

Credit is given to Roger Glassel from Sweden; Curt Collins from the USA; Paul Dean from Melbourne, Australia, and Keith Basterfield from Adelaide, South Australia for the find.

At this point, there is no indication of what hearing (if any) this is referring to.  This also introduces another variation of the name (adding in an “and” to the name and using the “Aerospace” variation.)  At the time of writing this addition to this page, there is not much we can deduce from this.

In July of 2018, Mr. George Knapp released a filtrado version of the 38 reports created under The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). On this, were various, highly scientific and technical reports, by various authors, regarding fusion, advanced propulsion etc. The exact role they played in the AATIP program, is unclear.

On January 16, 2019, Mr. Nick Pope, formerly of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) who ran the “UFO Desk” there, received a similar list of reports, but from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)’s Office of Corporate Communications. At the same time, multiple FOIA requesters, including myself, were sent via postal mail, responses to various requests of the same.

This was my release, sent to me by the DIA, dated January 16, 2019:

[[Back to the Top ]

The Black Vault Responds to FAQs

Comment: You won’t find anything. It’s all classified “Top Secret”

The Black Vault’s Answer:

This one is fairly easy to address, and we have two things supporting the fact this is NOT true.

1) Mr. Elizondo is talking about the program. Any program that is fully/entirely classified will in most cases, be off limits where you can go on major media outlets and start discussing it.  A prime example of this, would be the programs that were revealed with the Snowden leaks. Those are entirely classified programs with “Top Secret” designations, and they were completely shielded from public disclosure, until, of course, the leaks.  If the AATIP program was classified to this degree, Mr. Elizondo would never be able to violate a security oath, as a former head of the program, then start preaching about the inner-workings of AATIP and ignoring his oath.

2) The DOD openly admits the program was real. I know that first hand, because I spoke with them multiple times on the telephone, and they informed me as such. I never once have said, or published, that AATIP was fake.  In addition, beyond my word for it, I believe the same public affairs office and personnel spoke with WIRED Magazine and CNET offering quotes (along with some of their own reservations) about AATIP.  So, we can put to bed it’s just “all classified” and we won’t get anywhere with the FOIA.

[[Back to the Top ]

Comment: You won’t find anything. The U.S. Military hid it all within Bigelow Aerospace to circumvent the FOIA.

The Black Vault’s Answer:

This is a common statement in regards to Bigelow Aerospace and AATIP, but I just don’t believe this would be accurate. And here is why:

Mr. Elizondo was not contracted by Bigelow Aerospace, but rather, by OSD. Therefore, any information from his e-mail, to his reports, to his documents, to his whatever, is FOIAable.

Mr. Elizondo has also spoken about the sources of his reports being from multiple DOD components, not the private sector. Also, all FOIAable because those records were generated under certain criteria and guidelines.

In regards to Bigelow’s contract with OSD (or DIA?) in regards to their alloy housing etc. of course, Bigelow is going to have documents generated within, which are not FOIAable. And that may seem like a conspiracy/cover-up, but I don’t believe it is.  With a contract like this, the majority of the work will be in the form of quarterly reports, yearly reports, inventories, document transmittals, etc. etc. etc. which are all subject to FOIA. There is no way around that. Are internal emails from one Bigelow employee to another subject to FOIA? Of course not, but they have to turn information over, and once we can see the contract itself (which I am going after) we will see exactly what they had to turn over, or generate, or create, or bake, or sculpt, or color, or whatever. Then, a new slew of FOIA requests will commence.

For those with doubts of what I am saying, here is a prime example, and it loosely ties into this.

Dr. Eric W. Davis (who is tied to TTSA, Hal Puthoff and was on Coast to Coast AM in the beginning of 2018 talking about AATIP) was given money many years ago through contract F04611-99-C-0025. It appears that contract sent money to multiple different private corporations to do research on various types of projects. This will bring up different reports made under that contract: https://www.google.com/search?q=F04611-99-C-0025&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS754US754&oq=F04611-99-C-0025 as proof of what I am saying.

Dr. Davis’ portion of the money went towards the subject of Advanced Propulsion. His report, although public domain and now available online, can be obtained under FOIA from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). I received it and archived it here: http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/advanced-propulsion-study-air-force-research-laboratory-september-2004-dr-eric-w-davis/

Warp Drive Metrics, as listed on the report, I believe is simply Dr. Davis’ own company. I haven’t dug too deep, so I could be wrong, but it’s private / non government, and yet here is proof the information contracted is all subject to FOIA in the form of a final report. Did Dr. Davis send out emails regarding his research? I’m sure. Can I get those under FOIA? No. But clearly, the money that very American paid which financed this all by taxpayer money; that information is FOIAable in the form of his final report.

Here is another example, wherein this contract gave him money to finance research on laser light propulsion: http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/review-of-laser-lightcraft-propulsion-system-october-16-2017-by-dr-eric-w-davis/

And another on teleportation physics: http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/teleportation-physics-study-air-force-research-laboratory-august-2004-dr-eric-w-davis/

I believe that we get into conspiracy fantasy land if we think that proof of aliens / AATIP material / alien alloys etc. etc. are all hidden within a bunker deep inside Bigelow Aerospace and it’s planted there to circumvent FOIA and we chance giving alien/secret technology to a private corporation just so we can dodge people like me filing FOIAs.

Or………

Occam’s Razor dictates that documents are there for us to find under FOIA, and it’s just going to take time to get them, but we will likely find out that the MAGNITUDE of the AATIP program, is not what we are being led to believe.

[[Back to the Top ]

Comment: Around the end of April 2018, researchers brought forth the name AATIP was wrong, and it was actually the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP). That is why the AATIP FOIA requests brought up nothing.

The Black Vault’s Answer:

There is a lot wrong with this statement.  Here is why: First and foremost, many are talking about how this is a “new” revelation discovered by Mr. Paul Dean from Australia. Él escribe (in part):

In March, 2018, I was contacted by someone who claimed to be in a senior defence program leadership role. He stated that the UFO program on everyone’s lips was not officially called the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (AATIP). This was, apparently, a loose, almost ad hoc term for one part of a somewhat larger defence program. The true name of the overall program, or at least the official starting title, was the “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” (AAWSAP), or something extremely similar.

Of course, all this is based on what a DoD contact told me. The term “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program”, or its “AAWSAP” abbreviation, hasn’t been mentioned by anyone else. Not the New York Times, not Luis Elizondo, and not even the DIA’s public relations staffers who must, by now, have been flooded with enquiries.

As I eluded, Glassel has found two examples of the AAWSAP project title. This had been shared privately with me, by two people, and I thought that there was simply no references available to absolutely confirm them for sure. I searched, but with no luck. Well, the “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” indeed did, or does, exist. Glassel, on a hunch, with keen-eyed Curt Collins in tow, discovered that Dr. Eric Davis, who has been closely associated with the AATIP and TTSA story, had published a number of scientific papers for the DIA, and two of those publications were already released and available online. The titles are, “Traversable Wormholes, Stargates and Negative Energy” and “Warp Drive, Dark Energy and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions”. Both are listed as “Defence Intelligence Reference Documents” and both were published in late 2009.

What I gather is that the AATIP desk was a major part of the overall AAWSAP effort. Also, the term AATIP was developed over time, and may have been tacked on to, or into, AAWSAP. AATIP was a looser title for internal usage, and it continued in other channels while the overall AAWSAP appears to have ended.

The documents referenced above, used to confirm this new program, have been available online since at least December 18, 2017. There is nothing “new” about them:

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4

I saw these documents back in late December and early January, but dismissed them as they are largely sourced/credited to Corey Goode, a very controversial figure to begin with. If they are genuine (and they may be) these documents do not appear that they were released under any official channels.   So the biggest question is, “How did Corey get them?”  I have not found an ‘older’ source, but am open if anyone else has.

It also should be noted, as I wrote the answer to the question above this one which has been on The Black Vault now for months, records like this are already publicly available which were written by Dr. Eric Davis. It would not surprise me if these documents are, in fact, genuine, but even if they are, they don’t teach us anything new. We already could deduce the Defense Intelligence Research Documents (DIRDs) as referenced by Dr. Davis on Coast to Coast AM, were probably going to be along the same lines as what I found while answering the question above and those documents ARE IRREFUTABLY genuine.  In the end, just because a document is written about Warp Drives and advanced propulsion, doesn’t mean the government took it seriously, built the devices or continued the research within the walls of the black budget intelligence community.

Given the assumption these documents are real, and the name “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” has already been confirmed as of 5/3/2018 by Major Audricia Harris, DoD Spokesperson to Roger Glassel, it should be blown too far out of proportion.  As Major Harris also says to Mr. Glassel, when asked if “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” was the actual project name, or was it AATIP, she replied:

“I would stick with AATIP. It is the official name.

Maj. Harris”

So, it’s settled. We are right back where we started, and we now know (again) that AATIP is the correct wording for those interested in the UFO/UAP phenomenon.

[[Back to the Top ]

FOIA Request Responses

Federal Aviation Administration

Since Bigelow Aerospace and Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) was mentioned as being a part of the AATIP program, I had recalled that many FAA manuals had BAASS listed as a place of contact for commercial pilot UFO reports.

The dates that Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS entered into the manuals very much coincide with the start of the AATIP program.  Prior, the manuals reference Bigelow Aerospace’s previous project called NIDS starting in 2002.  However, all references to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS have been removed, which coincides with the actual cancellation of the AATIP program (although this ‘cancellation’ date that is controversial, since Mr. Elizondo has gone on the record saying the program continued). It appears, however, that the removal of Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS from the FAA manuals coincides completely with this cancellation date.  The FAA now recommends contacting private organizations like the National UFO Reporting center to report their sightings.

In January of 2018, I requested under the FOIA all communications between Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS and the FAA.  I received a stack of communications on March 23, 2018, which include most of the communications about the change of contact within the FAA manuals.

Surprisingly, there were no other communications.  What I intended, was to get a hold of any reports that may have come in to the FAA, and forwarded to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS.  By the below FOIA release, nothing was ever forwarded from 2005 on.

So, it appears that if anything was reported during this time frame, it went directly to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS.  Sadly, in THIS specific case, all of those reports from any commercial pilot made DIRECTLY to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS, would never be subject to the FOIA (unless Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS included any of the reports they received in any documents they submitted under their AATIP contract.  That is still being determined.).

Regardless of the fact that I didn’t quite find what I was looking for, it still is an interesting look into the fact that the FAA had this in their manuals to report to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS, but then had removed it.

FAA Manuals and Bigelow Aerospace

The FAA manuals can serve as an important clue when it comes to AATIP’s cancellation, or in fairness, at least the involvement of Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS. The following is a breakdown of various manuals, and dates, that reference Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS, and then when the manuals were updated wherein they do not.

ORDER JO 7110.65X, October 17, 2017NO Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [614 Pages, 5MB]
ORDER JO 7110.65W, December 10, 2015NO Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [729 Pages, 5MB]
ORDER JO 7110.65V, April 3, 2014NO Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [660 Pages, 15.8MB]
—-> AATIP was (allegedly) cancelled in 2012
ORDER JO 7110.65U, February 9, 2012Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [606 Pages, 3.4MB]
ORDER JO 7110.65T, February 11, 2010Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [602 Pages, 5MB]
—-> See the above email exchanges between Bigelow Aerospace and the FAA to change the NIDS reference to BAASS
ORDER JO 7110.65S, February 14, 2008Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [591 Pages, 4.8MB]
ORDER 7110.65R, February 16, 2006Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [622 Pages, 5MB]
ORDER 7110.65P, February 19, 2004Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [599 Pages, 4.3MB]
ORDER 7110.65N, February 21, 2002Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [578 Pages, 20.7MB]
ORDER 7110.65M, February 21, 2002NO UFO Reference at all [528 Pages, 14.6MB]

[[Back to the Top ]

Department of Defense (DOD)

[[Back to the Top ]

National Security Agency (NSA)

[[Back to the Top ]

Comentarios

comentarios

Agradecimientos especiales y créditos

Black Vault trabaja con muchas organizaciones y otras agencias de todo el mundo para archivar información, la mayoría de las cuales tiene un permiso acordado para volver a publicar material en este archivo, a pesar de los derechos de autor existentes. Además de esta colaboración, parte del material puede estar protegido por derechos de autor, pero no siempre se obtiene autorización directa para reutilizar este material, y es posible que necesite un permiso adicional para reutilizarlo. Consulte el aviso de copyright a continuación con respecto al "uso justo" y póngase en contacto con el titular de los derechos de autor correspondiente para obtener permisos de reimpresión y republicación. Si cree que se viola su propiedad de derechos de autor, por favor contáctame inmediatamente y hágamelo saber. Toda la información conocida y disponible sobre este caso (si existe) es la siguiente:

Organización de origen: To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science
Enlace de organización: https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/



To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, Tom Delonge, UAP, OVNI

(function(d, s, id){
var js, fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if(d.getElementById(id)) return;
js=d.createElement(s); js.id=id;
js.src=»http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.6&appId=151061451607150″;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));(function(d, s, id){
var js, fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if(d.getElementById(id)) return;
js=d.createElement(s); js.id=id;
js.src=»http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&appId=151061451607150&version=v2.3″;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

No hay comentarios

Deja un comentario