Investigation Status: Ongoing – Last Updated 1/21/2020
“I would say remain skeptical. Healthy skepticism is very important, in fact it’s imperative. In fact, in my job as an intelligence officer, I was paid to be skeptical. I think you should always question all the information that comes before you by anybody who says anything, and I think that’s true not just with people like me, I think it’s true with government, religion and everything in between. “
–Mr. Luis Elizondo, 2018 International UFO Congress Recorded Testimony
Table of Contents
- Department of Defense Denial
- The National Security Agency’s Intellipedia Denial
- The Resignation Letter and Declassification Efforts Denial
- The Navy Denials
- The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
- My Concerns
- “Declassified” Videos Released
- The OFFICIAL Line
- George Knapp Story About “Tic Tac UFO Analysis” Document
- Congressional Record Documents Cites AATIP
- The Black Vault Responds to FAQs
- Comment: You won’t find anything. It’s all classified “Top Secret”
- Comment: You won’t find anything. The U.S. Military hid it all within Bigelow Aerospace to circumvent the FOIA.
- 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.
- FOIA Request Responses
by John Greenewald, Jr., The Black Vault
On December 16, 2017, Tom Delonge’s To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) released two of three UFO videos that are in their “custody” – stating they were officially declassified by the U.S. Government.
It was also announced these videos were part of the secret UFO Research program known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). This existence was based on the testimony of one of the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science team members Mr. Luis Elizondo. According to the website:
“Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East. Most recently, Luis managed the security for certain sensitive portfolios for the US Government as the Director for the National Programs Special Management Staff. For nearly the last decade, Luis also ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies. Luis’ academic background includes Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, with research experience in tropical diseases. Luis is also an inventor who holds several patents.”
When Mr. Elizondo’s inclusion in this project was announced, and his biography above was published (along with the press conference held by Mr. Delonge) I quickly filed multiple FOIA requests for records pertaining to this, “sensitive aerospace threat identification program” as referenced by the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science.
Below, you will find the extensive research done to attempt to confirm the claims made by Mr. Elizondo and the TTSA. There are many red flags outlined below which stop me from saying the AATIP program was some “Secret Pentagon UFO Study” as touted by the media.
To better illustrate everything we have been told, I put together an extensive timeline on the claims made by the media, Mr. Luis Elizondo, Dr. Hal Puthoff and Senator Harry Reid. I have created a specific page just for this section, since it is incredibly long, and has extensive sources. VISIT THE TIMELINE to see just how much of a mess this entire story is.
[ Back to the Top ]
Department of Defense Denial
At the time of the original TTSA press conference, and the filing of my FOIA Request, the full name of Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program was not published, but rather, it was only referenced as the, “sensitive aerospace threat identification program” on the website, and the “DOD Aerospace Threat Program” by media outlets such as the Huffington Post. Therefore, in my request, I asked for the following:
“I respectfully request a copy of records, electronic or otherwise, of the following: all documents pertaining to the outline, mission statement, objectives, etc of the DOD Aerospace Threat Program. Please note: this may not be the exact, title, but is derived from the testimony of Mr. Luis Elizondo, former DOD employee. According to the Huffington Post (as published here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fmr-manager-of-dod-aerospace-threat-program-ufos_us_59de2f4be4b0b992a8214874 )”
You will notice that to circumvent any word games by the DoD, I stated, “Please note: this may not be the exact, title, but is derived from the testimony of Mr. Luis Elizondo, former DOD employee.” In other words, even though I knew I was probably slightly off on the title, I gave them DOD personnel testimony and a link to what the program was. That way, there was no way they could plead ignorance that I was “not specific enough.”
On November 27, 2017, the DOD responded with a “no records” determination, as seen in the letter to the right.
I have appealed the “no records” response immediately after receiving the denial, and in March of 2019, I was GRANTED the appeal. The letter sent to me on March 18, 2019, is below.
I was told they were going to conduct another search, and I would receive another response. Within TWO DAYS (after an appeal that took well over a year to grant), I received a strange response that only deepens the mystery.
“The National Programs and Policy Support (NPPS) Office for the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), a component of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OS D), advised that a search for records responsive to this request was not conducted. The Director, NPPS, stated that Mr. Luis Elizondo was a DOD employee who resigned on/or about October 10, 2017. NPPS has no information regarding Mr. Elizondo’s claim to have been the Director of Programs to investigate Unidentified Aerial Threats for OSD.”
So, in other words, the Department of Defense continues (as of March 2019) to deny claims by Mr. Elizondo that there is any information at their office, where Mr. Elizondo says he worked, and has been confirmed, that proves there was investigation into “unidentified aerial threats” at OSD.
I have filed many more FOIA requests — but something does not seem to add up when it comes to connecting official documentation and the story that we have been fed. There is much more below.
[ Back to the Top ]
The National Security Agency’s Intellipedia Denial Acknowledgement
Another FOIA request I filed, which received a final response on 8 January 2018, was to the National Security Agency (NSA). In this specific request, I asked for any Intellipedia references to this program (and I termed it: “Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program” and filed a second request with “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” since the media reported both names.
Intellipedia is an online system for collaborative data sharing used by the United States Intelligence Community (IC). Essentially, it is like Wikipedia for the Intelligence Community (IC). Within the three separate Intellipedia databases, you will find, literally, millions of pages on all sorts of material, classified and unclassified (depending on which version of Intellipedia you are using). When I file my requests for Intellipedia entries, I request searches of all three. I also request a search of the entries for keywords, so possibly a term may not have a specific “entry” page, but maybe the program itself is mentioned on a different entry. I try to cover all my bases.
On 8 January 2018, the NSA told me that there were “no records” responsive to my request, which means, out of the millions of pages within the entire Intellipedia collection, there was not a single reference to the program “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (or the alternative “Aviation”) at this time. In addition, I also filed a request on May 2, 2018, for Intellipedia entries pertaining to the “Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP)” This is the name that is rumored to either be the precursor project that ultimately was renamed and became AATIP, or it could also be the larger project that AATIP was born out of. Regardless of what the origin is, the NSA also gave a “no records” response on this project name, and the fact there are zero references to it.
However, in September of 2018, I made a discovery that the Intellipedia page for Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) was updated to include an AATIP reference. My specific request (as noted by the FOIA response letter at the end of the .pdf) was seeking entries that mention Bigelow Aerospace. What’s odd, is this request was filed around the same day as the one for AATIP above, and it came up empty. So, therefore, the updates on this UFO page can be determined to have occurred between January 8, 2018 and September 12, 2018, when the newly released entry was printed and released to me. Therefore, we can conclude, my original request yielded a “no records” response because there was nothing at that time, so they closed the case on January 8th. However, they probably found responsive records on my Bigelow Aerospace request, which put this case in a different queue for processing. Once processed, Intellipedia was updated to include an AATIP reference, and voila, it came up as one of the responsive documents.
Now, as you can see, AATIP was briefly outlined on the UFO page. The pertinent text reads the following:
You will note there were also references cited, which include the following:
What is the blacked out information? Exemption (b)(3) is an exemption wherein the information withheld is done so because it is exempted by a statute. In this case, it is Public Law 86-36: National Security Agency Act of 1959. It’s possible the information below references the NSA employee name who wrote the citation, or other identifying mark, but it is redacted to protect identities of NSA personnel. This is common.
Now, back to the information. What does it all mean? Well, I will point out a few things that I feel are worthy:
- The entire entry is designated with (U) markings. This notes that the information contained in each paragraph is UNCLASSIFIED in their entirety. There have been many debates on how secret this project really was, and although I have no doubts that the project had classified aspects, this does support the statement by Senator Harry Reid that about 80% of information related to AATIP is unclassified. I believe this fact shows that although this program was important, the revelations it made may not have been as extraordinary as some want us to believe. Anything found of an extraordinary nature (alien/highly advanced foreign technology/etc.) would likely be heavily classified.
- AATIP did not appear in Intellipedia until after the NY Times published their story. This is interesting, because Intellipedia is incredibly large, and holds millions of pages on intelligence related projects, operations, pertinent references, etc. from the past and present. As someone who has arguably filed more Intellipedia related requests than any other researcher, that is incredibly strange. Anything of note to the intelligence community, classified or not, usually is in the Intellipedia system somewhere. However, AATIP never was until the “last modified date” shows, 22 December 2017. Based on this fact, I believe the NSA now made an error during the processing of my request, as I asked for not only all entries by that name, but also all entries that come up within the search engine. I believe the latter part of the request was ignored. Despite that error, this also clearly shows that AATIP did not appear in Intellipedia until 22 December 2017, the question remains, why?Some have argued in the past that AATIP was “too classified” to appear in Intellipedia, or the NSA lied to me when I got the original “no records” response. When classified pages are found during searches, for example, many of the Edward Snowden revelations (like Wrangler), the NSA will acknowledge they are there, but exempts them from release. Another example, is my request on Echelon. This specific request may have entered the realm of still heavily classified to the point they can’t even admit it’s there, and they gave me a GLOMAR response (“can neither confirm nor deny”). My point with these examples, is that the possible explanation that it is “too classified” or “still classified” or they “are lying” just does not fit a provable track record relating to some of the most classified topics within the intelligence community. We can, in my mind, put that argument to rest.
- Not a single, non-public, resource was used or cited. As an investigator, this is extremely unfortunate. One of the main reasons I use the Intellipedia system, and request the entries I have, is this particular section which appear in most Intellipedia entries. References often (not always, but often) refer to internal reports, regulations and other resources that serve as leads for other FOIA requests. However, the author just based their information off of the newspapers that reported on AATIP. Why is that? It is unclear.
[ Back to the Top ]
The Resignation Letter and Declassification Efforts Denial
On February 12, 2018, the Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff office, in FOIA Case 18-F-0324, gave another rather odd “no records response” to a request which had multiple parts.
Specifically, I requested:
1) The resignation letter of Mr. Luis Elizondo, DoD personnel who played a role in The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.
2) Any/all responses by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, or any other DoD official to Mr. Elizondo regarding his resignation.
3) Any/all letters, memos, recommendations, email, etc. sent from Mr. Elizondo, to any DoD official, regarding the declassification or public release of videos, as obtained by the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.
4) Any/all response to Mr. Elizondo, and his effort to get videos or material evidence in the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program released to the public.
Although I have an open appeal on the above with the DOD, it is noted they just wanted to forward my request to the Defense Intelligence Agency instead. However, due to the fact that Mr. Elizondo stated clearly he worked within OSD (not DIA), and the NY TIMES among many other news outlets cited Mr. Elizondo’s resignation letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, at least that portion of my request would be at the office that just gave the “no records” response.
(It should be noted that the accession of “resignation letters” through the FOIA is contested. It is unclear if a resignation letter would be accessible through the FOIA, or exempt due to it being a letter of “personal nature” and possibly not considered an agency record. This may explain the “no records” response, if OSD does not consider Mr. Elizondo’s “resignation letter” an agency document. What I have been unable to DEFINITIVELY address, whether by case law or past FOIA request, is whether or not an agency would issue a “no records” response, even though the resignation letter exists, but it is not considered an agency record, or would they issue a denial on the records, acknowledging they are there, but exempt due to FOIA exemption (b)(6). I have found evidence to the latter in response to a FOIA request for the alleged “resignation letter” that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had potentially drafted. If there was a resignation letter, the Department of Justice decided that they would neither confirm nor deny it even existed, based on the (b)(6) “privacy information” FOIA exemption. This was the letter sent to the Huffington Post in FOIA Case DOJ-2017-005525.)
[ Back to the Top ]
The Navy Denials
Another denial from the military came in that contradicts the story and testimony that the public is being given.
In one interview given by Mr. Elizondo, he states the following:
“AATIP receives the cases from various different channels, so where our office sat at the top of the office of the secretary of defense, we had multiple avenues of approach, so you had in some cases reporting would come up through navy channels, in other cases it would come up through air force channels, in other cases it would come through the intelligence community, and as the focal point, if you will, for this capability, all roads I guess lead to Rome in this particular case. All roads led to our office regarding the phenomena.”
Based on this testimony, I filed a FOIA request to the Department of the Navy on March 14, 2018, which asked for the following:
1) All photographs / videos / reports / letters / memos / etc. that were sent by your agency, to the Office for the Secretary of Defense (OSD) / the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), or to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in regards to the “Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program” or AATIP. It is also referred to as the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” also AATIP.
2) I also ask that you include all reporting procedures / methods / instructions / manuals / directives etc. that mandate your agency’s personnel to reporting these types of reports under the AATIP program. According to Mr. Elizondo, there were protocols in place that if unidentified objects were seen, they were to be reported to his office, as he stated above. Therefore, a reporting procedure, of some kind, must exist.
The verbatim testimony was also included in the FOIA request for reference.
The request was filed and given FOIA Case Number DON-NAVY-2018-005476. In the course of processing my request, the Navy searched the Naval Air System Command (NAVAIR), Naval Air Forces Pacific (AIRPAC) and the Chief of Naval Operations Office of Information Warfar (OPNAV N2/N6) for responsive records.
All offices searched produced ZERO results and I was given another “no records” response by a key agency mentioned by Mr. Elizondo.
I appealed the “no records” response, and it was denied. I filed again in September of 2019 based on new Navy statements, however that, too, was denied. In January 2020, I appealed that determination, and it is currently awaiting a final response.
[ Back to the Top ]
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
It should be noted in addition to the above, that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is said to be the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for documents released on AATIP. Therefore, since day 1 of the announcement of this, I have had multiple FOIA requests open to the agency. I asked for, but lost, a request for expediting the request. Although I appealed the decision, I lost that too. In January of 2019, the first document was released. Here is some background:
In July of 2018, Mr. George Knapp released a leaked version of the 38 reports created under The Aerospace Aviation 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, the DIA responded to my FOIA request for the letter sent to Congress (explained in more detail below) with a list of the reports created under AATIP. This was my release, sent to me by the DIA, dated January 16, 2019:
There is some confusion on why the lists are different. It is believed that possibly, the “leaked” version released by Mr. Knapp were reports created under the “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” (AAWSAP) and the one released officially by the DIA is from AATIP. However, in some written statements by the Pentagon, AAWSAP is the same AATIP. I have often floated the idea that AAWSAP was an umbrella project and AATIP was a sub-project underneath it. Nothing has been officially confirmed on the exact status of that.
[ Back to the Top ]
There are many things that actually concern me over the discovery of this program, which I feel will need to be addressed in the coming weeks and months. Let me preface my concerns, but giving my thanks and compliments to Tom Delonge, the team at the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, Mr. Elizondo, and all others involved for getting this information out. My concerns are not personal in nature, and should not take away from the work the aforementioned are doing. But, I feel this should be addressed.
- The media, and even much of the UFO Community, is mis-representing this story as the “first time” the government has conducted UFO Research since Project Blue Book closed in 1969. This, for a fact, is not true. For those who follow The Black Vault, you will that more than a decade, I lectured about, talked about, and profiled a Air Force Manual (that same agency which has denied UFO interest for so long) that specifically talked about UFO reporting procedures. When procedures exist to report something, it is probably safe to assume those reports actually go somewhere and mean something, therefore some kind of UFO Research project was underway. Proof: http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/air-force-instruction-10-206-vanishing-ufo-regulation/You will notice from the above page, that although I spoke about this publication for roughly a decade, and even put it into some UFO Documentaries I produced on History Channel, it was mysteriously removed when the Huffington Post was going to profile it. A fascinating story, but proof a UFO Research program of some kind was well underway, even before the “DOD Aerospace Threat Program” allegedly even existed, and it existed under well after. Was there synergy between the two? Only time will tell, but that’s another story in itself.That said, this “new” program we are all hearing about sounds admittedly larger in scale than the Air Force manual evidence, but one aspect on why I don’t feel it’s the start of “disclosure” is the testimony of Luis Elizondo himself.He said that no one was “taking the threat seriously”, which played a role in his resignation and exit from the DOD. I can respect that, but it does show that no one else involved (bit of an assumption there) saw anything worthy of investigation? I would feel if this really was “disclosure” — and the government was starting to come clean — we would have much more evidence, a more serious approach, and the government would stay quiet and let the information drip out. However, on the contrary, they responded to some media outlets saying yes, it existed, but it didn’t find anything worthy of additional dollars or time/effort?
- Robert Bigelow was given the task to house recovered alloy and material? According to the NY TIMES article:
“Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena. Researchers also studied people who said they had experienced physical effects from encounters with the objects and examined them for any physiological changes. In addition, researchers spoke to military service members who had reported sightings of strange aircraft.”
Well, that’s just downright intriguing, right? I mean, captured alloys and material from UAPs/UFOs? That has to be alien, right? This rivals the Roswell debris going to Hangar 18, right? Probably not — here’s why:
Why would the government trust “alien technology” (I know I am taking a leap assuming that is what may be hidden) to a corporate entity aiming to profit in the privatization of space travel and space exploration? It would seem that is a rather large secret to be kept – and although corporations are trusted with many high level security issues and the specs to some of our most advanced pieces of technology, I would think the U.S. may keep that material a bit close to their chest.
Because, if this was proof, the smoking gun, or “alien technology” that could not be refuted – why would Mr. Bigelow keep that a secret? He obviously knew/knows Elizondo was going to go public — and when he did — people would start asking questions. So, why wouldn’t he join hands and say this is what we have (or this is what we DON’T have)?
What is more likely, is that Mr. Bigelow was able to do a “privatized” and modern Project Moon Dust, wherein he was on the receiving end of possible recovered Chinese, Russian, Iranian etc. technology. Project Moon Dust captured space debris during the space race, seeking to back engineer more advanced, captured, technology from a foreign entity. It’s possible, and probable, that this is simply a modern day version of that.
It seems to me there is something suspicious or shady at the root of this, but I can’t decide which one is true. I just feel that with Bigelow’s personal interest and fascination with this, and the fact he has no problem touting his belief that aliens may be walking among us, that if he knew of alien alloys or something beyond out world that he, himself, is housing? I would imagine that would not be a secret kept for long.
- The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program probably didn’t find anything – at least – that’s according to Mr. Elizondo himself. I think it is wonderful that Mr. Elizondo has come out with this information, and I respect his contribution. However, according to his own testimony, I think we can determine that there was nothing found by the program he headed. Here is why: He didn’t give any definitive answers, other than the UAP (or UFO) phenomenon is very real. Well, we all knew that — but why? Because there is gun camera infrared footage? We knew that too. Because the government sees things it can’t identify? Ok, we knew that too. On the surface, this looks and sounds amazing. But when dissecting what was given to us — we are still lacking any answers whatsoever. The government admitted the secret program is real — that sounds groundbreaking — but they also said in the same breath they cancelled it after about 5 years. It lasted from 2007 to 2012. Although the NY Times said that members of the group still continue to investigate the sightings, we have to assume a couple things here. a) they are doing it “officially,” which may be a leap and b) this statement is even true — I mean — how do we know? So all we can rely on, is what has been officially talked about, and that is, there was a secret program that lasted for 5 years. But, that reality brings me to my last point.
- It had a $22 Million dollar budget. Really? $22 Million? Stop and think about how small of a number that really is. $22 Million divided by 5 years (assuming the longevity is true). That’s $4.4 Million per year. That’s $367,000 per month. That’s $91,750 per week. Sounds like a lot — but to U.S. Government standards? That’s kinda nothing at all.When you look at the project overall, as indicated by the media, the financing was spearheaded by Senator Harry Reid, from Nevada. As I mentioned above, and according to the NY TIMES, “most of the money” went to Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace. Do you know where Mr. Bigelow resides? You guessed it, Nevada, Senator Harry Reid’s home state.Out of curiosity, I looked up the donations given to Senator Harry Reid’s campaigns from Mr. Bigelow. The dollar amount stretches to $10,000 and possibly beyond.
Given this fact, what are we looking at? Senator Harry Reid doesn’t strike me as a UFO aficionado – but he does strike me as someone who loves his constituents that donate the big bucks. I think it’s a big possibility that this project, with the majority of the money going to Mr. Bigelow in Nevada, spearheaded by Senator Harry Reid, of Nevada, is nothing more than pork, and not motivated to better humanity, get answers or uncover the truth.
[ Back to the Top ]
“Declassified” Videos Released
The following were the videos released by the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science on December 16th, 2017, and largely published by the media. According to Mr. Luis Elizondo, the videos were obtained by the submission of a DD Form 1910, CLEARANCE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INFORMATION. It is believed that the “Chain of Custody” documents referenced by the To The Stars Academy is the actual DD Form 1910 filed by Mr. Elizondo. However, by definition, this is not a “Chain of Custody” records, but rather, simply proof of proper declassification. That said, I do have open FOIA requests for the actual DD Form 1910s filed to get the below (and others?) videos released.
To make matters more confusing, now former member of the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, Dr. Garry Nolan, previously listed as the Genetics Technologies Consultant, said the following about the released videos (as published by the UFO News Network on Facebook):
‘The term RELEASE is where everyone is tripping up. These videos were obtained from a Freedom of Information Act filing. They were prepared internally at the DoD through a vetting process that allowed them to be released through FOI. You are not going to get the DoD to come out and “announce” there are such things as UFOs buzzing around our aircraft carrier groups. They did not actively “release”. They passively allowed the FOIA process to occur. Now whether there was INTERNAL acquiescence to this that is a “hidden” active process by people other than Lue… probably you will never know. But we should be happy that it ended up the way it did (whether through active help, passive bureaucratic sleepiness, or otherwise). Active announcement/release would probably upset any White House to be upstaged in such a process as that should clearly be a government level announcement. What you got was people internally at the DoD who decided this information was worth getting out, made sure the video was properly vetted so as to not release “proprietary” data or US military capabilities, and then prepared for eventual FOI access. It was then accessed.”
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):
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.
- 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.
- 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?
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 ]
According to the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science:
FLIR1 is the second 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 approved for public release. It is the only official footage captured by a US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet present at the 2004 Nimitz incident off the coast of San Diego. Like GIMBAL, this footage comes with crucial chain-of-custody (CoC) documentation because it is a product of US military sensors, which confirms it is original, unaltered, and not computer generated or artificially fabricated. While there have been leaked versions on the internet, the CoC establishes the authenticity and credibility that this version is the original footage taken from one of the most advanced sensor tracking devices in use.
The sensor, a Raytheon AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod, has two imaging modes: mid-wave infrared and visual. It has high resolution and can locate and designate targets at distances exceeding 40 nautical miles. The FLIR1 footage shows what was on display to the fighter pilots in the cockpit of their Super Hornet.
[ Back to the Top ]
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.
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:
- The program was cancelled in 2012.
- The DOD did NOT release the videos below, as said they did by the To the Stars Academy.
- 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.
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 publicly 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?
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.
According to 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 | 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 | 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?
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:
[ 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 leaked 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.
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. He writes (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:
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.
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, 2017 – NO Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [614 Pages, 5MB]
ORDER JO 7110.65W, December 10, 2015 – NO Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [729 Pages, 5MB]
ORDER JO 7110.65V, April 3, 2014 – NO Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [660 Pages, 15.8MB]
—-> AATIP was (allegedly) cancelled in 2012
ORDER JO 7110.65U, February 9, 2012 – Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [606 Pages, 3.4MB]
ORDER JO 7110.65T, February 11, 2010 – Bigelow 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, 2008 – Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [591 Pages, 4.8MB]
ORDER 7110.65R, February 16, 2006 – Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [622 Pages, 5MB]
ORDER 7110.65P, February 19, 2004 – Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [599 Pages, 4.3MB]
ORDER 7110.65N, February 21, 2002 – Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [578 Pages, 20.7MB]
ORDER 7110.65M, February 21, 2002 – NO 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 ]
Special Thanks & CreditsThe Black Vault works with many organizations and other agencies around the world to archive information - most of which has an agreed permission to repost material on this archive, despite existing copyrights. In addition to this collaboration, some material may be copyrighted, but direct authorization to re-use this material is not always obtained, and may need additional permission to re-use. Please see the copyright notice below regarding 'fair use', and contact the appropriate copyright holder for reprint and republish permissions. If you feel your copyright ownership is violated, please contact me immediately and let me know. All known and available information about this case (if any) is as follows:
Originating Organization: To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science
Organization Link: https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/