Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

This place looks an Irish bar on St. Paddy's day after someone tried to get past the bouncer wearing a pair of socks over their head

Anyway.....as regards AATIP. It's beginning to look more and more like Cooper, Kean, Bender and other journalists didn't do their due diligence before announcing to the world that Zondo was the disgruntled "Director of AATIP..

It seems now they call him the "Program Element Manager" which means he managed elements of the program. Without directing them it would seem.

Even TTSA claimed he was the Director last year. So why the change of title?


Oh hang on (to date - this may be changed eventually). They still do claim he was FMR Director of AATIP

a reply to: mirageman

This place looks an Irish bar on St. Paddy's day after someone tried to get past the bouncer wearing a pair of socks over their head

Was that before or after you got to read all of KellyKell's posts that were deleted calling you every Irish name in the book? LOL!

As for Elizondo, who knows what's going on...

Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo. But she could not say how long he was in charge of it and declined to answer detailed questions about the office or its work, citing concerns about the closely held nature of the program.

www.politico.com...

ETA: After everything I've read, I'm convinced there's infighting going on within the Pentagon on this subject. I've read everything from the Pentagon allowing the team access to the videos that aired to other sources saying they didn't have permission and were upset that they were shown on "Unidentified".

a reply to: Deetermined

I don't know why anyone would think I was Irish.

As for Zondo and co.

Seems to me that there are games going on in the Pentagon as much as with TTSA. I think people make the mistake and assume that everyone sings from the same sheet in the Pentagon. They obviously don't. That may also apply to TTSA.

Although I do think it would be fun to hear Zondo try singing....

Don't waste your time on me you're already the voice inside my yed

a reply to: mirageman

Seems to me that there are games going on in the Pentagon as much as with TTSA. I think people make the mistake and assume that everyone sings from the same sheet in the Pentagon. They obviously don't. That may also apply to TTSA.

Absolutely. It happens everywhere inside our government. I personally get a kick and a laugh when I see the FBI and CIA fighting with each other. While Obama might have created a system for all of these agencies to share information with each other, they really don't want to. Each department wants to take credit and kudos for their own work without having to share it with others. It's one big power trip.

a certain roger glassel posted this on twitter


"New and COMPLETE record released by FOIA on the release of the AATIP videos. It's all about how to counter the emerging Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) problem, not UFOs."


Heres the documents

twitter.com...

a reply to: IMSAM

a reply to: pigsy2400

Interesting that with this document.

1) No mention at all of AATIP, AAWSAP or BAASS. Probably because this was long after they were all finished.

2) The mail header "Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US)" seems to indicate Elizondo was a civilian/contractor during the time of the request (first one dates to July 24th 2017).

3) It would seem to confirm that there were only 3 videos released and everything is being done last minute before Zondo joined TTSA.

4) The wording also indicates that only the locations where the videos were shot has been redacted. Which puts paid to the rumours there are longer versions available.

5) The DD1910 form confirms Elizondo made the requests (as Director National Programs Special Management Staff (OUSD(I)

Nothing is ever a certainty in this game. But it all appears that this was about threats from things like drones, UAVs and balloons.

However at best all seems very vague. Something we've been accustomed to with TTSA.

Which means the dedicated hardline supporters will cling to the threads of hope that this will still turn out to be something about UFO disclosure.

At worst it would appear Elizondo has been deceptive about why he wanted those videos declassified and TTSA may have even acted illegally by publishing them with their logo emblazoned in one corner. The DD1910 clearly states the videos were not available for publication and were for the USG and partners only to use.

Zondo as an ex-employee could be implicated here with breaching DoD regulations.....

USE OF NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION:

Even though you have left Government service, you still may not use non-public information to further your own private interests, or those of another, including your subsequent employer. Non-public information includes classified information, source selection data, information protected by the Privacy Act, proprietary information, and other information that has not been made available to the public and is exempt from disclosure....

ogc.osd.mil...

a reply to: mirageman

They want the dod to outsource this data collation business piece as per CMs plan pre TTSA . He and Keane said as much in 2016 reporting for their UFO Data group. LK is utterly compromised and her reporting is nothing more than adverts for them.

I would be surprised if the DOD did this, they aren't going to fall for the TTSA History Channel scaremongering that Big Bad Vlad already has the data and tech.

Had Clinton got in, this would have happened for them faster, this is why they have gone the Congressional route after interest was peaked via NYT and History channel ADVERTORIALS.
I don't think their former colleagues in govt are impressed. I wouldn't be surprised if all they have managed to achieve is the deeper burying of data.

a reply to: pigsy2400

This explains why the word "UFO" took so long to become standard vocabulary for TTSA after all the exhausting corporate-speak and tip-toeing around the paranormal aspect of flying objects - which was never a proposal beyond rather more earthly unmanned aerial vehicles intruding US airspace. The Nimitz incident was a prime example before it was embellished with an attractive paranormal sheen - including some Navy boys going off script and wildly over-egging the Woo, much to Fravor's annoyance (although TTSA embraced these more exciting misrepresentations).

This also explains TTSA's rather amateur last-minute approach to ufology in general, making fundamental errors, clumsily distorting the facts of classic cases, and even dragging in the long-dead corpse of Roswell.

Delonge's nascent excitable visions of alien Gods and government UFO secrets must have been equivalent to annoying fleas in the ex-IC old boys' ears who were initially focused on balloons, commercial UAVs and assorted quadcopters.

If we take this document at face value, of course. Is there a reason why we shouldn't?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

The main issue with all things TTSA and documents such as these, is that the interpretation of them will be led by the bias of the reader.

For those that support it will reaffirm and those that do not it will do the same.

I am of the opinion it's BS based on a clear lack of transparency, documentation, evidence and all the other things we have discussed and dissected to what amount to over 500 pages of this and the previous thread, trolls, warts and all.

The most interesting aspect to TTSA and other "leaks" of memos and emails over the last few years is that it has, I believe, exposed the previously well regarded within ufology as being less credible and exposed their connections to those within the intelligence community and all the other weirdos and spooks that probably "created" this whole thing in the first place.

Whats left?

Maybe all that is left is a few interesting cases and even those are subject to all the previously mentioned, especially BS!

If destroying ufology wasn't their aim, well it's certainly exposed those at the heart of it, if nothing more.

Two mysteries for everyone....

1) Why were 4 DVDs delivered to Elizondo if there are only three videos?



2) Why is this OP no longer visible unless you are logged into ATS?

So I guess this is the big excitement we were promised a month ago.

I couldn’t see the thread logged out either.

originally posted by: pigsy2400

Whats left?

Maybe all that is left is a few interesting cases and even those are subject to all the previously mentioned, especially BS!

If destroying ufology wasn't their aim, well it's certainly exposed those at the heart of it, if nothing more.

Such exposure is a bonus. Perhaps the old guard of LMH, Cameron etc need to be swept away. I'd hang onto poor old Curious George, though; he just needs to make new friends.

Speaking of which, the whole TTSA-Knapp-Corbell circus of the last two years has arguably further damaged 'old classics' such as Bob Lazar, too. Then again, like the Roswell relic, Lazar is one of ufology's shaky but somehow trusted foundations - a legend, deservedly or not. While his awkward Corbell film arguably further eroded his legend, we can already see the hordes of fresh young recruits signing on (some entertaining the notion of an Area 51 raid, which was not where Lazar allegedly worked anyway - adding to the comedy value).

As I said elsewhere, the UFO mystery has remained virtually static for 70 years. Clues lie as much in the past as in the present - if not more so. Meanwhile, companies like TTSA will come and go, as unequipped to deal with an allegedly unknown operating 'intelligence' as anyone else. Until science takes UFOs seriously and thinks outside the box in its approach to the mystery - as Jacques Vallee continually hopes - then we're never going to scratch the surface.

But in the meantime, the Entertainment Factor will rule the roost... the Science Factor left out in the cold. The anomalous 'Intelligence' or 'consciousness', if it indeed exists, is probably laughing from the sidelines.

originally posted by: mirageman

2) Why is this OP no longer visible unless you are logged into ATS?

[EDIT: As if by magic, the thread has suddenly become UNpreserved in the last few minutes, so the next waffle is academic]

Like all permanently 'pinned' threads, it's not visible when logged out (ie the general public cannot see it listed as a topic on Page 1 whilst lurking).

'Pinning' is a rare honour, of course - and it's a thread that certainly deserves preservation. Why such threads are not visible to non-members may simply be due to odd coding rather than anything Machiavellian... I hope.

a reply to: mirageman

I think we would need to find out what the procedure is in regards to files that have had a declassification process requested and accepted. In terms of if successful, how those files are treated and delivered to the person(s) making that request and in what format and storage medium.

As an example, Greenwald received the MK ultra files on around 12 dvds due to the sheer amount of files. It wouldn't be logical to have burnt one file per disc, that's a lot of dvds!

Is there a difference between files and movie files that get requested? Does there have to be one dvd per movie file due to the individual content of the movie file?

All in all, the three original all files only total 50mb, whereas a dvd is 4.7gb.

I think answering some of these questions would go far in answering your questions MM...

Sidenote; the email request by Zondo, states mpg files, yet the visible attachments file extensions in those emails are wmvs...just a detail I noticed.

TDL is at it again,posted 9 tweets,half of them are questions along the lines of "to be or not to be,thats the question"

then he ends his rant with a vision of matriarchal society and a poll oreo ice cream or chip chop mint ice cream. Or maybe its just too early in the morning for me.

Honorary mention paul stonehill who answers to every single post delonge makes looking for a position to fill in ttsa for over a year now yet delonge dosent even acknowledge him.

a reply to: IMSAM

Butter pecan.

a reply to: IMSAM

I need coffee. Tom and his mad ravings. I wonder when Tindal will give a new update too. So is Stonehill trying to get in on the game. Gosh its all happening on Twitter then.

a reply to: pigsy2400

I think we would need to find out what the procedure is in regards to files that have had a declassification process requested and accepted.

The process is quite clear. Zondo used a form that is normal processed to release something into the public domain.

The top of a DD1910 from used for release of information clearly states for public release.

CLEARANCE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INFORMATION

The anomaly is that section 7 of the form was mysteriously blank and therefore missing an authorising signature! We'll come back to that.

Both sections on the form reference DoDD 5230.09



DoDD 5230.09 is specifically for clearance of DoD information for official public release.

1. PURPOSE. This Directive reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 5230.09 (Reference (a)) to update policy and responsibilities for the security and policy review process for the clearance of official DoD information proposed for official public release by the Department of Defense and its employees under DoDD 5105.02

Let's not forget that a response from the Pentagon claimed that this was

limited distribution (no public release)....

Even though the form is clearly for such a purpose.

1) The DD Form 1910 is authentic, but not standard with a blank section 7 (but it happens).

2) The requester needs to abide by the DD Form 1910 submitted, in which in this case, only a limited distribution (no public release) was requested and THAT is what was approved. There was no request for public release, therefore, it is not granted.

Source Black Vault

The problem is that the Pentagon is confirming that the Form is authentic and was approved.

But because section 7 has not been completed and there is no signatory then how can it be deemed "approved" and stamped "Cleared for OPEN publication"?



How can the videos have been released for a training purpose, or any other purpose, if no one has signed this off?

So we have an incomplete form that is stamped "Cleared for Open Publication" but with no authorised signatory. The form is obviously for "Public Release" of materials but we are being told that "no public release" was authorised.

Clear as mud!

The TLDR seems to be that through sloppy admin procedures a loophole was exploited to get videos released and made publicly available with Zondo looking to a future with TTSA with their logo emblazoned across one corner.

One of TTSA's unofficial media and embedded journalists release this short statement from Zondo overnight.

From Lue Elizondo tonight: "At the time of the request, AATIP was still a small and sensitive program that I was not at liberty to discuss among a broader audience. I used the term UAS as a general phrase that people could understand without specifically highlighting UAPs."

Gknapp (Twitter)

That's about as Irish as you can get.

At the time of the request (July 24th 2017) AATIP was still a small and sensitive program?

Well you've told us it was started in 2007 (or was it 2008?) and funding ended in 2012. How can it still be small? In fact how can it be sensitive? Harry Reid said it was not classified and wanted AATIP to become a Restricted Special Access Program (SAP). Which never happened. Are these ideas just things in Zondo's own head?

I used the term UAS as a general phrase that people could understand without specifically highlighting UAPs.

So UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) was used instead of UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon). Were UFOs now classed as UAPs in 2017? There is no point in doing this.

Let's face it anyone can use that excuse that they said one thing but meant another.....

Talking out of his ( ! ) again.