TTSA - The Black Vault

What the U.S. Military Now Says About TTSA’s Anomalous Artifact

John Greenewald — Thu, 29 May 2025 14:16:44 +0000

The U.S. Army has officially closed out its Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA), ending a five-year government-backed investigation into alleged anomalous materials that once captured headlines for their rumored connection to unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). The final close-out report, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and now published by The Black Vault (available below), provides an inside look into the results from the U.S. Army’s point of view.

The CRADA, designated Agreement #19-15 and titled “Novel & Emerging Technology Exploitation (NETE),” was initiated in 2019 between TTSA and the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC). The project focused on analyzing a metallic sample referred to in the documents as “Artifact A1” which was provided by TTSA. The company claimed the material held promise for defense applications, including the potential to act as an electromagnetic (EM) waveguide based on theoretical designs published by Podolskiy et al. in Journal of Modern Optics.

It should be noted that the only sample provided by TTSA for testing under the CRADA was the Magnesium-Zinc-Bismuth Artifact designated as “A1.” No additional samples such as an A2, A3, etc. were submitted for analysis during the five-year partnership, despite TTSA’s previous public assertions that it had acquired multiple alleged artifacts from various witnesses and caretakers/investigators of exotic materials. Despite the organization’s broad claims about possessing a collection of anomalous items, the Army’s documentation confirms that only a single artifact was ever made available for government evaluation.

The Army, in partnership with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), conducted structural, compositional, and isotopic testing over a five-year span. Despite TTSA’s initial claims, the final verdict was clear: “The USG found that the physical and elemental properties of the A1 are incompatible in its current state to serve as an EM wave guide,” the report states. While the sample contained the right constituent materials, it lacked the necessary structure to function as theorized. The artifact was ultimately assessed as “likely a test object, a manufacturing product or byproduct, or a material component of aerospace performance studies to evaluate the properties of Mg alloys.”

Significantly, the Army’s close-out report contains no mention of UAPs, UFOs, or extraterrestrial origins — all terms that fueled widespread speculation when TTSA first announced the agreement. Instead, the report limits its scope to potential applications for “ground vehicle survivability and protection.”

The Army categorized the effort as scientifically worthwhile, stating the research “advanced the knowledge and science regarding novel materials of national security interest.” It also credited the effort for developing relationships between defense agencies, private industry, and legislative stakeholders. However, the Army concluded there was “no military or ground vehicle application” for the sample, and “no joint intellectual property” was generated.

AARO and Oak Ridge Publish Supporting Scientific Findings

The Army’s close-out report refers readers to the AARO website for additional documentation of the analysis. One key document now publicly accessible is titled “Synopsis of Analysis of a Metallic Specimen Conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)” and was authored by AARO.

According to the AARO synopsis, ORNL received the sample in June 2021 and subjected it to a comprehensive suite of analytical methods, including light and scanning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, mass spectrometry, and other techniques.

The findings align with those summarized in the Army’s close-out report. ORNL concluded that the sample was composed of magnesium, zinc, and bismuth in a layered structure. However, the scientific review emphasized that while such materials have been of theoretical interest in metamaterials research, the sample lacked uniformity and precision manufacturing that would be required for it to function as a practical waveguide or exhibit anomalous behavior.

“The sample likely was made using commercial techniques,” the ORNL report states, noting “the interfaces between the layers were inconsistent and likely formed through basic casting or rolling methods.” Furthermore, the report states there was no indication that the object had properties beyond what is commonly achievable through known industrial processes.

The ORNL analysis echoes the Army’s position that the material was “not of unknown origin” and did not exhibit exotic capabilities. It categorizes the object as consistent with test materials used in conventional aerospace or academic research contexts.

Transparency Gap Between Army and TTSA

While the Army and AARO have now made available both the contractual documentation and supporting scientific findings, TTSA, which is now known as “To The Stars” (TTS), has offered only limited public response. In two brief press releases, TTS acknowledged the ORNL and AARO findings and defended its role in facilitating the analysis. However, beyond those posts, the organization has remained largely silent on the broader results of the CRADA and has not released any technical data or in-depth assessment of Artifact A1 from its own perspective.

Once promoted as a scientific and transparency-driven enterprise, TTSA has since shifted its public focus toward entertainment and media ventures, offering little to no substantive updates on the other alleged materials it once claimed to possess. Despite having acquired artifacts from various witnesses and custodians, the organization has not disclosed whether any further testing has occurred or if additional samples were ever evaluated independently.

Ironically, the very government entities TTSA once challenged for secrecy, namely the U.S. Army and AARO, have proven more transparent in this case. From the release of the full CRADA agreement to the final close-out report and supporting laboratory findings, the government has now provided the most comprehensive public record of the project.

Even so, the Army expressed appreciation for the collaboration, calling TTS “an excellent partner” and endorsing the potential for future work with AARO given their “mutual interests, aims and ends.”

But the final conclusion is clear. The lone material analyzed under the TTSA CRADA did not exhibit any exotic functionality, yielded no new military applications, and was assessed as a conventional industrial or aerospace sample… not evidence of a recovered anomalous vehicle.

###

Correction 5/29/25 – 4:15PM Pacific: This article was updated to reflect that To The Stars (TTS) did publish limited commentary on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and AARO findings in early 2025. While the original text stated the organization had remained silent, TTS did acknowledge the results in two brief press releases. However, the organization has not released technical data or substantive updates regarding any additional materials it once claimed to possess. The Black Vault regrets the mischaracterization.

Document Archive

CRADA Final Close-Out Report [4 Pages, 0.5MB]

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [484.07 KB]

The post What the U.S. Military Now Says About TTSA’s Anomalous Artifact first appeared on The Black Vault.

Army and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science: Unveiling the Secrecy Behind the UFO Material Testing Agreement

John Greenewald — Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:48:28 +0000

In October 2019, the U.S. Army and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) (now To The Stars Media) entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), sparking public interest due to TTSA’s high-profile focus on UFO research and unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). The agreement allowed the Army access to alleged exotic materials in exchange for providing TTSA with research facilities and expertise. As the agreement’s existence became known, many hoped it would offer concrete evidence about UAP-related materials. Yet, over time, it became clear that the level of secrecy surrounding this partnership would keep much of the public in the dark.

The story first appeared on The Black Vault in the article “Secrecy Deepens About U.S. Army Agreement to Analyze UFO Material“ published on October 17, 2019. In it, The Black Vault outlined the initial revelations and the air of mystery surrounding the agreement. Despite TTSA’s press release announcing the CRADA, few details were available about the material involved or the specific goals of the research. This secrecy raised concerns that the public might never fully understand the scope of the collaboration. The article highlighted that the Army, despite being relatively open about some aspects of the agreement, did not disclose the nature or origin of the material it intended to study.

Months later, The Black Vault followed up with a second article titled “Army Confirms Testing UFO Debris; Secrecy May Loom for Years About Results,” published on March 4, 2020. This marked a significant milestone in public awareness, as the Army officially confirmed it was actively conducting tests on materials linked to UAPs, which it had obtained through TTSA. The article also highlighted growing public frustration as little information was being shared about the testing process or the findings.

The Black Vault’s investigation into the Army-TTSA collaboration took another turn when the “Department of Defense Exempts Records on To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science“ article was published on January 25, 2021. This third installment revealed that the Department of Defense (DoD) invoked specific exemptions to block the release of CRADA-related documents through FOIA requests. These exemptions, notably those regarding national defense and foreign policy, cast doubt on whether the public would ever have full access to the results or documentation related to the tests conducted under the CRADA.

Together, these three articles document the evolving but highly restricted public knowledge of the Army-TTSA agreement. The agreement initially sparked hope that the Army’s involvement would bring scientific scrutiny and transparency to the investigation of UAP materials. However, over time, it became apparent that the Army’s testing would remain largely shielded from public view, with secrecy surrounding the results and the materials involved growing deeper.

The Black Vault, through numerous FOIA requests, has continued to press for the release of material generated by the CRADA. This dedicated archive serves as a repository for all related documentation, reflecting the ongoing battle between transparency and government secrecy in matters related to UAPs and UFO research in relation to this CRADA. Each document obtained adds another piece to the puzzle, but the full picture of what the Army and TTSA discovered remains elusive.

The Black Vault negotiated a “rolling release” with the Army, and the first package was released on October 23, 2024. It is unclear how much more information will be released, and when, but the Army has assured The Black Vault it continues to process the records as quickly as possible. This page will be updated as those additional releases are received.

Document Archive

FA-24-0006

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [8.38 MB]

FA-23-0015

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [3.68 MB]

FA-21-0064

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.81 MB]

The post Army and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science: Unveiling the Secrecy Behind the UFO Material Testing Agreement first appeared on The Black Vault.

Secrecy Deepens About U.S. Army Agreement To Analyze UFO Material

John Greenewald — Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:57:14 +0000

By John Greenewald, Jr. – The Black Vault – Originally Published March 12, 2020

The original October 17th, 2019, press release by To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science about their CRADA with the U.S. Army.

On October 17^th, 2019, public-benefit corporation To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) issued a press release that they created an agreement with the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) to “advance materiel and technology innovations.” This collaboration is called a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement or CRADA (pronounced CRAY-DUH). Details were scarce in the original press release, but The Black Vault was quickly able to contact the Army; secure a copy of the CRADA agreement; and then publish it the next day. Now, the U.S. Army seems to be a bit less forthcoming about releasing detail, as they denied the release of numerous documents that were requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that may have shed additional light on the research.

The U.S. Army’s 2019 release of the CRADA to The Black Vault offered a glimpse into what it was about. “To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science is a company with material and technology innovations that offer capability advancements for Army ground vehicles,” the agreement outlined. “[TTSA] will share their discoveries with CCDC Ground Vehicle Systems Center Ground Vehicle Survivability and Protection (GVSP), who will use Government laboratories and resources to characterize the technologies and find applications on ground vehicles.”

This is a piece of “metamaterial” acquired by To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science. It was purchased from Linda Moulton Howe.

Metamaterial Mystery

The ‘material’ referenced in the agreement ties into the acquisition of numerous pieces of metamaterial by TTSA. On September 27, 2018, TTSA issued a press release outlining that they had, “… collected seven pieces of material, from multiple sources, to study for The ADAM Research Project. Each sample represents different elements of potential Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and how they operate.” (It should be noted that the number of pieces acquired by TTSA has grown since the original publication of their 2018 press release.)

Metamaterials are defined as material that is structured and does not resemble anything that naturally occurs. There are many uses of metamaterials being explored today, which include them being used for medical devices, aerospace applications, solar power, communication and even invisibility cloaking.

There are mixed feelings by investors about the collaboration with the Army. Danny Silva, an investor who blogs about TTSA related issues, including metamaterials, posts his work on his site called the Silva Record and is fully supportive of the agreement. “Many of us are disclosure advocates and we don’t care if disclosure comes from the government, TTSA, the invisible college, The Black Vault or anywhere else. We just want the truth out, no matter what it is. No matter how great or how ugly it is,” Silva told The Black Vault. “It’s amazing that the Army is interested in seeing what TTSA can come up with. It’s positive movement for the UFO subject as a whole.”

Arthur Iglesias, an investor from the United Kingdom, told The Black Vault, “[I’m] very happy with it. CRADAs were designed to speed the commercialization of technology,” he said. “It provides a support network that will empower TTSA and it’s efforts.”

Attorney and TTSA investor Nathan Hendrickson has also has kept a close eye on TTSA and the developments with their acquired pieces of metamaterial. He was not surprised that they wanted to analyze the pieces they had collected in a professional manner; however, he was dismayed at the involvement of the Army. “TTSA sending metamaterials to the Army isn’t what they implied they were going to do a couple of years back,” Hendrickson opined. “The inference was all of this stuff, their research, their technology, was going to be for the public good and benefit.”

TTSA appears to understand the concerns of the general public, and their shareholders, but they stand by their decision that the Army will provide them exactly what they need to get to the bottom of the mystery.

The Black Vault spoke directly with the team of spokespeople at TTSA about these concerns, and in response, they referenced their “Frequently Asked Questions” section of their website to alleviate any worry the general public may have. “The U.S. Army’s positive response to the high-profile nature of this agreement and To The Stars Academy’s mutual approval to publicly release the details of the CRADA displays the willingness and desire to be transparent with the public,” the page reads. “As a technology leader, the U.S. Government can provide exceptional resources to accelerate testing and analysis that otherwise would be cost-prohibitive to a start-up the size of To The Stars Academy.”

The FOIA and Corporate Secrecy

Immediately after the CRADA was published by The Black Vault in 2019, multiple FOIA requests were filed to dig deeper into what it was all about. This included seeking communications between TTSA and the Army about the agreement. A second asked for e-mails that were sent either to or from Dr. Joseph Cannon, one of the principal investigators for the Government, which talked about TTSA. These requests would likely offer insight into the full objectives behind the agreement, including potentially new revelations or even clues about the material testing.

However, each document discovered by the Army as responsive to these requests; were denied in full.

“There are twenty-nine (29) emails totaling one hundred (100) pages,” CCDC FOIA Officer and Records Manager Joy L. Linton told The Black Vault. Linton cited FOIA exemptions (b)(4) and (b)(5) to withhold the records, which are respectively explained as “trade secrets and commercial or financial information” and “privileged communications with or between agencies, including those protected by deliberative process privilege.”

The original February 21, 2020, FOIA response denying the records. (Page 1 – full letter is below)

TTSA investor Hendrickson is let down at the Army’s response to The Black Vault’s FOIA request, but not surprised. “I don’t like it, but that’s the nature of the military beast. While I’m glad that these mysterious metamaterials are being looked at by professionals, it’s frustrating in that it looks like [TTSA has] a five year contract with the Army, so we aren’t going to get any information on these materials for at least five years, if not more, if ever.”

Silva also felt it was nothing out of the ordinary, but believes TTSA will be forthcoming about the results in the end. “The FOIA denials stating the ball is in TTSA’s court I would assume are somewhat standard. That doesn’t surprise me,” he explained. “Plus, the CRADA has just begun. Only time will tell how TTSA chooses to proceed IF the tests come back positive, anomalous, or whatever they might be. I don’t think it’s fair to speculate, but eventually I would expect the public would hear something from TTSA if the results are interesting.”

Iglesias is positive, but actually feels secrecy may be warranted if TTSA shields the results. “I feel like they would share relevant scientific information with the public and the scientific community,” he outlined. “[But I] don’t think they will share information that could empower potential competitors in the future.”

When TTSA was asked by The Black Vault about sharing the results with the public; details were not forthcoming. “We cannot comment on when and where results will be published in the future, but TTSA is committed to responsible reporting that upholds the highest standards of reliability and integrity,” they said in a statement.

The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory — the Army’s corporate research laboratory — traces its lineage back to the Watertown Arsenal, established in 1820 as the Army’s first scientific research facility. The CCDC Army Research Laboratory concentrates on scientific discovery, innovation, and transition of technological developments. The S&T program is building on this proud legacy by driving the discoveries and innovations which will be critical to realizing new capabilities for the Army of 2030 and beyond. (Photo Credit: U.S. Army photo by David McNally)
Note: This photo does not depict testing on TTSA’s metamaterial.

Whatever is found during the testing of the metamaterials, it may take years until it is revealed to the public. According to Army Regulation 70–57, which governs all actions taken when it comes to CRADAs, “… the results of tests performed with services made available by an Army laboratory, center, range, or other testing facility for the testing of materials, equipment, models, computer software, and other items are confidential and may not be disclosed outside the Federal Government without the consent of the persons for whom the tests are performed.”

Doug Halleaux, Public Affairs Officer for the Army’s CCDC GVSC, reinforced the fact that the Army would not be releasing information any time soon. In a statement to The Black Vault, Halleaux said that, “As a general rule, we try not to release details on collaborative work until the work itself has reached a conclusion. This keeps us from giving a false impression about the work being done, or what results may develop.”

This means that the Army won’t be releasing any additional information through FOIA, or their public affairs office, on the CRADA. The release of additional details, test results or even the long-shot possibility that at least one piece of metamaterial is a piece of an extraterrestrial spacecraft will all rely on TTSA’s willingness to release it to the general public.

To add to the increasing level of secrecy surrounding the agreement, those investigators and first-hand witnesses who own the pieces of metamaterial that are currently in the possession of TTSA, have found themselves under an oath of silence. It was discovered that when The Black Vault reached out to at least one person related to the metamaterial(s) in 2019 for comment, they were unable to speak on the record regarding anything related to their agreement. Anything related to the testing results on their piece(s); the updates on where it was at; or facts about the full arrangement were all locked down as they were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). It is believed that most, if not all, of those individuals involved with supplying pieces of the metamaterial have signed the same.

According to TTSA, prohibiting the owners/witnesses of the metamaterial from talking is a “common practice” to protect respective Intellectual Property (IP). TTSA told The Black Vault in a statement that, “NDAs are common practice for organizations to protect intellectual property, including the prevention of premature announcements or proclamations by third parties that are yet to be thoroughly analyzed, independently verified and responsibly communicated.”

The CRADA Today

It has now been nearly 5 months since the CRADA was first announced by TTSA. With a planned five year arrangement between the Army and TTSA, it is unclear what the actual timetable for testing is.

The milestone activities and target dates, as outlined in the CRADA.

Out of the number of pieces TTSA has acquired, will all of them be tested? When will they be tested? When will the results be available? Many questions linger.

At this point, the public is being told very little. FOIA channels; Army public affairs; and TTSA itself have not produced anything about the testing or the results (if any exist). According to the CRADA, it is not until September of 2020, when the first milestone review takes place, but it is still unknown when the actual testing will occur prior to that date.

When the Army was asked by The Black Vault about the status of metamaterial testing, or if testing began, the answer was simple: “I don’t know…” Halleaux told The Black Vault.

When TTSA was asked the same; they had nothing to add either. “TTSA doesn’t have any new information to share at this time on the testing of the materials, outside of what was included in the CRADA FAQ,” they said. “That’s the latest.”

But What If?

But what if the testing results turn out to show irrefutably, that at least one of the pieces being tested is extraterrestrial? Some investigators and researchers within the “UFO Community” have long believed that the military is complicit and they play a large role in the overall UFO cover-up. So, it seems strange that a corporation aiming to end that secrecy, would choose the military as one of the first outside their own organization, to be privy to the test results.

In other words, if this all really does turn out to be “alien”; how will the Army react?

According to the Army, they are not even interested in the potential “alien” aspect. The Army sent statements to The Black Vault in 2019, and reiterated the same sentiment for this article in 2020, that it just doesn’t matter to them about the origin; they just want to see if it will benefit them.

Army spokesperson Hallieux said, “As far as the materials — the Army’s interest is in the potential for novel materials and exploring the edges of materials science, any speculation as to their origin is (pardon the pun) immaterial. Our team is always excited to look at something new, whether it’s materials or technologies, capabilities or processes.”

If you’re reading this and have a budding concern that if that “what if?” scenario plays out, then the U.S. Army will take the metamaterials and classify it in the interest of national security; you’re probably not alone. When TTSA was asked to respond to that concern; they declined. Rather, they referred again to their FAQ page on the website, which reinforces the intent of transparency, but does not address any potential risk of classification or confiscation should a national security concern arise on the side of Uncle Sam.

Regardless of that risk, it may not even matter. In the eyes of the FOIA and Army regulation, we likely will not be hearing anything from the Army any time soon. For now, it all seems to be solely reliant on TTSA’s willingness to share their information with the public.

The question now — is will they?

###

Freedom of Information Act Denial

Full Statements Provided to The Black Vault

To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science

1) When will the public be informed about test results? In what manner? (TV Show, press release etc.)

“We cannot comment on when and where results will be published in the future, but TTSA is committed to responsible reporting that upholds the highest standards of reliability and integrity.”

2) I did learn about the non-disclosure agreements that those had to sign who loaned and/or sold pieces of metamaterials to TTSA. Is there a reason why TTSA required NDA’s?

“NDAs are common practice for organizations to protect intellectual property, including the prevention of premature announcements or proclamations by third parties that are yet to be thoroughly analyzed, independently verified and responsibly communicated.”

3) I believe the consensus at TTSA is that the military is part of a) ignoring the UAP threat (I am in full agreement) and b) part of essentially a cover-up regarding the topic. That said, can I ask why TTSA feels the U.S. Army is the best place to take the metamaterials for testing and “showing your cards” so to speak to the military first?

“This topic is covered by TTSA’s CRADA FAQ here: http://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/blog/crada-faq”

4) Is there a concern that if the material tested at the CCDC comes back with indications that it is extraterrestrial – the US Army may classify the finding in the interest of national security?

“This topic is covered by TTSA’s CRADA FAQ here: http://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/blog/crada-faq”

5) Has TTSA begun testing on materials? If so, can any details or test results be shared?

“TTSA doesn’t have any new information to share at this time on the testing of the materials, outside of what was included in the CRADA FAQ. That’s the latest.”

Nathan Hendrickson, TTSA Investor

Nathan Hendrickson, TTSA Investor and Attorney

(Quotes were submitted after a telephone conversation. No written questions were submitted to Mr. Hendrickson.)

“I’ve known since before last year’s shareholder meeting that one of TTSA’s goals was to get their own lab. They said as much at the meeting itself, so the CRADA announcement came as no surprise.”

“While I wish that any metamaterials could be analyzed by ‘one of us’ so to speak with any results immediately released to the public, The fact is that none of us own our own lab capable of doing sophisticated metallurgical research, along with the research staff and infrastructure to support it. We also don’t own our own space and air radars, sonars, etc. The very nature of what we are talking about almost requires some type of state sponsorship unless a major private university is willing to step up.”

“TTSA sending metamaterials to the Army isn’t what they implied they were going to do a couple of years back. The inference was all of this stuff, their research, their technology, was going to be for the public good and benefit. It seems that as time has gone on, TTSA has now morphed their primary mission into being a defense sub-contractor, at least as far as metamaterials goes.”

“While I’m glad that these mysterious metamaterials are being looked at by professionals, it’s frustrating in that it looks like they have a five year contract with the Army, we aren’t going to get any information on these materials for at least five years, if not more, if ever.”

“It’s not surprising that the Army FOIA responses are flaccid. I don’t like it, but that’s the nature of the military beast. I do wish that TTSA had a better public and/or investor relations team to better communicate the current state of the various projects within TTSA, including the metamaterials.”

Danny Silva, TTSA Investor

Danny Silva, TTSA Investor and Founder of SilvaRecord.com

1) As an investor, are you happy about the agreement with the Army and TTSA?

“I invested minimally in TTSA. More as a donation than as an investment. Some may say that effects my reporting, but to think I have spent all this time, including blood sweat and tears, just to get a return on a small investment is ridiculous. I’d invest in Vallee/Nolan (who are also testing materials) if I was able to. Many of us are disclosure advocates and we don’t care if disclosure comes from the government, TTSA, the invisible college, The Black Vault or anywhere else. We just want the truth out, no matter what it is. No matter how great or how ugly it is.

Before the CRADA some critics were saying TTSA was only an entertainment company. It’s amazing that the Army is interested in seeing what TTSA can come up with. It’s positive movement for the UFO subject as a whole.”

2) Do you feel the Army / military is the best place to take potential pieces of a UFO that may turn out to be one of the biggest discoveries of mankind?

“TTSA may be trying to utilize what resources they can. Since the Army has in essence offered to share or donate resources, I think that’s great. We have to remember how much money and effort it takes to do what they are attempting. Since all of us…reporters, bloggers, fans, investors and members of the UFO community (etc.) are not running similar endeavors, trying to test multiple samples comprehensively, or spending the lump sums to do so, I’m not sure we would have an accurate idea of where the best place to take potential or alleged pieces of a UFO would be. Most people and groups don’t have the access, money, time and support. Even some scientists seem to struggle with this.

I think a fair question to ask is, “Would TTSA have entered the CRADA if they had billions of dollars to invest on their own?” I don’t know the answer to that, but will try to find out in the future. I don’t, and neither do many of us, know the pluses and minuses the CRADA brings from an intimate standpoint. We are looking in as outsiders.”

3) Do you have concerns that *IF* there is an extraterrestrial connection behind any of the pieces, do you fear the Army may classify it in the interest of national security and confiscate it?

“It’s a general concern for people, however, when you dig deeper I believe there is wording in the CRADA and in TTSA public statements guarding against this. I would hope it’s not the case. TTSA seems to be in control of the findings on their end. Let me get a little conspiratorial and speculate. If the goal was to swallow this up, why enter a public CRADA in the first place? Wouldn’t this research have been done quietly behind the scenes from the get go? I’m aware of different critiques and (conspiracy?) theories about why the CRADA has happened. They range from unfair to valid questions. Listening to everything helps me know what avenues to explore. Maybe more concerns will be addressed in time.”

4) I recently received denials seeking information from the Army under the Freedom of Information Act. They denied all communications with TTSA, about TTSA, and information about the CRADA as privliged information and corporate secrets. I also have quotes from the Army backed up by official regulation, that test results will not be released without the permission of who the agreement is with. In this case, TTSA has to make the call to release information, it appears. Do you feel TTSA will immediately share the information with the public? In what way?

“The FOIA denials stating the ball is in TTSA’s court I would assume are somewhat standard. That doesn’t surprise me. Plus, the CRADA has just begun. Only time will tell how TTSA chooses to proceed IF the tests come back positive, anomalous, or whatever they might be. I don’t think it’s fair to speculate, but eventually I would expect the public would hear something from TTSA if the results are interesting.”

5) In the process of covering TTSA, I learned they made all of the ‘owners’ of the metamaterials sign non-disclosure agreements, so none of them can talk about results or go on the record about their piece(s) they have acquired. Do you agree with that level of secrecy?

“I haven’t heard this is the case, however, I haven’t looked into it, so it may be accurate. I can try to look into this in the future on my end. If people are asked to sign NDAs, some seem to be breaking them. I’ve reported on people claiming to have given TTSA material samples and these people are talking about it publicly, on the record. I’ve later been able to confirm their claims. If they are signing NDAs, not everyone is following them. If NDAs are being signed, since I’m not in the position of carrying out a similar endeavor, I wouldn’t expect to have an accurate opinion on this and be in a place to say whether I agree or disagree with it. I would speculate that TTSA, and possibly the Army, might not want parties making announcements on their behalf. They could be trying to safe guard against this. Although like I said, it doesn’t seem to be working in every case.”

6) How do you think this entire saga will turn out? What do you feel the test results on the metamaterials will reveal, if we are to learn what they are?

“The individuals behind the aliases in Dr. Pasulka’s book “American Cosmic” seemed to be somewhat confident the artifacts they had were special. Right or wrong, that level of confidence is exciting. Minus Tom DeLonge, we haven’t seen statements that blatant coming from the rest of TTSA. TTSA have stayed pretty conservative.

Overall, I’m not sure how it’s going to play out. I can only speak about what some of the UFO community are hoping for. First, we have to remember that TTSA isn’t the only group testing material. I think that’s great. If TTSA doesn’t succeed, then maybe Vallee/Nolan or some other group will, or vice versa. What the UFO community wants is this to be some sort of proof that “we” can take to the public to convince them of the phenomenon, or at least that something odd is going on. A secondary hope is that it can be back engineered or otherwise utilized for good. If the Army gets access to this and possibly also uses it to strengthen, or give an edge to our military, I don’t think it should be viewed as a bad thing. Especially if it saves lives of our troops. If the United States doesn’t do it, surely other countries won’t think twice before they do. And on the other side TTSA can release findings on their own.

I am concerned that test results will come back what some consider positive and the public still won’t accept it. Somewhat similar to what we have seen with the Nimitz encounters. Overall, the Nimitz encounters have had an amazing effect on the world and changed everything, but they weren’t the smoking gun, “game over” scenario they should have been, as far as public perception goes. Too many people have never heard of the Nimitz encounters. (But the battle to get the public aware of the Nimitz encounters is far from over.)

We know from the history of the UFO community, politics, and current human behavior in general, when the results come back everyone will be debating what they mean.

There is another very possible scenario; none of the materials come back as special. Or they come back odd/interesting but inconclusive. At least with multiple groups testing materials it seems we may be getting the best of all worlds, as far as the approaches go. This is an exciting time. If the results come back inconclusive it will be disappointing, but not a dealbreaker. However, if the results come back positive…we are living in a new world.”

Arthur Iglesias, TTSA Investor

1) As an investor, are you happy about the agreement with the Army and TTSA?

“Yes, very happy with it. C.R.A.D.A.S were designed to speed the commercialization of technology, it provides a support network that will empower TTSA and it’s efforts.”

2) Do you feel the Army / military is the best place to take potential pieces of a UFO that may turn out to be one of the biggest discoveries of mankind?

“Yes I do. The army answers to the President and the president answers to the People (at least in principle, right). So if you want to keep this democratic, you got to go through Government. If there’s potentially a National Security issue to the topic, then the military is the right place to go.”

3) Do you have concerns that *IF* there is an extraterrestrial connection behind any of the pieces, do you fear the Army may classify it in the interest of national security and confiscate it?

“Not really. The army would not go at it with a CRADA if it had intentions of concealing this. If they suspect it might be ET, then they seem to be ok with bringing that forward. Surely not every little sordid detail about it, but the CRADA tells me they’re ok with having that conversation.”

“I feel like they would share relevant scientific information with the public and the scientific community, as that is one of the points of CRADA deals. I wouldn’t expect them to address the E,T. question tho, as they can’t answer for the government. And don’t think they will share information that could empower potential competitors in the future also.”

“I agree. Once TTSA endorses a material, it has to protect itself as a company. If the properties of these materials are of proprietary value, then it makes sense they would be under NDAs.”

6) How do you think this entire saga will turn out? What do you feel the test results on the metamaterials will reveal, if we are to learn what they are?

“I think this will end up with TTSA demonstrating antigravity. That’s what they expect to be able to do with this CRADA. They have a decent physics theory that explains it and allows for it to exist (courtesy of Hal Puthoff) to go along with their findings. From that point on, the ball is down in Trump’s court.”

Doug Halleaux, Public Affairs Officer for the Army’s CCDC GVSC

Doug Halleaux, Public Affairs Officer at U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center

1) The denial from the Army essentially locks the public out of seeing anything relating to the agreement via FOIA. Can you comment on these types of (b)(4) and (b)(5) denials? (I am not framing this as any type of cover-up. Rather, I am showing it’s rather normal to protect corporate secrets. I just am seeking a line or two from the Army justifying it).

“I really have to defer to my colleague and the FOIA officer who actioned your request, Joy Linton, on this one. As a general rule in Public Affairs, we try to release everything that’s applicable that we can (and have in our possession) that would otherwise be releasable under FOIA. For us, transparency is no small issue, and it saves everyone time, to boot. Again, none of this is intended to directly address information that wasn’t releasable through the FOIA, but to provide context to the FOIA release exemptions.”

2) Have there been any tests done yet under this CRADA? Is there any update the Army can share about the agreement? When results are available, does the Army have any plans to release information on how the test results will be/can be applied to Army technology? If so, how?

“I’ll address each in turn.. Have there been any tests done yet under this CRADA? I don’t know yet. As a general rule, we try not to release details on collaborative work until the work itself has reached a conclusion. This keeps us from giving a false impression about the work being done, or what results may develop.

Is there any update the Army can share about the agreement? The CRADA itself remains unchanged since its signing.

When results are available, does the Army have any plans to release information on how the test results will be/can be applied to Army technology? I don’t have an answer to this, and I probably won’t know what we’ll be able to release, if anything, until the conclusion of the collaboration. If we do have information to release, it’ll be through our standard mechanisms– we develop a news release, post it to DVIDS (www.dvidshub.net), Army.mil (www.army.mil), and direct-send to our media lists (which you’re on). From a Public Affairs perspective, it doesn’t do us a whole lot of good to release information, hoping that nobody sees it!”

3) The material being tested at the Army’s labs is continued to be touted as pieces from UFOs or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs). This, obviously, has created a lot of controversy and questions. Previously, you had stated: ” As far as the materials– the Army’s interest is in the potential for novel materials and exploring the edges of materials science, any speculation as to their origin is (pardon the pun) immaterial. Our team is always excited to look at something new, whether it’s materials or technologies, capabilities or processes.” Is there any update/amendment/addition I can add as to the Army’s stance of such claims. Again, the speculation comes not from the public or media, but rather, the organization that the Army has the CRADA with, which is why I am seeking the Army’s stance on the claims of origin. (One source of the claim from TTSA: https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/blog/material-of-interest-magnesium-zinc-bismuth)

“No change here– our position remains the same. As a general statement, our scientists and engineers have a passionate curiosity that serves the Army, and their disciplines, extremely well.”

The post Secrecy Deepens About U.S. Army Agreement To Analyze UFO Material first appeared on The Black Vault.

U.S. Army Releases Agreement with To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science

John Greenewald — Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:49:09 +0000

By John Greenewald, Jr. – The Black Vault – Originally Published: October 18, 2019

To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA), a public benefit corporation led by rock star Tom DeLonge, announced a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Army this week. The original press release sent out by TTSA was vague, and offered few details. However, the Army spoke with The Black Vault to discuss the agreement, and offer a copy of the entire document, nearly in full (understandably, a few phone numbers were removed for privacy reasons).

The news broke on October 17, 2019, wherein TTSA stated in a press release, “[TTSA] announced today a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command [CCDC] to advance TTSA’s materiel and technology innovations in order to develop enhanced capabilities for Army ground vehicles.” The press release continued, “TTSA will share its discoveries with Ground Vehicle System Center (GVSC) and Ground Vehicle Survivability and Protection (GVSP) and the U.S. Army shall provide laboratories, expertise, support, and resources to help characterize the technologies and its applications.”

Doug Halleaux, Public Affairs Officer for the Army’s CCDC GVSC, responded to The Black Vault with statements and a copy of the executed agreement. In addition, on behalf of the Army, he helped address still lingering questions about the overall situation, though some still remain.

“TTSA has a set of different materials, the properties of which they’re interested in investigating the properties. As materials research in general is of key interest to Army research, the Army is interested in any insights gained from investigating the properties of these materials, too,” Dr. Halleaux stated in an e-mail to The Black Vault. “In this case, the Army is providing the expertise and facilities to analyze the materials, and TTSA is providing the materials themselves; both parties receive the results of the analysis. Just as there is no financial compensation to TTSA for the use of the materials, there is no financial compensation to the Army for the use of the facilities.”

Although TTSA has its share of supporters, it is the part about “sharing” with the military that got other members of the social network universe up in arms.

TTSA has had a primary message that the military is hiding information about UAPs, and that has resonated with many of their fans along with their investors. However, now that TTSA has allegedly acquired physical pieces of the “phenomena,” to some, they are now just walking it all back through the doors of the military and sharing the discoveries with those they claim are hiding secrets from the public. Although TTSA did not respond to questions submitted by The Black Vault, the Army did weigh in on how they may benefit from the research results, and what they thought about the provenance of the material itself.

“As far as the materials– the Army’s interest is in the potential for novel materials and exploring the edges of materials science, any speculation as to their origin is (pardon the pun) immaterial. Our team is always excited to look at something new, whether it’s materials or technologies, capabilities or processes,” said Dr. Halleaux. “As materials research in general is of key interest to Army research, the Army is interested in any insights gained from investigating the properties of these materials, too. In this case, the Army is providing the expertise and facilities to analyze the materials, and TTSA is providing the materials themselves; both parties receive the results of the analysis. Just as there is no financial compensation to TTSA for the use of the materials, there is no financial compensation to the Army for the use of the facilities.”

Attorney and TTSA investor, Nathan Hendrickson, is not surprised by the news. “I knew that at the last shareholder meeting, TTSA was discussing their desire to own their own lab. One of the constant gripes has been the high cost of lab testing meta-materials,” Hendrickson told The Black Vault. “It appears that they have solved this problem by letting the US Army test their material so long as the Army gets to see and use any results.”

Although this news was expected by attentive shareholders, at least one of them is not keen on the apparent secrecy involved with the news. Hendrickson added, “While I am glad that a high-end Army research facility is going to look at the metal, I would’ve never known this by reading the TTSA press release. I wish I didn’t have to rely on others to do the investigating to answer questions that the company should be answering. In keeping with military tradition, TTSA is very ‘coy’, and that is infuriating to me.”

As for the metamaterial currently in the possession of TTSA, some of it is referenced as being “on loan” in recent SEC filings. The Black Vault reached out to someone associated with at least one of the pieces in TTSA’s possession, seeking comment on the news about this new agreement. This person requested they remain anonymous, and respectfully declined to comment due to the fact they signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with TTSA, which prohibits them from doing so.

This arrangement between TTSA and the Army is clearly unclassified. However, that seemingly does not take away from many elements of secrecy surrounding the agreement. Until curators of some of the material are able to talk; TTSA answers looming questions; and peer-reviewed scientific results are published… we may just be left to wonder on what is now going on inside Army laboratories.

The Agreement

U.S. Army Releases CRADA with To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science [26 Pages, 7MB]

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [7.22 MB]

Full Quotes from the Army Used Above

Initial Statement:

A CRADA is a mechanism for cooperative work between a government agency and another agency, either internal to the government or external, non-government. Our colleagues at Army Research Lab have a pretty good synopsis on their website (https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=14) but CRADAs aren’t limited to ARL, they’re used across the various government R&D agencies and facilities. In essence, a CRADA brings together researchers for truly cooperative work between the agency and its partner without an exchange of funds, property, or other exchanges that would otherwise require a traditional contracting mechanism. Typically, CRADAs are used for out-of-the-box type work or leading-edge technologies where both parties have an interest in conducting research together for mutual information or investigatory benefit. An example I like to use is the CRADA that the Army enjoys with General Motors, specifically with regards to Fuel Cell research. General Motors’ Fuel Cell technologies are of interest to the Army, and the Army’s experience with off-road vehicles and operation is of interest to GM; the CRADA between the two afforded an opportunity to investigate the use of Fuel Cells for rugged, austere, off-road environments, providing insights that both GM and the Army benefit from.

A CRADA isn’t an endorsement mechanism– just as the Army doesn’t endorse General Motors or any other automobile manufacturer, the Army also doesn’t endorse its other cooperative partners. Specific to the To The Stars Academy CRADA, TTSA has a set of different materials, the properties of which they’re interested in investigating the properties. As materials research in general is of key interest to Army research, the Army is interested in any insights gained from investigating the properties of these materials, too. In this case, the Army is providing the expertise and facilities to analyze the materials, and TTSA is providing the materials themselves; both parties receive the results of the analysis. Just as there is no financial compensation to TTSA for the use of the materials, there is no financial compensation to the Army for the use of the facilities.

CRADAs can be built with just about any external entity within the limits of the law and reason, and when there’s an interest to both parties to do so. The Army forms CRADAs after careful consideration of the cost to the Army in terms of time and resources to the mutual research and the potential value to the Army of the research results.

Follow Up Statements:

As far as the materials– the Army’s interest is in the potential for novel materials and exploring the edges of materials science, any speculation as to their origin is (pardon the pun) immaterial. Our team is always excited to look at something new, whether it’s materials or technologies, capabilities or processes.

The post U.S. Army Releases Agreement with To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science first appeared on The Black Vault.

Ep. #43 – Special Guest: Grant Cameron

John Greenewald — Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:35:43 +0000

On Episode #43, Mr. Grant Cameron returns to the show to speak about his time scouring the files of Stanton Friedman, now residing at the Provincial Archives in Canada. We speak about some of his discoveries within the holdings, and also tackle MJ-12, Bob Lazar, “Disclosure” and much more.

View the live stream of this episode on YouTube.

Show Notes

Subscribe for notifications on upcoming shows:

– The Black Vault on FaceBook
– The Black Vault on Twitter
– The Black Vault on YouTube (Originals – Channel 1)
– The Black Vault on YouTube (Archival Videos – Channel 2)

– Order INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT: The Government’s UFO Secrets Revealed
– Order on Amazon

– Support The Black Vault on Patreon

Interview Links

– Grant Cameron on Facebook
– Grant Cameron on Twitter

The post Ep. #43 – Special Guest: Grant Cameron first appeared on The Black Vault.

U.S. Navy Investigated Circumstances Behind Leaked UFO Footage

John Greenewald — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:17:58 +0000

By John Greenewald, Jr. – The Black Vault – Originally Published September 17, 2019

A screen grab from the FLIR1 UAP video, which shows the unknown object as captured on camera by the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group in 2004, off the coast of San Diego.

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.

Present day website of “Vision Unlimited.” The file ‘f4.mpg’ has long been removed, and no one at “Vision Unlimited” knows how it originally got there.

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.”

Here is the official paperwork as filed by Mr. Luis Elizondo for a review of the three UAP videos. To date, both the Pentagon and the U.S. Navy maintain this does not authorize a public release of the videos.

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.

U.S. Navy Confirms Videos Depict ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’; Not Cleared For Public Release

John Greenewald — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:26:34 +0000

By John Greenewald, Jr., The Black Vault — Originally Published September 10^th, 2019

Screen shot from the “Gimbal” video, as published by To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA).

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.”

Released e-mail via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) written by Mr. Luis Elizondo. Within it, Mr. Elizondo justifies his request for the three videos being used for U.S. government use only.

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 DD Form 1910, as released by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This form indicates that the only approval given by DOPSR was for U.S. government use only, and “industry partners.” (Note: Statements by the Pentagon to The Black Vault show that To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) nor the NY Times are considered “industry partners.”)

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.