1. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I don't really recall Eliozondo making it out to be 'all about ET UFOs'.

    dec 2017
    I personally never got the impression, from anyone really, that the program-as far as the actual government was concerned- was mostly about ET UFOs. But I guess it depends on which articles you read and which text sentences a person focuses on.
    REID and BIGELOW, I definitely felt 'ET UFOs' was their main objective in getting the program approved and finding ET UFOS was Elizondos main focus... which may not be fair to say, because that implies he was ignoring Russian/China possible technology advances.


    another ex of an article I read Dec 2017
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  2. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    You raise good examples to support your case, but it kinda seems like you're quoting me saying something I did not say. I never said anything about ETs nor that anyone said ATIP is all about ETs. You're arguing against the recent WaPo source whose claim I excerpted, not me.
     
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    well your original quote source specifically said
    so I did assume that was what you were alluding to with your vague commentary.
     
  4. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    I'm not in a position to judge the truth of statements about the reasons for ATIP's existence from allegedly inside sources quoted in the news. I was pointing out that someone on the inside seems to be refuting the promoted perception of ATIP.

    Looking quickly back on the reports, I have to disagree that nobody presented ATIP as being about UFOs, as in ET aircraft. Here's a few headlines that easily lead people to believe ATIP was a program like Project Blue Book:

    CNN: “Former Pentagon UFO official: 'We may not be alone' - CNNPolitics

    So Elizondo was no less than a "Pentagon UFO official." And I don't believe UFO is commonly understood to suggest Russian/Chinese advanced aircraft. That CNN reports goes on to say:

    The Guardian: “Pentagon admits running secret UFO investigation for five years

    Which goes on to state:
    I could quote scores of media sources that would lead people to believe ATIP was a modern Project Blue Book. WaPo's recent source seems to be saying that's a misleading perception.
     
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yea, that's what I thought you were doing.
     
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    see? even Fox News reported the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and DOD were saying that way back in Dec 2017
    The Fox news guy in the newscast footage/video @ 50 secs is saying
    That's all I was saying, that journalists were reporting the DIA/DOD official position way back when. I wasn't implying that 'noone' was click baiting their headlines and articles or reporting incorrectly.
     
  7. John85

    John85 Member

    This is the bigger picture we should think about when the NYT features high-profile pieces about a private venture (TTS) backed by ex-government officials who happened to run advanced threat identification programs.

    G1.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/09/space-force-mike-pence-military-service

    I made these points above:

    Specifically referring to real or imagined enemies.

    Now we should add to those questions the following: what makes space 'crowded and adversarial'?
     
  8. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    The FOIA expert John Greenewald @ theblackvault.com has been conducting intense FOIA interrogation over the AATIP program since the TTSA media blitz in 2017. He has concluded at this point that it's simply "a rumor" that AATIP had anything to do with UFOs. He was interviewed here at length by the Dark Journalist:



    Here are a couple excerpts among extensive commentary therein by Greenewald that is of high-priority import to this inquiry:

    @ 8:20 Greenewald:
    @ 38:36 Greenewald:
    @ 12:50 Greenewald points out that TTSA folks won't talk to him, and he is not a UFO debunker they might wish to avoid. He started out entirely favorable to the TTSA narrative and UFOs are a driving focus of his FOIA-filling career. So Greenewald is in fact precisely the kind of person anyone championing "disclosure" should want to speak with. That says a lot as very easily Elizondo could answer questions Greenewald has been filing FOIAs over such as provide a copy of his letter of resignation and many other things. And now with the release of the DD 1920 Form with which Elizondo filed for release of the videos, not only AATIP but also the three videos championed by TTSA appear to be unrelated to UFOs.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. The four dominant space launch nation-states have all tested anti-satellite weapons in the last five years, China has made significant advances in lift and downmass, North Korea developed launch capabilities, the state of US-Russian relations, three newly deployed global navigation constellations, whatever the X-37 is up to, and plenty of other things.
     
  10. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    A reporter for The Intercept, Keith Kloor, blows the whistle on TTSA's alleged UFO whistleblower and now History Channel star...

    https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/

    [​IMG]

    A few excerpts therefrom:

    So it would seem the major networks did not engage in even minimal vetting of almost any facet of the package of extraordinary claims handed to them... "Okay, whatever you say, we'll believe it." At least Intercept reporter Keith Kloor is doing his due diligence.
     
  11. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    According to the Black Vault's follow-up, after Elizondo's name was un-redacted in Senator Reid's 2009 memo, the Pentagon spokeswoman clarified
    Hal Puthoff has vouched for Elizondo, saying
    I haven't heard anyone involved in AATIP call out Elizondo for being an impostor.
    Program-related emails and paperwork would need to be cleared for public release like the videos.
     
  12. jarlrmai

    jarlrmai Member

    So Puthoff and Sherwood's statements are at odds with each other?
     
  13. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    You're not disambiguating being the head of an organization with being associated with it in some capacity. Two Pentagon spokespersons, Christopher Sherwood and Susan Gough, both deny the former wrt Elizondo, despite that claim being widely published (google and google-news: "Luis Elizondo" (director OR head) aatip ).

    And Greenewald doesn't accept Puthoff's defense of Elizondo without raising reason to doubt it. Greenewald says there's a problem with Puthoff's claim, stating:

    It's worth noting that Elizondo says he was brought into the AATIP orbit "to conduct counter-intelligence and security" (@ 7:32 in the youtube video below). What the heck does that even mean?! That sounds a lot different than to be the head of the group. If you look at the titles of AATIP's reports, they're almost exclusively about theoretical physics and technology. Wouldn't the head of such a group have a background therein? Puthoff would fit that role. Why would someone brought in to conduct counter-intelligence and security for a group focused on theoretical physics also be its director?

     
  14. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I was responding to the Intercept reporter's assertion that "There is no discernible evidence that Luis Elizondo ever worked for a government UFO program, much less led one."

    But there is evidence that he interacted with it. As I recall, he said he was brought into AAWSAP to conduct counter-intelligence and security, and later took over AATIP. Puthoff didn't claim that Elizondo led AAWSAP, but that he was "maintaining continuity of the Program," presumably after he assumed leadership of AATIP.

    I'd take the Pentagon spokersperson's denials with a grain of salt. We saw that the spokeswoman was wrong about form DD-1910 requesting the public release of the videos:
     
  15. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Greenewald has tweeted since the exchange between him and Mick on May 3, claiming more proof that he's right (and if so, then Mick errs to assume being approved for "open publication" means fully public, which seems plausible on its face). On June 9 he posted this:



    So why then is the Pentagon sitting by and doing nothing while someone violates security clearance and thereby raised millions of dollars and became world famous? The obvious message the Pentagon is giving is: you can release classified information, make millions and become famous thereby and we'll do absolutely nothing about it.

    In short, ya, there's something that doesn't make sense about what Sherwood is saying, so at least a tiny grain of salt seems indicated.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Agreed, and I stand by my original assessment - that this form means that the videos are legally cleared for public release, even if there was perhaps an expectation that they were not intended for publication.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  17. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Greenewald is sharp as a tack on every nuance of TTSA statements, and thankfully so, yet he accepts Pentagon spokesperson statements rife with contradictions without question (saying someone violated the Pentagon's classified-material-release protocol while the Pentagon has done nothing about it for over a year are contradictory conditions). To clarify that, he should ask Sherwood: "So why hasn't the Pentagon done anything to reprimand Elizondo for releasing classified material?"
     
  18. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    maybe because they are nothing worthless video snippets? or because it takes the government forever and a day to get anything done?
    Have you seen this slideshow? they are just topic snippets, and I can't really (ie. not interested enough to strain my brain) decipher it. It seems to be relating to the issue. ??
    https://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/classification-of-info-rel-to-public-webinar-slides.pdf
     
  19. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    The answer, I suspect, is that no violation occurred because the videos were approved for "open publication." But 18 U.S. Code § 798 suggests no action might be taken for unauthorized disclosure if it is not deemed "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States." Whatever, the spokespersons ought to be asked why no action has been taken if the releases violated the scope of approved release. Violating the release procedure without consequence would undermine the whole process.

    No, I've not seen that slideshow, will check it out...
     
  20. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Right, it's stamped "CLEARED For Open Publication." Why they cleared it is their problem, perhaps because it's worthless video snippets as deirdre said.
     
  21. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    well another post (maybe another thread) said the History channel a guy said he saw an extended version of the Gimbal video. It's possible with the d1940 it had a "exceptions" (forget the name now) clause tacked on that said something about 'as long as no identifying information' included.

    which of course is a great, and technically accurate, excuse for TTSA to jerk everybody around and edit the videos to take out information that debunks the alien ufo theory.