March 15, 2019
Source: The Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU), Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena (AAP) Conference, March 15, 2019. There are two sections chosen that deserve to be on this timeline, to coincide with the above contradictions. First excerpt, from the Q&A session of pre-screened questions:
Question: Which military service agency within the IC [intelligence community] would be the best focal point for FOIA requests related to the phenomenon and AATIP.
Mr. Elizondo: “If I was a betting man, I would probably stick with, ummm, knocking on the doors of DIA. Um. They have already admitted that the uhh, after some time they they actually were running part of the program. Umm I’d keep knocking on those doors.” (End of answer)
Problem: Mr. Elizondo went on the record that OSD was the home of AATIP, beginning in 2010. This is not contested by the DIA, so they are in agreement on the timeline there. From 2010 through 2017 (according to Mr. Elizondo) AATIP was fully housed within the OSD, and not DIA. That means that there are 7 years worth of documents that can be found at OSD. To direct the audience to focus on DIA, seems to be a complete disregard for his entire story and the fact that AATIP continued on for so long. DIA would not have any release authority for documents dated 2010 through 2017 so why would he not include this agency in his answer as well? This needs clarification, since his tenure heading the project was not at the agency he recommended focusing on, so why does he find no value in chasing after documents that, according to Senator Harry Reid, are 80%+ unclassified?
In addition, Mr. Elizondo said the following. I will include the entire answer first, then dissect, as it is INCREDIBLY important to finalize this timeline with the most recent information Mr. Elizondo is giving out. The follow is also during the Q&A, where Mr. Elizondo was talking about multiple things during a single answer:
“If you look at Senator Reid’s letter, on the very last page, look at the very bottom page and you are going to see FOIA Exempt language. That’s real. Now you can say oh that’s sneaky, they shouldn’t put it there, but we do… for a reason. Some of that stuff is FOIA Exempt and you are not going to see it. I don’t know what to tell ya. And it is FOIA Exempt for a reason. And there are exceptions, by law, there are, there are, when you look at those exemptions, they actually go back to very very specific things — loopholes if you will — or circumstances that something is not FOIAable. Because of sensitivities, because of sources and methods, because of all sorts of reasons. Um, and so, from that respective some of the frustration people… first of all they thought it was “Advanced Aviation” so you are not going to get anything. So for 6 months I was telling people write “Aerospace”. Umm, that’s one thing. You have to be very specific when you do a FOIA, also you need to know which offices, so uhh the DIA, the DOD is a big organization. So you might not get anything you want. It’s not a magic bullet. You have to continue to keep pushing. And keep pushing, and digging, and finding out what offices were around and what offices were not, and then maybe apply those specifically magic bullet ways to those specific offices. AAWSAP was indeed the predecessor to AATIP. We made that very clear from day 1. Unfortunately, I can not talk much about it, out of respect to my former colleagues. I won’t do it. If you want to know more about AAWSAP and what they were doing, you’re going to have to talk to the former director. Or unless he gives me permission, to mention it, I can’t do it. It’s just out of respect for him. It’s a promise I made him long ago and it’s just like I don’t want people speaking on my behalf. Which apparently people do all the time. But thats… ask me and I’ll tell you. So with all due respect, I really can’t answer too much about the AAWSAP.”
Now I will break this down into pieces.
“If you look at Senator Reid’s letter, on the very last page, look at the very bottom page and you are going to see FOIA Exempt language. That’s real. Now you can say oh that’s sneaky, they shouldn’t put it there, but we do… for a reason. Some of that stuff is FOIA Exempt and you are not going to see it. I don’t know what to tell ya. And it is FOIA Exempt for a reason. And there are exceptions, by law, there are, there are, when you look at those exemptions, they actually go back to very very specific things — loopholes if you will — or circumstances that something is not FOIAable.”
Problem: This has been an overly embellished and wildly misunderstood issue by the general public, ever since the letter by Senator Reid leaked. The exact language (as it does not just read “FOIA Exempt” as reported by some), states, “This document contains information exempt from mandatory disclosure under FOIA. Exemptions 1 and 5 apply.” FOIA Exempt language is quite common on records, due to the automatic declassification language within Executive Order 13526. Simple google searches on .mil and .gov domains seeking “FOIA Exempt” explanations will bring up reams of material, including documents with similar language. It simply means, that upon a 25 year passage of time, documents marked with FOIA Exempt language need a closer review, to properly cite exempted material, and redact where necessary. To say, however, that it is “not FOIAable” by the public, is downright wrong. Because as stipulated by 5 U.S.C. § 552, also known as the FOIA, you can request anything you want with few exceptions. Those few exceptions (like Presidential Records) do not come close to making anything related to AAWSAP or AATIP “not FOIAable”. The language is there to ensure document reviewers are aware that certain FOIA Exemptions, in which there are 9 total, MAY apply to the document in whole, in part or may be no longer applicable after a proper review. Anyone can FOIA any document with “FOIA Exempt” language, and it does not mean what the public is being told, especially here.
“…first of all they thought it was “Advanced Aviation” so you are not going to get anything. So for 6 months I was telling people write “Aerospace”. Umm, that’s one thing.”
Problem: This is entirely untrue and misleading. Since I am the source of the first DOD denial, Mr. Elizondo should have seen why that denial took place. The language of the original FOIA request by me never mentioned AATIP (or AAWSAP) or any program name. The request was entirely based on how Mr. Elizondo described the program during the TTSA press conference in October of 2017, wherein he described it as a “DOD Aerospace Threat Program.” The name controversy came months later, and played zero role in that denial. To say so, is a disservice to the truth on what really happened, and each letter is documented within FOIA Case 18-F-0077, dating back to October of 2017, in case anyone would like to verify.
“AAWSAP was indeed the predecessor to AATIP. We made that very clear from day 1.”
Problem: This is a fabrication. From Day 1, AATIP was not even revealed. AAWSAP did not get revealed until months after that, and in Mr. Elizondo’s own words during his MUFON speech, he explained why he never brought up AAWSAP. He stated: “A lot of folks will see, ‘Well Lue, when you first came out, why didn’t you just tell us that?’ Well the reason is, I wasn’t really part of that. And that’s not really my place to discuss a mission, at an organization, where I was really walking in at the tail end. I was brought it to conduct counter-intelligence and security for an organization that was in the process of evolving into something else. There was another director running that program. “
So, you can not have it both ways to explain to one audience why you did not mention AAWSAP, then tell a second audience you told the public about AAWSAP from day 1. This is a wild contradiction, and needs to be clarified/corrected.