Blink-182's Tom DeLonge's "To The Stars" UFO Disclosure Enterprise

[deirdre]

was what Elizondo and others are making it out to be

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

dec 2017

Current and former Pentagon officials confirm that the Pentagon program has been in existence since 2007 and was formed for the purpose of collecting and analyzing a wide range of "anomalous aerospace threats" ranging from advanced aircraft fielded by traditional U.S. adversaries to commercial drones to possible alien encounters. It is a rare instance of ongoing government investigations into a UFO phenomenon that was the subject of multiple official inquiries in the 1950s and 1960s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...9728984779c_story.html?utm_term=.f73e83b2fd1b

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

One possible theory behind the unexplained incidents, according to a former congressional staffer who described the motivations behind the program, was that a foreign power—perhaps the Chinese or the Russians—had developed next-generation technologies that could threaten the United States.

"Was this China or Russia trying to do something or has some propulsion system we are not familiar with?" said a former staffer who spoke with POLITICO on condition of anonymity.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111

 

[igoddard]

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

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.

 

[deirdre]

but it kinda seems like you're quoting me saying something I did not say

well your original quote source specifically said

The program, he said, was not created to investigate unearthly technology

so I did assume that was what you were alluding to with your vague commentary.

 

[igoddard]

well your original quote source specifically said

so I did assume that was what you were alluding to with your vague commentary.

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:

(CNN) A former Pentagon official who led a recently revealed government program to research potential UFOs said Monday evening that he believes there is evidence of alien life reaching Earth.

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

Which goes on to state:

The truth is finally out there, after the Pentagon admitted it ran a secret UFO investigation programme for five years until 2012.

The US defence department's own "X-Files" operation, known by the less catchy title of the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program, was closed after a change in funding priorities, it said.

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.

 

[deirdre]

I was pointing out that someone on the inside seems to be refuting the promoted perception of ATIP.

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

 

[deirdre]

A new report on the TTSA videos in The Washington Post yesterday states:

An official with the Defense Intelligence Agency maintains that the hype over the secret Pentagon UFO program is misleading.

"Some out there seem to be making this into more than it really is," said the official, who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. The program, he said, was not created to investigate unearthly technology but simply to prepare for aerospace advances by foreign adversaries — and was shuttered in 2012 because "there was limited value in what was produced."

Nice to see a journalist in the media consulting someone outside the TTSA circle. And what the source said doesn't surprise me at all.

see? even Fox News reported the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and DOD were saying that way back in Dec 2017

A spokesman said: "There is some confusion about this program and claims about its purpose in press reporting ... the Defence Intelligence Agency has not released any information, files or videos."

But Department of Defence officials disputed this, saying they did not know what "confusion" the Defence Intelligence Agency was referring to, and stating they had been "clear" about the program's aims.

A Department of Defense spokesman said: "The AATIP's mandate, when it existed, was to assess far-term foreign advanced aerospace threats to the United States."
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/12/29/mystery-over-top-secret-ufo-program-deepens.html

The Fox news guy in the newscast footage/video @ 50 secs is saying

"which included analysing a variety of aeronautic threats ranging from what could be our adversaries next generation aircraft or..." http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/12/29/mystery-over-top-secret-ufo-program-deepens.html

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.

 

[John85]

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.

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

The US vice-president said the development is needed to ensure America's dominance in space amid heightened competition and threats from China and Russia.

In a speech at the Pentagon in Washington DC, Pence said that while space was once peaceful and uncontested, it is now crowded and adversarial.

"Previous administrations all but neglected the growing security threats emerging in space," Pence said. "Our adversaries have transformed space into a war-fighting domain already, and the United States will not shrink from this challenge."

I made these points above:

It [TTS] seeks to create a groundswell of enthusiasm for a new space race compared to the strength of feeling last achieved during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, because with popular support for advanced programs, research and development can happen more quickly. If I understood correctly, this is a nationalistic, military agenda.

Specifically referring to real or imagined enemies.

Questions to ask ourselves:
If this venture has gained public backing from ex-government officials, why does the government wish to offer support?
If there is to be a 'space race' level of popular interest, why the urgency?
Will this space race also have an enemy (real or imagined)?

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

 

[igoddard]

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:

...that started dialog between me and the Office of the Secretary of Defense trying to unravel what Mr. Elizondo was saying and what the Pentagon was saying. And as the months unfolded and the FOIA responses were coming in, nothing was matching up.

@ 38:36 Greenewald:

I am not saying AATIP is not a UFO program, I'm saying there is no evidence to support it. I'm not saying Mr. Elizondo is lying, I'm saying that there's no evidence he's telling the truth.

@ 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.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

what makes space 'crowded and adversarial'?

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.

 

[igoddard]

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/

A few excerpts therefrom:

There is no discernible evidence that Luis Elizondo ever worked for a government UFO program, much less led one.

Yes, AATIP existed, and it "did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena," Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me. However, he added: "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017."

It bears noting that, although Elizondo has made a point of providing various documents to reporters (including me) to establish his bona fides, he does not appear to have supplied any materials that validate his connection to the government UFO program he insists he led. No memorandums, no emails discussing deliverables or findings, and no paperwork addressed to or from him that connects him to AATIP.

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.

 

[Agent K]

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/

A few excerpts therefrom:

There is no discernible evidence that Luis Elizondo ever worked for a government UFO program, much less led one.

Yes, AATIP existed, and it "did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena," Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me. However, he added: "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017."

It bears noting that, although Elizondo has made a point of providing various documents to reporters (including me) to establish his bona fides, he does not appear to have supplied any materials that validate his connection to the government UFO program he insists he led. No memorandums, no emails discussing deliverables or findings, and no paperwork addressed to or from him that connects him to AATIP.

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.

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

"Elizondo did interact with the DIA office managing the program while the program was still ongoing, but he did not lead it."
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/pentagon-reinforces-mr-luis-elizondo-had-no-responsibilities-on-aatip-senator-harry-reids-2009-memo-changes-nothing/

Hal Puthoff has vouched for Elizondo, saying

"I have no problem asserting that as an AAWSAP/AATIP Contractor & Senior Advisor I continued to attend meetings, provide briefings, gain access to videos, provide Proposed Program Plans, meet with staff, etc., all under the aegis of Elizondo's leadership and responsibility for maintaining continuity of the Program effort and goals until he resigned."

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.

 

[jarlrmai]

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

 

[igoddard]

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.

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 is unclear how Dr. Puthoff could have worked under Mr. Elizondo's leadership, since AAWSAP/AATIP contracted work began in 2008 at DIA and Mr. Elizondo's alleged leadership began in 2010 at OUSDI when the program was transferred. When asked about the discrepancy, or to clarify that the contracted work by Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, LLC. who initially won the contract, continued after two years (or after the 2012 date when funding was cut entirely); Dr. Puthoff did not return the message.

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?

 

[Agent K]

You're not disambiguating being the head of an organization with being associated with it in some capacity.

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:

Mick,
I'm not quite clear on what it is you're trying to say with your last two posts. Are you saying that the pentagon spokesperson was wrong about section 3 limiting how the videos could be used ?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

 

[igoddard]

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:

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.

 

[Mick West]

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.

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.

 

[igoddard]

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.

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?"

 

[deirdre]

"So why hasn't the Pentagon done anything to reprimand Elizondo for releasing classified material?"

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

 

[igoddard]

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

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...

 

[Agent K]

The answer, I suspect, is that no violation occurred because the videos were approved for "open publication."

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.

 

[deirdre]

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.

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.

 

[Rory]

Not sure if this interesting or not but please find attached a 34-page timeline on the navy UAPs, Tom DeLonge, Fravor, Elizondo, etc.

Source: drive.google.com/file/d/1i0kKbDgsxQwWUn7MNr5Mlv--kqQF8fR3/edit

 

[Mick West]

Not sure if this interesting or not but please find attached a 34-page timeline on the navy UAPs, Tom DeLonge, Fravor, Elizondo, etc.

Source: drive.google.com/file/d/1i0kKbDgsxQwWUn7MNr5Mlv--kqQF8fR3/edit

By you?

 

[Rory]

Not me - I'm not sure who it's by. Google doc says owner is a "Mr Sin".

 

[JMartJr]

Google doc says owner is a "Mr Sin".

Elsewhere on the Internet, posting the idea that UFO "pilots" are not aliens, but demons, has become somewhat popular. They are going to go ballistic when they see that.