A newly released batch of documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), reveals that a senior Pentagon official—identified by Luis Elizondo as the person intended to take over the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)—later played a central role in classified UAP briefings, high-level meetings, and the creation of the Pentagon’s UFO office known as AOIMSG. That office would ultimately evolve into what is now the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).

This connection adds a new layer to the long-running controversy surrounding AATIP. Although Elizondo has long maintained that the program investigated UFOs and that he led it until his 2017 resignation, the Pentagon has issued conflicting statements—at times denying both AATIP’s focus on unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) and Elizondo’s leadership. According to Elizondo, he had planned to transfer AATIP to Neill Tipton, a senior executive within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (OUSD[I&S]). But that handoff, Elizondo says, never materialized.

Emails between Elizondo and Tipton, previously leaked to and published in part by Popular Mechanics in 2020, and later officially obtained and verified with additional emails revealed by The Black Vault via FOIA in 2024, appear to partially support this claim. In one message dated October 3, 2017, Elizondo wrote to Tipton, “I took the liberty of drafting a memo at the Unclassified level that helps you better assume the new responsibilities for AATIP.”

Yet, despite the plan outlined in these emails and memo released via the FOIA, Tipton would never join the ranks of AATIP, nor would he lead the program, according to Elizondo. “Neill got cold feet about taking my place at AATIP—something I wouldn’t have expected from him—and began to backpedal, telling people people that he knew nothing about AATIP, its focus, or my involvement,” Elizondo said in his book Imminent. “I was disappointed that my friend chose to do what he did, especially given the vast amount of emails and witnesses who knew Neill was slated to take over AATIP when I left.”

After Elizondo’s retirement, the Department of Defense frequently denied that Elizondo ever had a role within AATIP, and repeatedly stated that the program did not have a focus on UFOs.

But, in what appeared to be an about face with at least part of their stance, Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told the NY Post in 2019, “AATIP did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena.” Many rejoiced at the confirmation about what Elizondo had already said for some time, but the excitement about what many hoped to be a new era of transparency about AATIP was short-lived.

Sherwood’s statement was corrected seven months later by another Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough. Gough had taken over being the sole public affairs official speaking on the UAP topic. “Neither AATIP nor AAWSAP were UAP related,” Gough wrote in a 2019 e-mail to The Black Vault. “The purpose of AATIP was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace weapons system applications with future technology projections over the next 40 years, and to create a center of expertise on advanced aerospace technologies.”

When asked about the discrepancy between her statement and Sherwood’s, Gough stated to The Black Vault, “At the time, Mr. Sherwood was repeating the information that had been provided by a previous spokesperson some two years earlier.” She continued, “That previous spokesperson is no longer with my organization, and I cannot comment on why that person’s explanation of AATIP included that it had looked at anomalous events.  According to all the official information I have now, when implemented, AATIP did not pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena; that was not part of the technical studies nor the reports produced by the program.”

The previous spokesperson no longer with the DoD that Gough referred to, was Lt. Col. Audricia Harris, who stated to researcher Roger Glassel in 2018 that AATIP had researched “…anomalous events (such as sightings of aerodynamic vehicles engaged in extreme maneuvers, with unique phenomenology, reported by U.S. Navy pilots or other credible sources).” According to Gough, Sherwood simply translated this previous statement as AATIP pursued UAPs during their research, and issued his statement to the NY Post erroneously.

Finally in 2021, all of that was seemingly changed yet again when the Pentagon released another statement claiming that, “In developing the reports and exploring how to create a ‘center of expertise,’ the [AATIP] contract allowed for research drawn from a wide variety of sources, including reports of UAPs. However, the examination of UAP observations was not the purpose of AATIP.”

Despite this constantly shifting position by the DoD, this new FOIA release on April 1, 2025, in response to a 2022 request filed by The Black Vault, contains multiple email threads and internal communications placing Tipton at the center of UAP planning and strategizing in 2021 and 2022.

In a July 13, 2021, email to senior DoD officials, Tipton described a high-level UAP briefing to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), noting that 28 senators attended—an unusually high turnout that was “nearly unprecedented for an engagement like this”—and that “continued very high interest from the Senate” was evident. He confirmed his direct participation in the briefing, alongside representatives from ODNI, the Navy, the Air Force, and NORAD.

Just months later, Tipton was involved in the establishment of the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), the office stood up by the Pentagon following the dissolution of the UAP Task Force. In a November 23, 2021, email, Tipton confirmed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks had signed the AOIMSG stand-up memo and stated that his team was “already working implementation direction.”

These details paint a complex picture. Although Tipton never assumed leadership of AATIP, as Elizondo intended, his later prominence in classified UAP briefings and the establishment of the Pentagon’s UFO infrastructure raises new questions—especially given the Pentagon’s earlier denials that AATIP had anything to do with UFOs. In other words, why Tipton out of everyone else within the DoD’s massive infrastructure of people within it?

For critics of Elizondo’s narrative, the Pentagon’s 2018 and 2019 statements denying his leadership role or AATIP’s UAP focus seemed definitive. But the trajectory of Tipton—named by Elizondo as the intended recipient of AATIP responsibilities—suggests the subject matter was, in fact, deemed serious enough to warrant his engagement through classified briefings, organizational leadership, and strategic planning when it came to UAPs.

The Department’s own documents now confirm that Tipton himself “hosted an ASD-level meeting” on UAP issues; helped develop a “DoD Collection and Analysis Strategy;” and participated in drafting the framework for a “Technical Roadmap,” according to September 2021 internal correspondence released in this FOIA case.

While Elizondo has faced scrutiny over the exact nature of his role, even by The Black Vault, these documents show that his intended successor was not only involved in UAP discussions—but instrumental in advancing them.

The Pentagon has yet to publicly reconcile these apparent contradictions.

This FOIA release represents just one more piece of a broader puzzle still being put together. More documents and records may further clarify how—and by whom—the Pentagon’s UFO investigations were managed in the years leading to the formation of AARO.

And as this never-before-told chapter continues to unfold, The Black Vault will publish all additional records that may surface in the future. Numerous FOIA requests remain outstanding.

###

Document Archive

Released Records in FOIA Case 22-F-0863 [23 Pages, 2.7MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.83 MB]

The post The Pentagon Says AATIP Wasn’t About UFOs—But the Man Slated to Take It Over Ended Up Designing the Government’s UAP Strategy first appeared on The Black Vault.

In May 2021, Luis Elizondo, a former Department of Defense (DoD) intelligence officer who has claimed to be the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) and investigated UFOs for the Pentagon, submitted a formal complaint to the DoD Inspector General (DoD IG). The complaint alleged misconduct, coordinated disinformation, and whistleblower retaliation by senior Pentagon officials, including the former Director of Defense Intelligence for Intelligence and Security (DDIIS), Garry Reid, Public Affairs Officer Susan Gough, and former Director for Defense Intelligence, Collection and Special Programs Neill Tipton.

Elizondo’s complaint sought an official DoD IG inquiry into what he described as “malicious activities, coordinated disinformation, professional misconduct, whistleblower reprisal and explicit threats”. According to his complaint, these actions not only misrepresented his work within the DoD but also sought to undermine his credibility following his departure from government service. The complaint, which has since been previously published in redacted form by the NY Post, includes a detailed chronology of Elizondo’s alleged involvement in AATIP, his interactions with senior defense officials, and what he characterizes as a broader effort to suppress information on UAP. Elizondo stated in the complaint that attempts to clear the record by some senior officials, serving as witnesses to this abuse, have been ignored by certain elements within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He further alleged that actions taken against him directly erode the very foundation of national security ethos and the public trust instilled by the American people.

The Black Vault has pursued multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to uncover records related to Elizondo’s complaint and the DoD’s handling of the allegations. These efforts have resulted in the release of various documents, including a heavily redacted transcript of an interview with Elizondo, as well as internal correspondence about the UAP investigation; emails obtained via FOIA that reference the DoD’s internal UAP evaluation efforts, including discussions about Elizondo’s claims and the Pentagon’s public messaging strategy; and two additional FOIA cases released in March 2025 that shed new light on internal deliberations regarding Elizondo’s allegations.

Among the most notable revelations from the FOIA releases are details about the DoD IG’s handling of the complaint. Internal correspondence indicates that the DoD IG assigned multiple case numbers to different aspects of Elizondo’s complaint. Some cases were forwarded to the Directorate for Investigations of Senior Officials, while others were categorized under whistleblower reprisal investigations. Emails reveal internal discussions on how the DoD should respond to media inquiries regarding Elizondo’s involvement in AATIP, with indications that officials sought to discredit his role or diminish the importance of the program.

The Black Vault continues to pursue additional FOIA requests related to Elizondo’s complaint and the broader DoD approach to UAP transparency. With each release, more details emerge about how Elizondo’s allegations were handled internally and how the Pentagon sought to manage both internal and external narratives surrounding UAP research. This archive serves as a central repository for all released documents and ongoing developments related to Elizondo’s DoD IG complaint.

Document Archive

 DoD’s Inspector General Office Releases Additional Records Pertaining to Luis Elizondo’s OIG Complaint [40 Pages, 4.0MB] (Released: March 17, 2025)

 DoD’s Inspector General Office Releases Emails About UAP, Their UAP Evaluation Effort, Luis Elizondo, and More [126 Pages, 6.5MB] (Released: February 8, 2024)

 DoD Inspector General Releases Transcript of Luis Elizondo Interview & Much More [103 Pages, 4.1MB] (Released: February 9, 2023)

 DoD Inspector General Releases Emails in Different FOIA Case. Repeats from above. Archived for reference. [10 Pages, 2MB]

 FOIA Case Files for above FOIA Requests [64 Pages, 17.9MB]

The post The DoD Inspector General Complaint of Luis Elizondo: A Document Archive first appeared on The Black Vault.

This session marks the second UAP-focused hearing by Congress, aiming to bring greater transparency to government research on UAPs and address the Department of Defense’s (DoD) reluctance to declassify information. The hearing will include testimony from witnesses Navy Rear Admiral Dr. Tim Gallaudet, former DoD official Luis Elizondo, former NASA Associate Administrator Michael Gold, and journalist Michael Shellenberger.

This page will archive these proceedings, related documents, and transcripts, providing a comprehensive resource on government transparency efforts around UAPs.

Stream The Hearing

Witness Testimony and Bios Submitted

Mr. Luis Elizondo; Former Department of Defense Official

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.15 MB]

Mr. Luis Elizondo; Former Department of Defense Official Testimony Addendum #1

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [52.31 KB]

Dr. Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D.; Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Ocean STL Consulting, LLC

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.10 MB]

Mr. Michael Gold; Member of NASA UAP Independent Study Team

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.21 MB]

Mr. Michael Shellenberger; Founder, Public

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [7.17 MB]

Document Archive

Immaculate Constellation Document

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [509.40 KB]

Congressman Tim Burchett Submitted Documents To The Hearing Record

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [3.12 MB]

Official Attendance Sheet – November 13, 2024

Hearing Memo – November 7, 2024

Hearing Notice – November 6, 2024

The post “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth” Hearing – November 13, 2024 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) originally filed in June 2021, The Black Vault has just obtained the official release of an email chain involving Luis Elizondo, the alleged former head of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), and Neill Tipton, a defense official who previously worked as the Director of Defense Intelligence, Collection and Special Programs. A portion of these emails was initially published by Popular Mechanics in 2020, then later seen as part of a Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG) complaint submitted by Elizondo in 2021, then later published by the NY Post in 2022. But in the newest FOIA release, the references to AATIP, along with a memorandum written about AATIP and the transferring of duties, was withheld from release and redacted by the DoD, despite the unclassified emails having already been in the public domain for years.

Elizondo has been at the center of controversy since he publicly claimed to have directed the AATIP, a program allegedly focused on studying unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). His assertions have been consistently refuted by the Pentagon, which denies that Elizondo was ever assigned responsibilities within AATIP. However, the email chain in question, sent by Elizondo to Tipton the same day his first resignation letter was submitted when he retired from the Pentagon, was intended to clarify roles and transferred  responsibilities within the AATIP. This seemingly contradicts the Pentagon’s stance on AATIP, Elizondo, and the role he may have played within the program.

Through the public release of Elizondo’s IG complaint by the NY Post, it is well known that Elizondo’s email states that an attached memo, “…helps [Tipton] better assume the new responsibilities for AATIP.” That memo was also written by Elizondo. However, in the official release of the emails already in the public domain, the reference to AATIP in the body of the email is redacted under FOIA exemption (b)(5), along with the entire memo Elizondo had written transferring the responsibilities of AATIP to Tipton.

The two versions can be seen here:

As conveyed by the FOIA release letter, exemption (b)(5) covers “inter- and intra- agency memoranda which are deliberative in nature; this exemption is appropriate for internal documents which are part of the decision-making process, and contain subjective evaluations, opinions and recommendations”.

The redacted line in the email is crucial to the AATIP story, as it directly references AATIP in a manner that supports Elizondo’s claims of some level of involvement in the effort. Though the Pentagon’s decision to redact the line does come as a surprise since the line is not “deliberative in nature” nor does it quite fit in the other areas (b)(5) would exempt. The selective redaction by the government raises questions about the transparency behind what AATIP was and was not.

Also accompanying the email was the draft memorandum that Elizondo had written, though it remains unclear whether it was addressed to the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DepSecDef) directly or written on the DepSecDef’s behalf. The entirety of this document was redacted, obscuring significant content that could potentially further clarify the internal discourse regarding AATIP and Elizondo’s role.

While Luis Elizondo has claimed to have an interest in disclosing information about UAP and AATIP to the public without violating his NDA, his statements have often been met with skepticism and outright denial by the Pentagon. This latest release through FOIA, with the redactions it contains, may suggest a deliberate attempt to obscure Elizondo’s contributions and the existence of AATIP. Despite the public’s access to these documents, the redactions serve as a barrier to full transparency. The reason for it, in this instance, remains unknown.

The Pentagon has maintained a stance of minimal disclosure concerning AATIP and UAP investigations,  often citing national security and the protection of sensitive information when referring to the latter.

In response to the redactions, The Black Vault has filed an appeal, challenging the justification for withholding parts of the email and the entire memorandum.

###

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [687.57 KB]

The post New FOIA Release Highlights Redactions in Key AATIP Correspondence: What is the Pentagon Hiding? first appeared on The Black Vault.

The documents date from late December 2017 and offer a compelling glimpse into the internal concerns of the DoD about Elizondo saying on television that humanity “…may not be alone,” all while talking about his role studying UFOs within the DoD as the director of AATIP. This video is a breakdown of those documents, however, it is highly recommended the article also be explored for much more information at (Documents available for download).

LIVE STREAM VERSION

The post Ep. #124 – Ex-DoD Intelligence Officer’s UFO Claims Spark Security Concerns & Confusion, Pentagon Memos Reveal first appeared on The Black Vault.

That DoD/OIG complaint was published by the NY POST.

In October of 2022, The Black Vault filed three FOIA requests seeking out the following:

1. A copy of the video and/or audio of Mr. Luis Elizondo’s interview with Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations that occurred on, or around, May 19, 2021, a transcript of the interview, and all internal notes, communications, and emails about the interview;
2. All emails within Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations which contain the word “Elizondo”; and
3. All emails that are to/from (bcc’d or cc’d) the DoD OIG and attorney Daniel Peter Sheehan, from January 1, 2020, to the date of processing your request.

The discovery of the interview was made by The Black Vault throughout previous FOIA cases.

On February 9, 2023, the DoD/OIG responded and came back with responsive records. Although the audio recording was unable to be edited to comply with the FOIA (appeal pending), a transcript (partially redacted) was released.

In addition to this, other key records became available, including a February 16, 2022, letter from Nilgen Tolek, Director of the Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations within the DoD/OIG, wherein it was stated that, “The evidence we reviewed does not support your client’s reprisal complaint because no action affecting his eligibility for access to classified information was taken or threatened against him.”

Tolek continued, “Your client’s eligibility for access to classified information remains intact. Accordingly, we are closing his case.”

Other records released were communications between Mr. Elizondo and the DoD/OIG’s office, along with internal communications about the investigation.

Document Archive

DoD Inspector General Releases Transcript of Luis Elizondo Interview & Much More [103 Pages, 4.1MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [4.21 MB]

DoD Inspector General Releases Emails in Different FOIA Case. Repeats from above. Archived for reference. [10 Pages, 2MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.96 MB]

FOIA Case Files for above FOIA Requests [64 Pages, 17.9MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [17.96 MB]

The post DoD Inspector General Releases Transcript of Luis Elizondo Interview & Much More first appeared on The Black Vault.

So I will throw a monkey wrench into this wheel. I see a lot of talk and dismissal of a story posted on Reddit, and I can add a few things, including what I verified to be true.  The post throws into question on what was depicted in the History channel show “Unidentified” and how people depicted as running the present day AATIP effort, may not have been. Although it’s a tv show, and some people may not care about context, it does created additional questions worthy of asking.

First? This story came to me in 2019, and it checks out, at least on the points I can check. It ties in to the History Channel; the show “Unidentified”; and specifically a scene in Season 1, Episode 6, that depicts what appears to be a secret meeting just outside the Pentagon between, “a new team of Pentagon officers who are studying UFOs” and “running this [AATIP] effort,” “…with official blessing.” (Quotes taken from the tv show “Unidentified,” as said by Luis Elizondo.)

Let me explain, and take this for what it’s worth.

Second? You all know I do not like anonymous sources. So, when this person came to me, I do what I always do. I vet and verify. However, please note from the get go, they were NOT anonymous to me and made ZERO effort to hide their identity with me (which is always a red flag if they did try to do that). They just did not want me to blast out their identity. Every claim I could check… checked out. All evidence pointed to they WERE active U.S. Army counterintelligence, and they even contacted me through a military e-mail initially to also help verify credentials. That also checked out as it was verified not to be a spoofed address. In addition, the Reddit moderator where this was posted recently was given enough evidence to convince them as a law enforcement officer, that the person’s credentials checked out. So, there are multiple people who vetted the source, and to that extent, it could be verified by all.

Third? Back in 2019, I dissected the claim of where the alleged Elizondo/Delonge meeting was. I was told in 2019, as was posted publicly here in 2021, it was the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Virginia. I took a different approach here.

The scene in episode 6, season 1, of “Unidentified” showed Elizondo and DeLonge inside a hotel room. Captured on the side of the frame was a hotel room mirror. It was a very distinct design, and likely unique to the hotel, emulating the “Crystal” part of the Crystal Gateway Marriott. In other words, it was a crystal shaped mirror. Heading to the website of the Crystal Gateway Marriott, there are numerous photos of the rooms. There was a 100% match on the mirror on the wall and the desk lamp on the table.

Another scene showed DeLonge walking through the hotel going to the meeting. Slightly blurred behind him, was a long light pillar, also found within photos of the hotel in the lobby area. Again, yet another match.

So, in 2019, you’d have to be a very lucky guesser, or someone with intimate knowledge of the television shoot’s location to nail that one.

Let’s move on.

Fourth? The physical description of the person. I won’t go into any other detail, other than this. While vetting the person, I found numerous photographs of them. In Unidentified, that person was a match, in both stature and physical appearance, along with a somewhat unique physical feature of the person – and yes, you could tell even with the blurred face. Yet another indicator the person was truly there, and telling the truth about sitting at the meeting in a hotel lobby.

Because this person did not want to have their identity known in 2019 or even here at the end of 2021, I respected that then as I do now. I also knew with my own personal conviction, I wouldn’t run a story with one single source, who could not be named, and was known only by me. It was no offense to this counter-intelligence agent speaking up; rather, that’s how I’ve always operated. So, I just sat on it until they were ready to come forward to people beyond just me and invited themselves to be vetted. That time has now come.

People thought I was/am out to get Elizondo, and I am not. Not then and certainly not now. If I was, I would’ve been happy to publish this in 2019 with no named sources, since most UFO blogs and sites claiming to be a “news site” do the same anyway making all sorts of claims. But, that’s not my style or intent. I am out to get the truth, whatever that may be, with no personal bias on what I want it to actually be. So, I just dig and dig and dig, and with stories like this, I verify what I can, and store it for later use.

That said, this story has always been a bit of a surprise to me, even to this day.

I decided to post the above at this point, given the raging debate that people think this CI agent is not an agent, and is some kid on Reddit making it up. I can at least say through research and personal interaction, that isn’t true, and their story has remained consistent since 2019. In addition, all things that I could challenge of the story? All checked out.

Most of all, I was let down that what was framed as a secret meeting between intelligence officers, was nothing of the sort. It was more of a “job interview” (as this Army CI agent said), with at least one of the parties at the table not knowing it would end up in a TV show or the fact they were even being filmed. In addition, with that context, at least one of the people at this meeting was certainly not “running [the AATIP]effort,” but according to them, they were just “talking about some wild stuff [with]little evidence to support any of it.”

I wonder what the other two at the table knew about this “meeting” and whether or not they are happy with being secretly filmed and put on tv?

As a television producer who worked extensively for A&E networks / History Channel, I could NEVER film someone without their consent. Or, if they just seemed to be in the shot (ie: a person walking behind my main framed character), then we would have to blur the face and only show those who were cleared with an appearance release. Many have tried to dismiss this story because the Army officer says he had no knowledge of being filmed. Well, I am here to tell you as someone with first hand knowledge, although shady, the producers could get away with it if they adequately blurred the face and did not use the person’s voice.

I re-watched the segment on Unidentified, and I can say that again, from experience, that meeting was intentionally misrepresented with narration and sound bites, if this counterintelligence agent is telling the truth (I see no signs they are not). Also as a television producer with experience, I now question what else could have been misrepresented more for entertainment/intrigue/mystery/tease rather than accuracy. Trust me, in television production, that’s an easy thing to get away with (obviously, as seen here).

Why is this important? Because when I saw the meeting aired and represented how it was on the TV show, I was incredibly intrigued and encouraged. I felt that this was maybe some proof the Pentagon was lying, and the AATIP effort was underway, even in “secret.” Yet, now, one of the people at the table comes forward, and we learn that at least according to them, they wanted to be involved in the effort, but were not at all, nor were they ever. And what was supposed to be a meeting between those at the table who were currently running AATIP, well, it was actually just a scene secretly filmed for a tv show, and misrepresented on the air as something it was not.

Let it be known, I do not blame DeLonge or Elizondo by default for this. It is very possible that they, too, were unaware of the filming being taken in secret from the 2nd level of the hotel. So, my post here is not an attack on them in the slightest, nor is it an insinuation they did this. They could very well have been unaware of all this in the context it was shown.

Producers often will take b-roll shots, especially without the talent’s knowledge, so it appears to be more genuine and real in the context of a television program. In fact, I did this myself on quite a few occasions, but certainly not maliciously or for the intent of misrepresenting. And my talent was always made aware after the fact they were filmed, if I shot b-roll of them.

That said, SOMEONE made the call to frame this all in this way. So I hope in the interest of accuracy, someone will speak out about it from the cast and/or crew just to clear it up. And, maybe they should even apologize, since this Army counterintelligence agent had to file a formal report with superiors since they were told things about “classified material” that weren’t actually classified, and all that same information ended up on DeLonge’s social media account and on a tv show.

What do you all do with the above? Well, that is up to you. I am sure my post will entice the same attackers to start throwing stones my way for posting about this, like I am somehow to blame for all this. However, the facts are what they are. I challenged the story in every way I could, and it all checked out.

But I do believe this is an important part of this saga and it should be dealt with. If players in this story advocate for truth and transparency, then I think at least some of the above should be addressed.

In addition, I feel there is a possibility (though I am not 100%) this CI agent’s identity may be known ONE DAY when they decide to put a face and a name to the anonymous posting. And when that happens, people will see they are a real person.

As for the other two at the table? Well, I may have something to add to that, too, should they ever decide to come forward. But that is a story for another day.

Until then, I wish you continued luck with unraveling the AATIP/AAWSAP/UAP saga. We are all going to need it as the waters seem to be getting muddier rather than clearing up.

###

The Original Reddit Post – Archived 12/20/2021 @ 6:51a Pacific

The post History Channel’s “Unidentified” and a Secret Meeting Between Intelligence Officials Running AATIP. Or… was it? first appeared on The Black Vault.

Premieres October 29th, 2021 @ 5p Pacific / 8p Eastern

Since December of 2017, we have all been told a story… a story about a $22 million “Secret Pentagon UFO Study” and the man who ran it.

But now, nearly four years later, a new book has has turned much of this story upside down.

According to this book, those original stories were all wrong. And what we thought we knew, is not the case. This new book, according to page 160 anyway, aims to simply “correct the record.”

But does it? Should we dismiss the old claims and make room for the new ones? Although not all the original claims are being challenged, which do we choose TO believe and which do we choose NOT to believe?

This is the story about why for the past nearly four years, the saga that has involved AATIP, AAWSAP, UFOs, a ranch in Utah infested by the paranormal, and multiple former government personnel — is still riddle with confusion and lingering quest ions — even with this new book that aims to correct the record.

Stay tuned… you’re about the journey Inside The Black Vault.

The post AAWSAP & AATIP: Why Confusion Continues To Reign and Questions Continue To Linger first appeared on The Black Vault.

Shortly after The Black Vault published that story, the DoD explained further on who they felt was to blame.

And that’s when the story gets more bizarre.

That explanation has remained unpublished, until now, and has revealed a much larger potential problem when it comes to document preservation within the DoD.

Although the deleted e-mails may not seem out of the ordinary to some; it is. Buried within mounds of “records disposition schedules,” documented proof (File Number: 102-12.1) shows that this information should have been retained by the DoD until at least the year 2024, if not, possibly even being mandated to be retained indefinitely. The schedules also make no reference to individual employees being solely responsible for records retention after they resign or leave the department.

According to the official word from the DoD, it’s the employee’s responsibility to adhere to document preservation protocols and do their own data backups. So in this case, that would be Elizondo. However, actual evidence to that fact is non-existent, and when asked, the DoD would not or could not supply it for this article.

When this story first broke, it fueled speculation by the public that this is the most recent tactic by the DoD in a well-orchestrated “smear campaign” to discredit Elizondo and his story. Throughout the past three and a half years, the Pentagon has issued numerous statements calling into question Elizondo’s claims; the program he says he directed; and even Elizondo himself.

Without being able to cite any “authority” that allowed the obliteration of Elizondo’s e-mails, the DoD has finally issued another response to The Black Vault in order to explain what happened.

Yet, that clarity only produced more questions than answers.

The Three Month Journey for Clarity

After OSD FOIA Case 19-F-1903 was closed and the outcome exposed that Elizondo’s files were destroyed, The Black Vault immediately began seeking further clarification. After two months of waiting for those answers, The Black Vault ended the waiting game and decided to publish the original story on May 27, 2021. However, the pursuit for clarity continued thereafter, and a week after publishing, a new letter came on June 3 (despite it being dated May 7).

In a letter from Stephanie L. Carr (signed by Stephen L. Fisher), Chief of the FOIA division within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), they outline what is called a “journaled account,” and describe the process that needs to take place in order for information to be retained for “ten years.” In order to formulate this response to The Black Vault, OSD coordinated with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the “record custodian” of Elizondo’s e-mail box, as they operate the DoD’s Enterprise Email (DEE) system.

“If they left the DoD entirely in 2017 and haven’t used their @mail.mil email since then they (emails) would be gone unless the user was Journaled,” the letter explained. “A Journaled account is an optional DoD Enterprise Email (DEE) service that provides Mission Partners the ability to retain all messages and their attachments sent to and from selected Journaled mailboxes. While not required for all end-users, it is recommended for high ranking and other designated individuals whose email may contain official records which are subject to legal and regulatory requirements. Messages in Journaled accounts are preserved for 10 years.”

In other words, it is up to the employee or individual departments themselves to “journal” their accounts in order to save the data. However, there is one potential problem with the entire explanation given in this instance: it wouldn’t apply. Or at least, it shouldn’t.

The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)

Although DISA operates the technology that allowed Elizondo (and the untold number of other DEE users throughout the DoD) to have e-mail (and gain access to numerous other functions), the rules and procedures set forth for record management by DISA would not overwrite OSD protocols that are in place for their own records.

Although it can get massively confusing, it is indisputable that up until October 4, 2017, Elizondo worked within a component of OSD called the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSD(I)), which was renamed in 2019 to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (OUSD(I&S)). And as technically an OSD employee prior to his resignation, the numerous “record disposition schedules” written and adhered to by OSD directly, would trump any other agency’s when it came to the preservation of Elizondo’s e-mails.

DISA has their own “records management program” and their procedures are just that, their procedures. And yes, those would dictate how long they would keep a copy of Elizondo’s e-mail box after he retired, and a set of procedures dictate when DISA would delete Elizondo’s files on the DISA operated DEE system. But that would only apply on the DISA operated DEE system and Elizondo’s e-mail box. When it came to the contents of the e-mail box, since they were technically OSD records; OSD’s policies and procedures would apply and trump DISA’s. DISA would be completely authorized to delete the box; OSD would then be dictated by their own schedules on when their copies should/could be wiped out.

To best illustrate proof of this, OSD’s 100 Series schedule outlines specifically e-mails on the DEE system, and how they are to be retained:

If DISA’s policies and procedures applied in this case, than no OSD schedule would exist that outlined the above. Why? Because DISA would manage the records and their retention solely. However, that is not the case as indicated here with documented proof.

As of the writing of this article, and in the months of research that went into it, no DISA program, policy, or procedure was found that showed they were the sole proprietor of records on behalf of any agency and that they would be responsible for each individual agency’s record retention schedule along with adhering to it. That process remains the responsibility of the individual AGENCY itself, and in this case, OSD would be mandated to maintain Elizondo’s emails and contents thereof, until at least 2024.

A Massive Legal, Historical, and Retention Issue Exposed

The discovery of this has now shed light on another potential issue within the record keeping practices of the DoD. That is, despite a written schedule that mandates the preservation of sensitive information, it may not be followed properly and valuable documentation is likely being lost to the delete key.

There is a large public interest in Elizondo’s history with UFOs, and many focus their frustration that the information pertaining to this, and the program known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (or AATIP), is lost for good.  However, away from UFOs, Elizondo has a provable history that stretches far beyond unidentified aerial phenomena.

In his resignation letter, Elizondo signed it as the, “Director, National Programs Special Management Staff (NPSMS).” This office, in which very little is known publicly, has become a focal point for The Black Vault to hone in on to attempt to fully understand the scope of it.

First discovered in August of 2019, The Black Vault dug up court transcript documents regarding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), considered to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

In this 2017 military court transcript, KSM’s attorney David Nevin made reference to the NPSMS, and called them the “SAP Access People.” It appeared by the dialogue between Nevin and the judge presiding over the case, that the NPSMS controlled the Special Access Program (SAP) access for the defense team’s interpreter. That access was required for the interpreter to hold that position, and it was the NPSMS that would orchestrate it.

In another part of the proceedings, a second transcript revealed that, “The NPSMS is the office responsible for administering the special access program for the Office of Military Commissions.”

With the involvement of the NPSMS in this matter, and coupled with the fact that Elizondo was the Director of it, it is likely Elizondo’s e-mails, chat transcripts, calendars, etc., would potentially be legal evidence involved in the still active trial of KSM.

This is just one example from the minimal information that is known about the NPSMS, and it happens to tie into one of the biggest trials that is underway post the 9/11 attacks. If the NPSMS were involved with SAPs, and their objective as an office was to facilitate access to highly sensitive programs, technology, and would communicate extensively about such issues; one would think that is considered “historically significant” and more importantly, a legal concern for preservation, in case it played a role in a legal proceeding as evidence.

However, this issue may stretch beyond just Elizondo’s e-mails and calendars. The confusion, and lack of clarity, when dealing with records retention is alarming. There are extensive schedules written by OSD that outline how, and why, records are kept and for how long. Yet, it appears these are not being followed, since no one in the FOIA office, nor the office of public affairs for OSD, could cite any reasonable “authority” to destroy these records.

It begs to ask the question, how much more is being lost?

Over the course of the past five weeks, The Black Vault attempted to get additional information about this issue from the Public Affairs office within the DoD by writing Susan Gough, a Pentagon spokesperson who has been tasked to answer all questions about Elizondo, UAPs, and related matters.

The first attempt was on June 7, 2021, and over the course of five weeks, The Black Vault sent six follow-ups regarding this issue, and although some were acknowledged with claims information would be forthcoming, nothing ever came.

The last attempt was on July 14, just days prior to this article being published. This was a last attempt which outlined to the DoD that the story was moving forward; it would be published by the end of the week; and it was stated exactly what was being reported to ensure that if there was any inaccuracy or misinterpretation, it could be corrected prior to publishing.

The final follow-up stated the following:

“Hello Sue,

I am going to just go ahead and finish this final article update on this issue. I’ve waited some time to add any additional comment or supply additional information as, but understand if OSD does not want to add any additional information or comment.

I just can’t find any supporting documentation about the deletion of emails, and the responsibility of the employee to do it, which seems to be the stance I received from the FOIA team.

I feel the story here is just that, the confusion about records retention and the loss of potentially important documentation. To know that Luis Elizondo’s position would be actively engaged in situations like the trial of KSM, it’s hard to believe that stuff is wiped out if he doesn’t appropriately push a button. As an advocate for preservation and transparency (in that order), it’s a bit of a concern that if information is destroyed that easily, what else may be being lost?

I am in no way trying to paint any one, or any agency, in a bad light. Rather, I’d like to shed light on a story I feel is very important, hence why I have politely pushed for answers from you to ensure accuracy on this.

I appreciate any last minute clarity on this. I have the FOIA office’s letter of approved language from before, but just want to make sure if I publish that with the interpretation that employees are to blame if disposition schedules are not followed, that I am not going against what any updated official stance is on this (or related) matters.

Thank you so much for your time. I publish Friday morning.”

As of the writing of this article, no response or even acknowledgement ever came.

This saga, and this story, is the culmination of years worth of work by The Black Vault. Although the intent was to seek out information about Elizondo and his connection to UAPs over the course of eight different FOIA cases; what was revealed was an even bigger issue about document preservation, destruction, and the lack of adherence to a set of published protocols to ensure information is properly saved.

There are numerous questions that were posed throughout the past few months, with no answers being given. This would include:

1. If an individual employee is responsible for document preservation, where is that outlined in the record disposition schedules?
2. Why are DISA schedules being cited, when clearly OSD schedules outline specifically e-mails from a DEE system, and how they are supposed to be retained?
3. What are the repercussions for an employee “not adhering” to the protocols to backup their own work?
4. Is there ANY oversight to the long list of DoD personnel that have varying schedules they need to adhere to?
5. What happens if a person leaves the department abruptly? There is no team there to ensure their information is properly saved to adhere to schedules?
6. How many other employees/personnel are not properly adhering to schedules, and how much data is truly being lost?

Multiple FOIA requests were filed to seek out some of the answers to the above. However, the alarming issue, is the above should be able to be addressed quickly or in a somewhat timely manner. Instead, no one The Black Vault reached out to, could contribute anything beyond the written and approved statements above. And with documented proof, it appears that those explanations that took months to get, would not even apply in this situation.

This article is published with hopes that someone, somewhere, will see the importance of this issue, and take note that the historical information and even legal evidence is being lost.

To what extent? It seems that likely… no one really knows.

###

Luis Elizondo was unavailable for comment for this article.

The post Data Destruction Reveals Larger Issue with DoD Records Retention first appeared on The Black Vault.

Back in early December 2020, the now infamous “Batman Balloon” leaked and was published. Although not popular at the time, I put forth a theory on why it may all be happening, and why it was seemingly so easy to debunk.

This is an excerpt from that presentation.

Now, in April of 2021, even MORE material is coming to light. And the Pentagon, just doesn’t seem to care. In fact, on this recent round of material, it seemed a bit too easy to get a response from them regarding the leak, and they acknowledged it was all genuine. However, they wouldn’t say if it was considered “unidentified.”

Why?

This flashback to the theory presented in December of 2020, still holds water today. And maybe, even more so.

Take a look.

For the full presentation, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F4Xxqd450w

The post Why Are UFO Leaks Happening? A Flashback To A Theory On WHY Which Still Rings True Today first appeared on The Black Vault.

The CEO of the corporation, Tom DeLonge, said in an Instagram post (which he later deleted) that he worked up an “established credibility” between TTSA and OSD. 

The Black Vault then filed a second time for documents on TTSA within OSD, having previously been told no records existed in 2018.

They found four pages within OSD that dealt with TTSA. Every page was not releasable as they said they were all about a “decision making process” or known as exemption (b)(5).

The previous “no record” response could still have been legitimately “no records.” Why? I submitted it in October of 2017 on a hunch after seeing Luis Elizondo, and his testimony, claiming to be a former employee of OSD. OSD’s denial was in August of 2018. The four pages could theoretically have been created after August 2018.

What’s it all mean and what’s in the four pages?

Is it about the CRADA? Is it about the UAP Video Leak investigation? Who knows… It will, for now, remain a mystery.

###

The post Department of Defense Exempts Records on To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science first appeared on The Black Vault.

On December 16, 2017, the New York Times and To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) published two videos which both organizations claimed showed “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” or UAPs. Although reported at the time as being recently “declassified” by the U.S. government (a claim currently disputed by both the Pentagon and the U.S. Navy); revelations in the weeks that followed proved that one of the two videos known as “FLIR1” had already been leaked onto the internet in 2007, about a decade prior to the news.

The “FLIR1” footage is of an unidentified flying object (UFO) seen in 2004 by pilots flying with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group during training missions off the coast of San Diego. However, the video was never meant to be seen by the public, and that was a concern to the Navy.

In recent statements given to The Black Vault, the Navy admits they were not only aware of the leak as early as 2009 but also investigated how the footage ended up on the internet. “With respect to the 2004 sighting by aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68); that video was widely shared throughout the ship at that time. In 2007, one of those crewmembers posted the video onto the public web,” said Joseph Gradisher, official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. “In 2009, the online post of the video came to the attention of Navy officials,” he continued.

The first known appearance of the “FLIR1” video was posted on the popular “alternative topic” message forum AboveTopSecret on February 4, 2007. A file named ‘f4.mpg’ was linked within a larger post on the site, which then led to a German production company’s website known as “Vision Unlimited” for the download. Although the digital video has long been removed from the active site online today, it can still be found on the “Wayback Machine,” a project by “Internet Archive” which aims to archive snapshots of the internet at random intervals.

It is unclear exactly how “Vision Unlimited” came to house the file, even to “Vision Unlimited” itself. In a late December 2017 interview with Grenzwissenschaft-Aktuell.de (GreWi), Mr. Philip Schneider, manager of “Vision Unlimited,” stated, “We don’t know where the file came from and can only say that it hasn’t been on the server for a long time since,” said Schneider. “Because the case is so strange, we also wanted to investigate. But quickly this showed to be fruitless because the file was on an old server and all data (LOGs etc.) are no longer available. I’ve also talked to former employees who had access to the server, but no one could tell me anything about it.”

Although no further information is available on how the “FLIR1” video wound up on a German server under a different filename, the Navy was made aware of the situation. Gradisher told The Black Vault, “…in consultation with Navy law enforcement personnel, [the Navy]decided not to pursue the matter. Given the time since recording (approximately 5 years), the widespread distribution of the recording within the ship at the time of recording, and the size of the crew at the time (approximately 5,000), it was determined that there was no way to accurately determine who might have released the video.”

Although no action was taken on the original 2007 leak, the Navy and the Pentagon have both issued statements to The Black Vault asserting that not only the “FLIR1,” but also other UAP related videos known as the “Gimbal” and “GoFast” were not cleared for public release. This means that all three videos, which the Navy does officially acknowledge depict UAPs, are all considered “leaks” and not official releases.

When asked specifically about the 2017 and 2018 leaks of the “Gimbal” and “GoFast” videos, Gradisher stated, “With respect to the other 2 videos cited, the Navy has no information on how they were released into general circulation.”

However, that information has seemingly been widely reported. TTSA has long made the claim through multiple interviews and written statements that TTSA board member Mr. Luis Elizondo spearheaded the movement to get the videos reviewed by the appropriate Department of Defense (DOD) components. In addition, releases directly to The Black Vault under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the DOD further prove Elizondo filed the official paperwork, and communicated directly with the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR), the agency that manages all DOD related security reviews of information.

TTSA has never publicly disputed any of the hundreds of news stories which stated, or alluded to, Elizondo having brought forward the videos into general circulation.

When this information was brought up to the Navy, and the question was posed again on whether they would investigate the “Gimbal” and “GoFast” leaks; the Navy was clear that no more information would be released on the matter. Gradisher stated simply, “The Navy will not comment on claims/comments from any outside parties with respect to the videos you’ve mentioned.”

The post U.S. Navy Investigated Circumstances Behind Leaked UFO Footage first appeared on The Black Vault.

In a series of statements obtained exclusively by The Black Vault, the U.S. Navy confirms three UFO related videos represent what they call “unidentified aerial phenomena” or UAPs.  Originally released by the New York Times and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) beginning in December of 2017, the three videos are commonly referred to as the “FLIR1,” “Gimbal” and “GoFast” (the third being released in March 2018). According to TTSA’s website, the clips represent, “… the first official evidence released by the US government that can be rightfully designated as credible, authentic confirmation that unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) are real.”  The Navy’s official position now confirms TTSA’s claims, at least, in part.

“The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena,” said Joseph Gradisher, official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. When asked why the phrase “UAP” is now utilized by the U.S. Navy, and not “UFO,” Mr. Gradisher added, “The ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges.”

(story continues below this video…)

However, the Navy also asserts that the three videos were never cleared for public release, thus confirming the official stance of the Pentagon originally issued to The Black Vault in May of 2019, and contradicting TTSA’s widespread claims the U.S. government “declassified” the footage for public consumption.

“The videos were never officially released to the general public by the DoD and should still be withheld,” said Pentagon Spokesperson Susan Gough to The Black Vault earlier this year. Mr. Gradisher, on behalf of the Navy, confirms the Pentagon’s position this week by adding, “The Navy has not released the videos to the general public.”

The Navy’s new statements also contradict information contained in a string of e-mails recently released by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The FOIA release to The Black Vault yielded sixteen pages of e-mails between Mr. Luis Elizondo, the man who sits as a board member of TTSA and claims to have headed the Pentagon’s secret UFO study known as “AATIP,” and the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR), a component of the OSD that manages security reviews of information both “public and controlled release.”

In one of the released e-mails, Mr. Elizondo stated his justification for the clearance to use the three videos for U.S. government use only: “Unmanned aerial vehicles (balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc) continue to pose a potential threat to DoD facilities, equipment, and location. Army, Navy, and Air Force have all acknowledged the potential threat by UAS’ to DoD equities but no single UNCLASSIFIED repository exists to share this Information across all stakeholders.” Mr. Elizondo continued, “Our collective purpose is to eventually establish an UNCLASSIFIED database or ‘Community of Interest’ of related signature data to be accessible by stakeholders such as DIA, the Navy, Defense Industry partners, and perhaps even State, Local & Tribal authorities to catalog and identify specific UAS threats to national security and/or DoD equities.”

No e-mail released by OSD, which contained the entire conversion between Mr. Elizondo and DOPSR, mentioned UFOs, UAPs or anything “unidentified.”

In addition to these e-mailed communications released, there was a DD Form 1910. This document is used to officially request a DOPSR review of information, and here, Mr. Elizondo described the videos also as “UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle], Balloons, and other UAS [unmanned aerial system].”

Again, no reference to UFOs, UAPs or anything “unidentified.”

When asked for clarification from the Navy on why the discrepancy exists, Mr. Gradisher stated, “The Navy has no comment on, nor control over, how civilian individuals or organizations may or may not describe the objects in the referenced videos. The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena.” He then added, “You’d have to contact Mr. Elizondo on his descriptions.  I can’t comment or speculate on how/why he referred to them in that way.”

Mr. Elizondo and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) were contacted for comment, but neither party has responded.

The e-mails show that although Mr. Elizondo was ultimately granted “[U.S. Government] Use Only” for the videos to be used in a database about aerial threats from unmanned systems such as drones; it was the Navy that needed to correspond with DOPSR and offer their official sign-off for full, unrestricted, public release. That communication required from the Navy was absent from the FOIA release, so the Navy was contacted for comment.

“Neither the cognizant Navy offices nor DOPSR have record of any correspondence responding to a request for unrestricted release of the subject videos in 2017,” said Mr. Gradisher, thus confirming that no evidence exists that authorized a public release for the three videos in question.

The Navy told The Black Vault the three videos are considered “unclassified,” however, unclassified information still requires a review for public release. Anything considered unclassified may still contain sensitive information, imagery or data embedded within digital files that may not be considered classified; yet it may still be considered sensitive.

Multiple statements and written records now show that the approval required for “public release” never took place, and the claims by TTSA that the videos represent, “official evidence released by the US government,” remain unfounded.

This new information comes amidst a flurry of other official comments complicating the claims of TTSA. In May of this year, The Black Vault began receiving the first statements from the Pentagon indicating the “FLIR1,” “Gimbal” and “GoFast” videos were not cleared for public release, despite the claims of TTSA.  In June, Keith Kloor with The Intercept received a statement from the Pentagon that Mr. Luis Elizondo had “no responsibilities” within the AATIP program, despite the widespread published claims by TTSA that he headed it. A 2009 letter by Senator Harry Reid was quickly touted by some to claim Mr. Elizondo’s story was in fact true; however the Pentagon quickly countered with official statements issued to The Black Vault stating that the letter’s existence did not change their stance.

To date, these official statements and comments by the Pentagon and the Navy have not been addressed or refuted by TTSA, despite them being contacted numerous times for comment.

The post U.S. Navy Confirms Videos Depict ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’; Not Cleared For Public Release first appeared on The Black Vault.