The report from June of 2021 on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) introduced a new term to many: Range Fouler. According to the footnote:

Beyond this footnote, not much is found. The Black Vault did uncover a U.S. Marine Corps Order, listed as MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJO 3570.1B, which offers little more on “Range Foulers” – but seems to indicate a broader definition than the UAP report:

Not much else is found defining “range foulers” or explaining what they are, however, in January of 2022, The Black Vault filed a FOIA request to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) for reports from the K-NET database that had the phrase “range fouler”, and one report came up. However, due to national security reasons, the records were withheld in full and denied under FOIA exemption (b)(1).

Beyond the NCIS denial, the U.S. Navy has begun releasing “Range Fouler Debrief Forms” which are archived below.

These reports are heavily redacted, and are done so due to the UAP Security Classification Guide (SCG).

This guide is what sets forth the security levels (if any) when detailing the UAP issue. It has resulted in immense secrecy, and one that will be a hurdle in future attempts to extract UAP related information. This is all indicated by this, which appears on the released Range Fouler Debrief forms:

As of September of 2022, The U.S. Navy told The Black Vault that they will be adding ALL “Range Fouler” reports to their online reading room, while processing FOIA Case DON-NAVY-2022-012146 filed by The Black in August 2022. However, an open appeal is pending due to some circumstances that have become an ongoing issue with the U.S. Navy and FOIA. Updates will be posted when available.

Document Archive

U.S. Navy Range Fouler Releases

FOIA Release Letter, September 6, 2022

Range Fouler Reports, 2019 [27 Pages, 3.34MB]

Range Fouler Reports, 2020 [66 Pages, 8.74MB]

In January of 2023, the U.S. Navy dumped another batch of Range Fouler reports out. These are found here, but many dates are redacted making it difficult to figure out the timeframe of reports within the release.

Range Fouler Reports, Unknown timeframe (Includes November 2004 “Tic Tac Incident”, Released January 2023 [90 Pages, 8.0MB]

Range Fouler Reports, Unknown timeframe, Released December 2023 [110 Pages, 24MB] – Despite the file name the U.S. Navy chose for this release “(202306)” indicating a June 2023 release, it does not appear these were released to anyone in June. The original request The Black Vault filed in November of 2020 was denied with a “no records.” A new request was filed in July of 2022, both cases referencing the original NY Times article where Ryan Graves first was interviewed.

The FOIA cases asked for UFO/UAP related events in or around the USS Roosevelt, though part of the wording may have been construed as ALL cases, with an emphasis on the Roosevelt. No message has been returned to clarify, but given the number of cases, it likes is not specific to the Roosevelt.

These new Range Fouler reports appear to have been2m in feet added to the Navy’s FOIA online reading room shortly before I got my FOIA release letter. I have tried to call the Navy to verify when they were released. Until then, here is the entire batch.

U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)

In 2022, NCIS has new investigations regarding “Range Foulers”.

That said, they found 8 closed investigative files.

They denied releasing those files as they are ALL classified and exempt.

On September 26, 2022, the day the above letter was received, The Black Vault attempted to verify with NCIS the number of pages / photos / videos that were being withheld. Their response later in the day stated:

“Our office cannot confirm the number of pages/photos/videos contained within a classified investigation.”
— NCIS FOIA Team

Prior to the above NCIS denial, The Black Vault had filed a request on January 3, 2022, for all “Range Fouler” reports. At that time, searching their investigative database through January 3, 2022, they had only found 1 investigative file, which was also denied, in full:

The post Range Fouler Debrief Forms and Reports first appeared on The Black Vault.

The following document is the House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Summary of Progress of Specific Studies and Investigations for March of 2020.

This document reveals that on March 11th, 2020, the full Committee received a classified briefing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAPs, specifically, it was to the Future of Defense Task Force, as confirmed by a House spokesperson.

On November 3, 2020, The Black Vault also confirmed that the U.S. Navy was responsible for giving the briefing to the House Armed Services Committee.

Also on November 3, 2020, The Black Vault received the following statement from the Pentagon regarding the March 11 briefing:

“Navy officials provided a classified briefing to the House Armed Services Committee on March 11, 2020. Navy officials, as part of the UAPTF,  have and will continue to meet with interested Congressional members and staffers to provide classified briefings on the progress of our efforts to understand and identify these threats to the safety of our aviators and security of our operations. Follow-up discussions with other interested members and/or staffers will also continue as necessary or requested. We will not comment on the specific information provided in these Hill briefings.” — Susan Gough, Department of Defense Spokesperson

This story is unfolding, and more will be added when available.

Document Archive

House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Summary of Progress of Specific Studies and Investigations for March of 2020 [13 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [611.99 KB]

The post March 11th, 2020, House Armed Services Committee Received Briefing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) first appeared on The Black Vault.

News this week excited UFO enthusiasts, as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Senator Marco Rubio, issued their report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2021. Within it was a small, but detailed section on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAPs. Although better known to the general public as simply UFOs, the report detailed how data held by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI); information gathered by geospatial, human and signals intelligence; and case files from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would all be utilized for an unclassified report delivered to the Senate within 180 days of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2021.  But mysteriously missing yet again from the UAP conversation within this document? The United States Air Force. Recently released internal communications from the Air Force may reveal just why that is.

‘Off the Record’

The internal e-mailed communication received by The Black Vault on June 24, 2020, via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), revealed an “off the record” set of comments given from Major Malinda Singleton, spokesperson for the Air Force, to Susan Gough, spokesperson for the Pentagon. As Singleton was tasked to respond to a set of specific media-submitted questions on UAPs, she gave two extra lines of information for Gough’s consideration, but they were not meant public consumption.

When the e-mailed conversation dealt with UAP reporting guidelines by the Air Force, Singleton wrote:

“Currently the Air Force is not working any specific guidelines for reporting UAPs. **Side note and off the record – we do have reporting instructions for Unauthorized Air Vehicles/Military Installation Airspace Violation, but that is more in the C-UAS realm. That information is provided via OPREPs on SIPR.”

The OPREP-3 Reporting System

Although some may not catch the connection at first glance, the reference Singleton added ties into a theory first proposed by Australian researcher Paul Dean. That is, that UFO cases, those that are likely not just  misidentified drones or balloons, are made within what is called the Operational Reporting (OPREP) system. Specifically, Dean points out OPREP-3 reports, including subcategories 9F and 9B, as being the most significant.

“Briefly, the OPREP–3’s system is used by authorized military personnel to report urgent, serious or ongoing situations or dire events up the chain–of–command,” Dean said in a blog entry he wrote in June of 2019. He then broke down numerous publications from the Air Force that although did not outline UAP reporting procedures, they would likely be included the way the Air Force Instructions were written.

Singleton also added in her comment that OPREP’s would be located on SIPR, or Secret Internet Protocol Router Network. SIPR is a secure system within the Department of Defense (DOD) wherein the data on it is considered classified up to SECRET. In other words, the OPREP’s stored within SIPR are all considered sensitive information and not meant to be released to the public.

However, even Dean showed trepidation about connecting his proposed theory about UAP encounters with OPREP-3 reports. He stated, “The ‘Unauthorized Air Vehicle / Military Installation Airspace Violation / Intrusion’ sub–class of OPREP–3 is by no means a significant UFO reporting channel for, well, ‘our’ sort of UFO’s,” he wrote. “Maybe one day we will find out exactly what has been reported in the last few years,” he concluded, since no OPREP-3 reports were found in response to numerous FOIA requests that he has filed.

Yet, the internal communication from USAF sent to the Pentagon, may actually show Dean is on to something, and his reservations about what he proposed may not be warranted.

Although Singleton references the “C-UAS [Counter-Unmanned Aerial System] realm,” which meant she felt the reports would likely pertain to unidentified drones flying within unauthorized airspace; she did tie the public statement about UAP reporting procedures to the ‘off the record’ similar OPREP procedures, possibly connecting the two, just as Dean proposed. He was excited at the find.

“Here we see an admission that the vital OPREP-3 channel is being used by the USAF to report unidentifiable objects up the chain of command,” he told The Black Vault. “While its true that they are leaning towards unmanned aerial systems, drones, etc., I would argue that in the heat of the moment, anything in the air, no matter how drone-like or otherwise, could be reported!”

UAP Awareness is Widespread

Another statement Singleton gave to Gough was about the actual definition for “UAP.”  Her ‘off the record’ comment for this note, shed light on how widespread knowledge about UAPs was within the Air Force.

“How do we define UAPs, it (sic) would say it is similar to the definition that DoD is already using. ** Side note and off the record – most people I talked to were aware of this term, but again we don’t have the official reporting instruction for it.”

There is no way to tell how many people Singleton talked to while researching the media questions she was assigned to answer. However, it would likely be key players within the Air Force structure for safety, policy and procedure, and it appears that at least in September of 2019, the upper echelon of those areas within the Air Force were well aware of UAPs.

With the seeming wide-spread knowledge about UAPs within the Air Force structure, and the reference to a reporting system theorized to include UAP reports, the Air Force may be wrapped up in UAP investigations as well, but it may just be cleverly hidden within covertly named projects and reports that exist within the shadows. It is an odd juxtaposition with that of the Navy, which openly admits a UAP connection between their branch and investigations of the unknown, but that disparity between how the two agencies deal with it all remains unexplained.

Despite that, Dean is encouraged by the document The Black Vault just revealed, as he continues his hunt for OPREP-3 / UAP reports.

“The overall situation is that the USAF here has mentioned the OPREP-3 network and unknown objects in the same packet of information. I’ve been screaming about this for years,” he said. “It’s an important acknowledgement, even if they do generally mean man-made UAS and the like.”

###

Unedited Comments

The following are unedited comments that were utilized for this article. They are archived here for reference.

Paul Dean

“Here we see an admission that the vital OPREP-3 channel is being used by the USAF to report unidentifiable objects up the chain of command. While its true that they are leaning towards unmanned aerial systems, drones, etc, I would argue that, in the heat of the moment, anything in the air, no matter how drone-like or otherwise, could be reported! Actually, there are two subcategories of USAF reporting OPREP-3s that we found that could generate true UFO reports, aside from just pesky drone sightings. And one of them is near identically worded as the old CIRVIS UFO reporting lay out of old! The overall situation is that the USAF here has mentioned the OPREP-3 network and unknown objects in the same packet of information. Ive been screaming about this for years. It’s an important acknowledgement, even if they do generally mean man-made UAS and the like”

The post ‘Off the Record’ E-mail May Shed Light on Handling of Air Force UFO Cases first appeared on The Black Vault.

Extensive details were posted regarding an “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force” currently operated by the Office of Naval Intelligence. The breakdown was listed within the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2021 Supplemental Report, as printed on June 17, 2020, by the 116th Congress. (Special thanks to Steve McDaniel for the find!)

Beginning on Page 11 of the ‘report’ document, with the heading of “Unidentified Aerial Threats,” the following is published:

Advanced Aerial Threats

The Committee supports the efforts of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval Intelligence to standardize collection and reporting on unidentified aerial phenomenon, any links they have to adversarial foreign governments, and the threat they pose to U.S. military assets and installations. However, the Committee remains concerned that there is no unified, comprehensive process within the Federal Government for collecting and analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena, despite the potential threat. The Committee understands that the relevant intelligence may be sensitive; nevertheless, the Committee finds that the information sharing and coordination across the Intelligence Community has been inconsistent, and this issue has lacked attention from senior leaders.

Therefore, the Committee directs the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies as the Director and Secretary jointly consider relevant, to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena (also known as ‘‘anomalous aerial vehicles’’), including observed airborne objects that have not been identified.

The Committee further directs the report to include:

1. A detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected or held by the Office of Naval Intelligence, including data and intelligence reporting held by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force;

2. A detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by:
a. geospatial intelligence;
b. signals intelligence;
c. human intelligence; and
d. measurement and signals intelligence;

3. A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace;

4. A detailed description of an interagency process for ensuring timely data collection and centralized analysis of all unidentified aerial phenomena reporting for the Federal Government, regardless of which service or agency acquired the information;

5. Identification of an official accountable for the process described in paragraph 4;

6. Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by the unidentified aerial phenomena to national security, and an assessment of whether this unidentified aerial phenomena activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries;

7. Identification of any incidents or patterns that indicate a potential adversary may have achieved breakthrough aerospace capabilities that could put United States strategic or conventional forces at risk; and

8. Recommendations regarding increased collection of data,
enhanced research and development, and additional funding
and other resources.

The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

The “Unidentified Aerial Task Force” information is found within a report filed by Senator Marco Rubio, and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which accompanies the actual bill. Both documents can be found below.

Although the UAP information outlined above does not currently appear in the bill itself, the development is still extraordinary as the topic is being recognized and outlined within the Congressional record.

Document Archive

Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2021 Supplemental Report [19 Pages, 0.2MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [298.14 KB]

Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2021 Bill S.3905 [144 Pages, 0.4MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [505.45 KB]

The post Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force Details Posted Within Intelligence Authorization Act Supplemental Report for FY 2021 first appeared on The Black Vault.

There is nothing more mind numbing than sifting through hundreds of pages of defense related budgets. Line item after line item of program element numbers, dollar amounts and vague descriptions are only part of the headache. When searching for something specific, in a sea of nondescript references, it’s like seeking out one unique needle in a stack of needles.  If you set out to find what may be defense funding for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) research? You’ll go cross-eyed within hours.  However, that was what The Black Vault set out to do; and the search may just have paid off.

For those readers who follow news about the Pentagon’s UFO research program, you’ll know that Uncle Sam has recently flip flopped on the issue. First stating they investigated unidentified flying objects with a secret program touted by many media outlets; they later recanted that by updating their previous statement and denying they ever did such a thing.

Confusion has reigned about what the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) really was. Those involved in the effort, like Mr. Luis Elizondo, former Pentagon senior ranking person within the program, states unequivocally it was a UFO research program. The Pentagon, however, denies that fact, and told The Black Vault in December of 2019 that they were taking back their admission to researching UFOs, and said AATIP had nothing to do with them.

Let’s assume for a moment the Pentagon has continued their long-standing tradition of some mis-truths on the topic, and AATIP did deal with UFOs. What we do know, is that according to the NY Times, $22 million dollars that funded the program went to a subsidiary of Bigelow Aerospace known as Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies or BAASS, and would last from 2007-2012.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would reveal that thirty-eight reports known as Defense Intelligence Reference Documents (DIRDs) were produced under AATIP. In January of 2018, Senator John McCain’s office received a list of those report titles, after the Senator expressed interest in knowing what the program had produced.

To add to the concoction of confusion already surrounding AATIP, none of the DIRDs really seemed to reference anything UFO related. In addition, the DIRD reports that did leak out in full, did not mention AATIP, but rather, something called the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications (AAWSA) Program.

In the letter to Senator McCain, from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) that oversaw the program, “’The purpose of AATIP was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace weapon threats from the present out to the next 40 years.”

Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough reiterated this in a statement to The Black Vault in 2019. “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.”

Despite the contradiction, Elizondo told The Black Vault the Pentagon’s stance and their statements are wrong. “I believe enough people in our Government have been made aware over the last 2 years that a program existed and continues to exist…”

With these assertions, The Black Vault set out to find exactly where that money may be coming from that allows the program and the effort to continue. In order to do that, we must first go after what was publicly posted for the AAWSA Program. That can be found archived from a 2008 “Federal Business Opportunities” posting which was saved in the “Wayback Machine.” This was the original posting that was seen by BAASS in 2008, which they submitted a bid for. No other corporations offered a bid.

This solicitation notice stated the objective of the AAWSA program:

“One aspect of the future threat environment involves advanced aerospace weapon system applications.  The objective of this program is to understand the physics and engineering of these applications as they apply to the foreign threat out to the far term, i.e., from now through the year 2050. Primary focus is on breakthrough technologies and applications that create discontinuities in currently evolving technology trends. The focus is not on extrapolations of current aerospace technology. The proposal shall describe a technical approach which discusses how the breakthrough technologies and applications listed below would be studied and include proposed key personnel that have experience in those areas. 3. REQUIREMENTS: a) The contractor shall complete advanced aerospace weapon system technical studies in the following areas:   1. lift; 2. propulsion ; 3. control; 4. power generation; 5. spatial/temporal translation; 6. materials; 7. configuration, structure; 8. signature reduction (optical, infrared, radiofrequency, acoustic); 9. human interface; 10. human effects; 11. armament (RF and DEW); 12. other peripheral areas in support of (1-11); b) It is expected that numerous experts with extensive experience (minimum of 10 years) in breakthrough aerospace research and development will be required to meet the demands of the above program.”

With this as a starting point, The Black Vault began sifting through budgets and proposals to seek out what may be continuing this alleged UAP/UFO research. Regardless on if the AAWSA Program language was coded and covertly meant to be a “secret UFO study;” or if possibly it was not meant to be a UFO program at all but research bore out there was a phenomena that was determined a threat – this was a good place to start to seek out similar programs. Match the language – quite possibly match the objective.

After a long hunt, the discovery of Program Element (PE) 0603286E was made, and one of the projects within, could be exactly the unique needle in that proverbial stack of needles that was being sought after.

A PE is ultimately a portfolio of programs or in some instances a single program that receives funding within a budget.  PE 0603286E was first discovered in the 2008 DARPA Fact File published in June of 2008 (coincidentally, the same year the DIA solicited the private sector for bids for the AAWSA Program).

PE 0603286E contained numerous sub-projects that receive funding out of their more than $100 – $180 million dollar yearly budget. Tactically Exploited Reconnaissance Node; Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept; Tactical Boost Glide; Aerial Reconfigurable Embedded System; are just some of the programs that receive money through this specific PE.

However, one sub-program within PE 0603286E is the Advanced Aerospace System Concepts line item, also reference as part of a “Project AIR-01.” The 2008 fact file says that:

“Studies conducted under the Advanced Aerospace System Concepts program will examine and evaluate emerging aerospace technologies and system concepts for applicability to military use, as well as the degree and scope of potential impact/improvements to military operations, mission utility, and warfighter capability. The program also analyzes emerging aerospace threats and possible methods and technologies to counter them.”

Although similar, the wording is not quite an exact match to the AAWSA Program, that is, not until you follow the progression of the program throughout multiple budgets. As the years progressed, the Advanced Aerospace System Concepts program continued to receive funding totaling millions of dollars each year, and it appeared that it’s objective and scope, would be slightly altered as time went on. The following was language that is found in later budgets about the program:

“The feasibility of achieving potential improvements, in terms of resources, schedule, and technological risk, is also evaluated. The results from these studies are used, in part, to formulate future programs or refocus ongoing work. Topics of consideration include: methods of defeating enemy anti-aircraft attacks; munition technologies to increase precision, range, endurance, and lethality of weapons for a variety of mission sets; novel launch systems; air vehicle control, power, propulsion, materials, and architectures; and payload and cargo handling systems.”

Launch systems; control; power; propulsion; materials; all exact research angles that connect the AAWSA Program / AATIP with this specific DARPA research program. In addition, having it in what appears to be an umbrella “weapons program,” along with using the phrasing “aerospace threats,” which would undoubtedly include UAPs, also draw a direct line between the two efforts.

Although it may be a stretch to fully conclude this is a continuation or extension of AATIP’s UAP focus; no one can deny the striking similarities between the wording of both programs. If AATIP / AAWSA Program was truly a UFO research program hidden within coded language in a public bid solicitation notice; then this DARPA program may ultimately be a near mirror image of it that holds many secrets of its own.

###

Note: The Black Vault has had numerous FOIA requests open for records related to the above PE line item. It has been challenging, but some headway has recently been made. It was decided to publish the above prior to the FOIA releases for additional information, in order to spread the word about the possible connect. More information will be published, when available.

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [556.24 KB]

UPDATE February 18th, 2020

In the past few days, the DOD issued their newest Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimates. The “Advanced Aerospace System Concepts” program is continuing, with millions of dollars slated for the coming years.

In addition, it still speaks of analyzing “emerging aerospace threats” along with pursuing topics such as novel launch systems, propulsion, and materials very similar to the AAWSAP language. It’s still unclear if there could be ANY connection whatsoever, but the similarities remain.

Source

The post Could This Be DARPA’s Project for UFO/UAP Research? first appeared on The Black Vault.

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]

Loading...

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.

Just last month, the U.S. Navy went on the record stating that three videos that have circulated the mainstream media in the last two years were, in fact, considered “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” or UAPs.  Now, recently obtained e-mails from the Navy and the Air Force reveal that ranking members of both branches express different views on what they refer to as a “phenomena,” along with showing disagreement with how the overall story is being reported by the mainstream media.

The series of documents were provided to The Black Vault through two different Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Navy and to the Air Force.  Records were released for both requests in June and October respectively.

Navy E-Mails Outline Different UAP Narrative

The Navy released to The Black Vault in late June nearly one hundred pages of correspondence relating to the “UFO Guidelines” first reported by Politico in April. The emails consist primarily of correspondence from outside journalists and media agencies all looking to cover the news about the “UFO Guidelines” that Politico broke, but also within those messages, were internal communications by Navy personnel not yet seen by the general public, until their release to The Black Vault.

One such message offers much more detail about the “UFO Guidelines” than previously reported. However, what it outlines is a much different narrative than the one published largely by the mainstream media. Nowhere in the three hundred and sixty nine word statement does “unidentified” appear; nor is there anything about any “phenomena.” On the contrary, the statement offered a much more nuts-and-bolts, identifiable definition, but a threat to the Navy none-the-less.

“The wide proliferation and availability of inexpensive unmanned aerial systems (UAS) such as commercially available quadcopters has increasingly made airspace de‐confliction an issue for our aviators,” said John “Jay” Stratton, an Office of Naval Intelligence Senior Analyst from the Nimitz Operational Intelligence Center. “Based on this increased airspace complexity, US Navy aircrew were provided with reporting instructions in order to determine the frequency and location of any UAS operating in our training areas.”

Some of Stratton’s wording should sound familiar to those with a sharp memory. Although it is unclear if Stratton’s version of the Navy statement was truly the original to be crafted (the e-mail in the release is dated after the Politico article), it is likely that it was. Joseph Gradisher, spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare, was the one responsible for issuing shorter, but similar statement that was later published by Politico, and repeated throughout multiple media outlets in the days that followed.

Stratton was never quoted or was responsible for issuing any statements to the media. His take, was internal only.

Gradisher refers to Stratton in an internal e-mail dated May 7, 2019, as having “provided most of the info” that he used to craft the “UFO Guideline” statements that he had sent to Politico. (The date discrepancy on Stratton’s e-mail could be explained by the fact it may have been a copy and paste from another e-mail thread, however that cannot be verified as the Pentagon did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story.) However, in the final statements that  Gradisher sent to Politico, he inserted “unidentified aircraft” within the wording, as they related to UAS’, however, there was still no reference to “UFOs,” “UAPs,” or any “phenomena.”  Once that two-word phrase was issued, it was then morphed into “UFO” by the mainstream media.

Classified Briefing Details Revealed

The e-mails also reveal that Stratton was the one who conducted at least one of the classified briefing on UAPs, a fact not yet reported by the mainstream media.

“OLA [Office of Legislative Affairs] is responding to interest from staff members of both chambers of Congress, led by the national security advisors to Senators McConnell (majority leader) and Schumer (minority leader) and will also likely include House staff, as well as staff from the Armed Services Committees,” one e-mail stated sent from a sender whose name was redacted. “With N2N6 concurrence, Mr. Jay Stratton (DISL, ONI NIMITZ) will brief Congressional staff in a classified session on Tues 7 May on the Navy’s efforts in this area.”  N2N6 refers to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance.

The e-mail seemingly contradicts the widespread claim that To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA), the organization largely credited for leaking the three UAP videos known as “FLIR1,” “Gimbal” and “GoFast,” played a role in the classified briefings. Nowhere in the internal communications are they referred to; listed as taken part in; nor are they credited for organizing the closed-door meetings.

TTSA has not responded to repeated attempts for comment from The Black Vault.

The U.S. Air Force and UAPs

The second batch of e-mails obtained by The Black Vault were released by the Air Force on October 3, 2019. Since the Navy has gone on the record about UAPs and UFOs earlier this year, the Air Force has stayed mysteriously quiet. Arguably, the military branch that should have the most interest of unidentified objects in the sky, has shown little to no interest, and has not issued any detailed statements on UAPs or UFOs in recent months. However, their internal e-mails reveal details on how they view the UAP topic along with the UFO phenomena.

On April 26, 2019, Air Force spokesperson Laura Mcandrews sent an e-mail to the Deputy Director of [Air Force] Public Affairs, Mr. Jerry Renne. This message came just days after Politico broke the story about the “UFO Guidelines,” and her interpretation of the story was a bit different than the final statements issued by the Navy to Politico.

“They mentioned the Air Force by saying ‘For safety and security concerns, the Navy and the USAF take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report.’ (Which is true.),” said Mcandrews. “What the Navy was trying to talk about was unmanned aerial systems… that got turned into UFOs and aliens.”

The e-mail by Mcandrews reflects that of what appears to be the Navy’s original statement by Stratton, which got truncated and altered before submission to Politico. It appears that the Air Force focus on this threat surrounds unmanned aerial systems, and not “[unidentified flying objects]” as asserted by Politico.

When asked if the Air Force had any “UFO Guideline”-like protocols; the Air Force has not commented publicly as of the writing of this article, and the Pentagon did not respond for comment after multiple attempts.  However, the e-mails offer insight into that very question.

Josh Aycock, Chief of the Public Affairs division for the Air Force Safety Center (AFSC) was enlisted by the Air Force main public affairs office for guidance on answering that question, as submitted by one journalist. He was tasked to look into whether Air Force encounters with UAPs had occurred, along with being asked to provide evidence, if any, that the Air Force had a similar “UFO Guideline” similar to the Navy’s.

“Gut reaction is that we would not track these unless the pilot almost crashed into one or something like that,” Aycock responded almost immediately. Two days later, he offered the official answer. “The flight folks do not believe we have anything in our system regarding unexplained phenomenon,” Aycock sent to the main public affairs office. “I also checked with my FOIA team to see if they have encountered anything like this. They said they typically send those requests to the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]. I could see that as a potential repository for those types of events.”

The FAA did not comment on questions sent from The Black Vault relating to their stance on UAPs; specific guidelines or protocols for commercial pilots to report encounters; or the Air Force forwarding requests to their agency. Rather, the FAA only issued the following statement: “The FAA does not track UFOs. Please contact The National UFO Reporting Center: http://www.nuforc.org/.”

Navy Response to Query (RTQ)

Another key document revealed by the Air Force FOIA release, was actually a Navy one. This is called a “response to query” or RTQ record and is used internally by public affairs offices to help coordinate responses to various questions on a certain topic. In this case, this was the RTQ for all “unidentified aerial phenomena” related queries to the Navy. This particular document was shared with the Air Force.

Designated “For Official Use Only” and listed as an “internal working document,” the RTQ offers a detailed breakdown at how the Navy handled “UFO Guideline” related questions. “The Washington Post and other outlets queried following a Politico article on the Navy changing its reporting procedures for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,” the document began.

What followed were familiar “talking points,” with one considerable difference. In the days that followed the original article by Politico, the Navy removed reference to the Air Force, and their statement was changed to, “For safety and security concerns, the Navy takes these reports very seriously and investigates each and every report.” It remains unclear why the Navy removed the reference after the initial statements were given.

After the two “talking points,” the internal Navy RTQ lists eight questions breaking down various responses to each. One addressed the topic of “UFO Guidelines” within other branches of the military, like the Air Force. The Navy was set to respond with, “Military and civilian aviation have always had channels for reporting airspace violations and hazards to aviation safety authorities.”

Another asked about the type of analysis that would be done on UAP related questions. The Navy had that ready to go as well. “Navy, Department of Defense, and other government agencies will analyze all reports, to include any eyewitness statements, flight profiles, any video, and any other materials to support the safety and security of our aircrew and operations.”

Throughout most of the answers generated internally by the Navy, one theme remained consistent: UAS’.

The Drone Question

Despite the similarity between UAS’ and drones, there is a difference between the two. A ‘drone’ is often used to refer to the craft itself, wherein a ‘UAS’ refers to the craft and the remote operator. UAS’ are a common thread between the internal Navy e-mails, Air Force communications and other key records that surfaced via a FOIA response to The Black Vault in mid-August.

The mid-August document release by the Department of Defense (DOD) to The Black Vault, revealed all internal communications between Mr. Luis Elizondo and the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR). Elizondo, a former government employee who now works for TTSA, is largely credited as bringing the “FLIR1,” “Gimbal” and “GoFast,” videos to the public, but this release of records created more questions, than revealed answers.

Not only does it show the three videos were not cleared for public release, it revealed that Elizondo referred to them also as UAS’, nearly identically worded to most other internal documents now revealed from the Navy and Air Force.

In Elizondo’s own words, the three videos that the Navy admits to designating as “UAPs,” were described as, “UAV, Balloons, and other UAS,” on the official paperwork and written in his e-mails. There is no mention of “phenomena” by Elizondo behind-the-scenes, contradicting his public statements on various media interviews and connected with press releases by TTSA. However, his wording confirms internal stances of the Air Force and some members of the Navy about what the threat actually is.

This is where confusion reigns for many. Despite recent statements by the Navy about their “UAP” designation for the three videos in question, where does the widespread talk about UAS’ come from? Three agencies which include the Navy, Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) within the Pentagon all refer to this phenomenon depicted within the videos as being about UAS’. One of the questions sent to the Pentagon for comment, was asking if the Air Force would test their technology on another branch of the military without their knowledge, like the Navy.  There were no official statement given by the Pentagon for any questions submitted.

There is also no evidence, yet, that these “unmanned aerial systems” is a new code-word for “unidentified flying objects” or other related “phenomena” as some have suggested.

Change in Response Policy Regarding UAPs

The internal communications and documents produce more questions that have yet to adequately be addressed. However, the e-mails also shed light on a recent change of policy regarding the DOD and the UAP topic.

In the last six months since Politico broke the “UFO Guideline” story, the Navy has been issuing their own statements about UAPs. That has now changed.

In an e-mail dated September 20, 2019, sent from Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough; she informed the Air Force that, “Navy has requested that OSD take the lead from now on for these queries, so please continue to work any USAF-specific responses through me.” The Navy is not the only agency to now be silent on the UAP issue and referring enquiries elsewhere.

While researching information for this article (and others yet to be published), questions were sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), USAF, Navy and OSD, all with different questions, but surrounding the topic of UAPs and programs rumored to have investigated them.  Each agency referred those lines of questioning to Gough at the Pentagon, as she is now the point contact on the topic, DOD-wide.

It remains unclear why the change for all agencies has taken place.

Navy RTQ on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [550.50 KB]

Full Release

Note: Orange redactions are added by The Black Vault as a courtesy to shield some personal, private sector, information. Also the Navy RTQ document above is within the .pdf below, but you need to check the “attachments” tab.

Download Full Release (with Attachment) [0.3MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [515.89 KB]

To ensure it was ok to public, I did verify with USAF about the release. They confirmed; it was all releasable.

The post Internal Air Force/Navy E-Mails on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Revealed 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.