TTSA Videos Declassification Email Exchange Release under FOIA

[Mick West]

Via Roger Glassel
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ufoupdates/permalink/10156191391241790/


FOIA Request correspondence
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/18-f-0724-request-pdf.38064/

FOIA Response with Elizondo emails (Updates with new retractions)
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/16pg-responsive-doc-pdf.38091/?

[OCR Text - May contain errors]

From: Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US)
Sent Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:43 AM
To: Russo, Michael C CIV WHS ESD (US)
Subject FW: ATTN: Russo - DOPSR Request-Part 1

Attachments: GoFast.wmv

—Original Message—
From: Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US)
Sent: Wednesday, August 9,2017 4:20 PM
To: WHS Pentagon ESD Mailbox DOPSR cwhs.nentatmn <»<;H mhv Hrmcr/mmaii cmii ^ J K
Cc: (b)(6)
Subject: ATTN: Russo - DOPSR Request-Part 1

Greetings Michael and thank you once again for your assistance-One more e-mail to follow (three in total due to sizelimitations).

Per your guidance, please find the attached three .mpg files for your review. Please note, although the files are UNCLASSIFIED, they are being sent via SIPR in the spirit of extra precaution. No locational data is provided in any of the files and therefore there should be no classification issues.

STRATEGIC ISSUE: Unmanned aerial vehicles (balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc) continue to pose a potential threat to DoD facilities, equipment, and location. Army, Navy, and Air Force have all acknowledged the potential threat by UAS' to DoD equities but no single UNCLASSIFIED repository exists to share this information across all stakeholders.

PURPOSE: Our collective purpose is to eventually establish an UNCLASSIFIED database or "Community of Interest" of related signature data to be accessible by stakeholders such as DIA, the Navy, Defense Industry partners, and perhaps even State, Local & Tribal authorities to catalog and identify specific UAS threats to national security and/or DoD equities. By creating a virtual library to catalog and analyze each event, our hope will be to better understand the capabilities, and ultimately vulnerabilities of these systems.

Please let me know if I can assist any further with this request.

Sincerest Regards,

Lue

Moderator deirdre

Original thread discussing DD1910 form https://www.metabunk.org/ttsas-form-dd-1910-for-flir-go-fast-and-gimbal-videos.t10702/

 

[Ravi]

I am not so knowledgable on this whole AATIP stuff, what is the context of this thread? Why are these important documents?

 

[div]

I am not so knowledgable on this whole AATIP stuff, what is the context of this thread? Why are these important documents?

The only interesting part would be the names of video files, apparently they weren't changed by TTSA, as it might seem

 

[Mick West]

For me the interesting this is this

STRATEGIC ISSUE: Unmanned aerial vehicles (balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc) continue to pose a potential threat to DoD facilities, equipment, and location. Army, Navy, and Air Force have all acknowledged the potential threat by UAS's to DoD equities but no single UNCLASSIFIED repository exists to share this information across all stakeholders.

He (Lou Elizondo) lists ordinary objects when describing what the issue is. So is that what the videos are considered to be by the Navy? Or is he misleading about what he thinks they are?

 

[deirdre]

and after decades of footage, he could only find 3 "UFOs" he thought he could [literally] sell to the public. er um, I mean he could only find 3 UAVs for his new 'repository'.

 

[Gerard]

For me the interesting this is this

STRATEGIC ISSUE: Unmanned aerial vehicles (balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc) continue to pose a potential threat to DoD facilities, equipment, and location. Army, Navy, and Air Force have all acknowledged the potential threat by UAS's to DoD equities but no single UNCLASSIFIED repository exists to share this information across all stakeholders.

He (Lou Elizondo) lists ordinary objects when describing what the issue is. So is that what the videos are considered to be by the Navy? Or is he misleading about what he thinks they are?

If that's what Elizondo really believed them to be then this sentence seems a bit strange

By creating a virtual library to catalog and analyze each event, our hope will be to better understand the capabilities, and ultimately vulnerabilities of these systems.

I think "we" already have a pretty good understanding of the capabilities and vulnerabilities of balloons, commercial UAV's and quadcopters.

 

[deirdre]

If that's what Elizondo really believed them to be then this sentence seems a bit strange

Chinese drones are potentially advanced technology.

The "unclassified" bit is strange though. In what universe would the government make advanced Chinese technology unclassified? Although I do agree that they can probably only be identified and analyzed properly by tribal leaders.

 

[Ravi]

and after decades of footage, he could only find 3 "UFOs" he thought he could [literally] sell to the public. er um, I mean he could only find 3 UAVs for his new 'repository'.

So if I understand it correctly, the video's were available, but Lue asks defence for them to be unclassified? Or am I completely missing the story so far? I am lost....

 

[deirdre]

So if I understand it correctly, the video's were available, but Lue asks defence for them to be unclassified? Or am I completely missing the story so far? I am lost....

To be approved for public release. Or to be approved for a government repository through a public release request.
https://www.metabunk.org/ttsas-form-dd-1910-for-flir-go-fast-and-gimbal-videos.t10702/

Basically they are military training videos. To get a public release certain data needs to removed from the material to protect military interests (in this case of training exercises). I don't recall now if they were ever technically 'classified'.

 

[Mick West]

The emails are a little confusing to read in that PDF, as they are in reverse chronological order and often repeat. So here's a summary

People involved:
------------------

Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US), Director, National Programs Special Management Staff, OUSD(I)
Claims to have been head of AATIP program. Now works for TTSA. He is asking for some files to be declassified

John Kirkbride
Gives the DOPSR email address to elizondo, but no other mentions/emails

Michael C. Russo - the contact at DOPSR
Defense Office of Prepublication & Security Review Pentagon Room 2A534 703-614-4922 (unsecure) NIPR: michael.c.russol4.civ@maii.mil SIPR: michael.c.russol4.civ@smil.mail.mil JWICS: michael.russo@osdj.ic.gov

T [this name was accidentally not redacted in an earlier release, but the DoD requested it be removed for privacy reasons] Someone that Russo has explained the matter to. Also CCed in the final release email.

(b)(6)
Retracted names/emails are marked (b)(6), one email is listed [(b)(6)]@navy.mil, which might be the "Service-level OCA" and/or the "Navy POC"

Timeline:
---------

Monday, July 24, 2017 7:31 AM
John Kirkbride emails Elizondo with the DOPSR's Sipr email address: whs.pentagon.esd.mbx.dopsr@mail.smil.mil

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017, Elizondo send DOPSR and email with public release request, and attaches the three video files. This does not send, so he spilits it into three emails. They are CCed to a retracted address (referred to here as [(b)(6)]). He referrers to a "Michael" (Russo, Michael C CIV WHS ESD (US)) The timestamps seem out of order for the Aug 9 videos, so here they are in the apparent order:

Wednesday, August 9,2017 [4:23 PM]
Elizondo emails DOPSR and [(b)(6)] the request PDF and "Gimble Vid.wmv", explaing he had to split it up.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:21 PM
Elizondo sends GoFast.wmv, to DOPSR and the redacted address. This is the long email with the discussion of "Strategic issue" and "Purpose".

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 [1:45 PM]
Elizondo sends FLIR1.mp4, with the text "Greetings Michael, Part II as promised "

A response is returned from [(b)(6)] the same day:
Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:51 PM
[(b)(6)] emails Elizondo and DOPSR with "Michael, I am checking with NAVAIR to ensure these files are UNCLASS and will relay the response. "

With a follow up email shortly after:
Wednesday, August 9, 2017 6:22 PM
"Michael, Just to be clear... we should consider these files to be SECRET//NOFORN until I am able to establish that they are to be considered U//FOUO."

SECRET//NOFORN = No Foreign, i.e. don't share with foreign intelligence, cannot be released publicly
U/FOUO = Unclassified, For Official Use Only. Meaning it requires a release for public use

Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:43 AM - 9:44 AM
8 days later, Elizondo forwards his three original emails, with attachments to "Russo, Michael C CIV WHS ESD (US) michael.c.russo14.civ@mail.smil.mil"

Wednesday, August 23,2017 9:31 AM
Russo responds with "Lue, [T] has been in contact and I've explained the situation to him, but wanted to ensure you knew I was still working the request."


Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:39 AM
Elizondo replies:
"Thank you sincerely my friend. If it is easier for you or more streamline, then please consider our request for unrestricted release. However, my intent is to maintain positive control but I know it's a bit unique of a situation so whichever is easier for you and quicker. If at all possible, I would like to have authority to move it down to UNCLASS by tomorrow. Again, sorry for the inconvenience, I owe you a coffee and a donutl Thanks again! "

The next day Russo replies with
Thursday, August 24,2017 3:20 PM
"Lue, If the Service-level OCA verifies to me (simple one-sentence email is fine) that removing the metadata from the videos makes them UNCLASSIFIED, please feel free to move forward with release. Videos referenced: GoFastwmv FURl.mp4 Ginble Vid.wmv "

Russo attaches Elizondo's DOPSR request form, stamped

(There's a greyscale 11 in the background of the version of this release by TTSA, which is not visible here)

 

[Mick West]

The forwarded emails on Aug 17 are signed:

V/R Lue
CLASSIFIED BY: NIA-X
DERIVED FROM: ODNI HUMINT SCG dated 20120703
DECLASSIFY ON: 50X1-HUM

V/R seems to just be an informal "Very Respectfully"
NIA-X ????
ODNI - Office of the Director of National Intelligence
HUMINT - Human Intelligence
SCG - Security Cooperation Guidance

DECLASSIFY ON 50X1-HUM - " If the classified information should clearly and demonstrably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, no date or event shall be annotated and the marking "50X1-HUM" shall be used." - https://www.mcieast.marines.mil/Por...assified Information Marking-booklet 2010.pdf

"DECLASSIFY ON" normally designates a date. 50X1-HUM is an exception, which here seems to be claiming that the email should not be declassified. This might simply be a default signature Elizondo added to his emails at some point

 

[deirdre]

If it is easier for you or more streamline, then please consider our request for unrestricted release.

so this would be the 'misunderstanding' bit. He did request for 'inhouse' release only but 'Russo' decides to just Open Publication release it. ??

 

[deirdre]

NIA-X ????

? x might mean unknown?

 

[Gerard]

Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US), Director, National Programs Special Management Staff, OUSD(I)

It's interesting that the FOIA response includes the unredacted DD-1910. It establishes that Elizondo was a Director level official. That would seem to make it more plausible that he led AATIP than if he were just a Special Agent as other documents suggested.

Does anyone have any information on what "National Programs Special Management Staff"/NPSMS is or does ?

 

[deirdre]

Does anyone have any information on what "National Programs Special Management Staff"/NPSMS is or does ?

kinda sounds like what Elizondo says, "security" stuff...

Most recently, Luis managed the security for certain sensitive portfolios for the US Government as the Director for the National Programs Special Management Staff. For nearly the last decade, Luis also ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies." (Source: https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/)

Heres a job description for a lawyer to the Deputy Director of NPSMS
https://lensa.com/senior-legal-advisorsme-20541-jobs/arlington/jd/d96509f9e86ab17dae4d2f320fe2943e

and random stuff

Trivett reports back to Judge Pohl that the point of contact for the clearance issue is the program manager for the National Programs Special Management staff in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. https://www.lawfareblog.com/session-217-lawyer-asking-her-own-dismissal-edition

 

[Gerard]

Heres a job description for a lawyer to the Deputy Director of NPSMS
https://lensa.com/senior-legal-advisorsme-20541-jobs/arlington/jd/d96509f9e86ab17dae4d2f320fe2943e

There's something very strange about that job post. Surely the legal advisor to the Deputy Director of a DoD office should be a government job. So why is it being posted by a private company (Novetta) ?

 

[deirdre]

There's something very strange about that job post. Surely the legal advisor to the Deputy Director of a DoD office should be a government job. So why is it being posted by a private company (Novetta) ?

Bigelow was a private company. I guess the government outsources a lot of stuff to civilian contractors. ??

 

[Gerard]

kinda sounds like what Elizondo says, "security" stuff...

Most recently, Luis managed the security for certain sensitive portfolios for the US Government as the Director for the National Programs Special Management Staff. For nearly the last decade, Luis also ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies." (Source: https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/)

Heres a job description for a lawyer to the Deputy Director of NPSMS
https://lensa.com/senior-legal-advisorsme-20541-jobs/arlington/jd/d96509f9e86ab17dae4d2f320fe2943e

and random stuff

Trivett reports back to Judge Pohl that the point of contact for the clearance issue is the program manager for the National Programs Special Management staff in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. https://www.lawfareblog.com/session-217-lawyer-asking-her-own-dismissal-edition

On the other hand being the Director of an agency responsible for clearance in SAP's and whose Deputy has his own legal advisor doesn't sound like the kind of job that would allow much time for moonlighting as the director of AATIP.

One possibility is that this agency is some sort of catch all for programs that don't belong anywhere else so maybe AATIP was placed under it but it doesn't seem likely that the NPSMS Director would lead AATIP directly.

 

[deirdre]

doesn't sound like the kind of job that would allow much time for moonlighting as the director of AATIP.

we, the taxpayers, paid Bigelow 22 million dollars to do the heavy lifting. How long does it really take to say "hey Bigelow, here's a suspicious video someone handed to me.. pretend to investigate it then say it is a UFO, k? "

And he obviously had time to chat with his To The Stars buddies about their new business, and send the public release requests etc.


[edit add: that is a completely fictitious quote above, fyi]

 

[Agent K]

The forwarded emails on Aug 17 are signed:

V/R Lue
CLASSIFIED BY: NIA-X
DERIVED FROM: ODNI HUMINT SCG dated 20120703
DECLASSIFY ON: 50X1-HUM

V/R seems to just be an informal "Very Respectfully"
NIA-X ????
ODNI - Office of the Director of National Intelligence
HUMINT - Human Intelligence
SCG - Security Cooperation Guidance

SCG stands for Security Classification Guide.

 

[Agent K]

so this would be the 'misunderstanding' bit. He did request for 'inhouse' release only but 'Russo' decides to just Open Publication release it. ??

How so? Elizondo said, "If it is easier for you or more streamline, then please consider our request for unrestricted release. However, my intent is to maintain positive control but I know it's a bit unique of a situation so whichever is easier for you and quicker."
Sounds like he was weighing a restricted release against an unrestricted release, whichever is easier and quicker.

 

[deirdre]

How so? Elizondo said, "If it is easier for you or more streamline, then please consider our request for unrestricted release. However, my intent is to maintain positive control but I know it's a bit unique of a situation so whichever is easier for you and quicker."
Sounds like he was weighing a restricted release against an unrestricted release, whichever is easier and quicker.

it's an issue in the other thread. the Black Vault guy says the videos were never released for Open Publication due to being told that by the press secretary. But some of us thought "open publication" meant "open publication" regardless of the restrictions Elizondo wrote on the form.

 

[Mick West]

Via Coast to Coast, for some reason:

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/exclusive-luis-elizondo-statement/

Elizondo sent this statement:

Once again, this is yet another attempt by a few antagonists to bend facts around their false narrative. What the emails actually prove is as follows:

1) I did indeed work in AATIP

2) I was in a Senior position

3) The videos were coordinated for release the proper way and the decision was a group decision

4) The Pentagon and not Luis Elizondo approved release

As for the notion by the conspiracy theorist that some how I released the videos under false pretenses is further negated by the following:

A) 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. As such, I used the term UAS as a general phrase that people could understand without specifically highlighting UAPs.

B) That individuals who were also part of the AATIP and UAP effort and who ultimately authorized the release were CCd on all the emails so those who needed to know, absolutely knew. This is the "OCA" or better known as the Original Classification Authority. This is evident by the fact that the Pentagon chose to redact their names, namely because they are still part of the effort and work at the Pentagon.

C) It was the Pentagon and not me who believed releasing the videos to a broader audience would be easier. One can read my emails to see I wanted to keep the videos protected but they felt releasing them at the unrestricted level would be easier and more efficient.

D) The reason why it reads "Not Applicable" under the section "PUBLICATION" is because last I checked you can't "publish a video" you "release a video". As such, I did not want to confuse DOPSR by indicating I wanted to publish the videos...we wanted to release them instead. Proper English grammar.

---Luis Elizondo

 

[deirdre]

B) That individuals who were also part of the AATIP and UAP effort and who ultimately authorized the release were CCd on all the emails so those who needed to know, absolutely knew.

hmmm. interesting.

 

[Mick West]

The DoD contacted Kessel, saying some names were accidentally left unredacted. They supplied a new version, which I've replaced in the OP.

I've also removed the name in my summary above. This does not change anything, as far as I can tell.

 

[Gerard]

What the emails actually prove is as follows:

1) I did indeed work in AATIP

...

Another dubious bit of illogic from Mr. Elizondo. How exactly are e-mails that nowhere mention AATIP supposed to prove that he worked in that program ?

The question I would like to see him address is how his, now established, position as Director of NPSMS relates to his claimed role as the leader of AATIP.

 

[igoddard]

As for the notion by the conspiracy theorist that some how I released the videos under false pretenses is further negated by the following:

How can he possibly deny that he requested their release under false pretenses? He did not proceed as he promised to create a database for "stakeholders such as DIA, the Navy, Defense Industry partners, and perhaps even State, Local & Tribal authorities to catalog and identify specific UAS threats." Instead, he proceeded to use the videos to promote a media campaign to solicit investments from the public for back-engineering extraterrestrial aircraft he implies are seen in the videos. The utter dissimilarity between his proposed purpose for the release and what he did instead make the false pretense beyond possible dispute.

Via Coast to Coast, for some reason:
A) 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. As such, I used the term UAS as a general phrase that people could understand without specifically highlighting UAPs.

That does not at all resolve the problem of his using descriptive terms for identified terrestrial aircraft. His use of those terms indicates that the DoD recognizes the contents of the videos as such. His answer above implies that he simply disagrees with the DoD's assessment of what they are. Contrast this state of affairs with scores of media headlines and stories that lead people to believe the DoD has officially released videos that the DoD, as an institutional consensus, believes show anomalous aircraft. That's literally what untold numbers of people have been misled to believe.

 

[Gerard]

Contrast this state of affairs with scores of media headlines and stories that lead people to believe the DoD has officially released videos that the DoD, as an institutional consensus, believes show anomalous aircraft.

It's not quite an institutional consensus but a number of Navy pilots, including two who are still active duty and hence probably restricted in some way in what they can say publicly, have voiced the opinion that these videos do show anomalous aircraft. So I think the media confusion is actually quite understandable given the information (or disinformation) that is being released.

 

[Agent K]

How can he possibly deny that he requested their release under false pretenses? He did not proceed as he promised to create a database for "stakeholders such as DIA, the Navy, Defense Industry partners, and perhaps even State, Local & Tribal authorities to catalog and identify specific UAS threats." Instead, he proceeded to use the videos to promote a media campaign to solicit investments from the public for back-engineering extraterrestrial aircraft he implies are seen in the videos. The utter dissimilarity between his proposed purpose for the release and what he did instead make the false pretense beyond possible dispute.


That does not at all resolve the problem of his using descriptive terms for identified terrestrial aircraft. His use of those terms indicates that the DoD recognizes the contents of the videos as such. His answer above implies that he simply disagrees with the DoD's assessment of what they are. Contrast this state of affairs with scores of media headlines and stories that lead people to believe the DoD has officially released videos that the DoD, as an institutional consensus, believes show anomalous aircraft. That's literally what untold numbers of people have been misled to believe.

Right, if he were cataloging UAV signatures, I'd expect a bunch of videos of drones, not three unidentified objects where maybe the GoFast one is a balloon if it's not a bird, and the other two may be airplanes.

 

[Mick West]

Right, if he were cataloging UAV signatures, I'd expect a bunch of videos of drones, not three unidentified objects where maybe the GoFast one is a balloon if it's not a bird, and the other two may be airplanes.

Gimbal may well be a drone. Nimitz/FLIR1 is probably a conventional plane.

 

[igoddard]

John Greenewald posted a meticulously detailed analysis of Elizondo's emails...



@ 35:15 he makes some curious observations suggesting that Elizondo did some editing of the videos, although I don't really follow him and think he may be wrong, but be sure to listen to that part.

@ 1:11:52 he addresses Elizondo's statement about the emails. I'm glad that John is not letting the "UAV, Balloons and other UAS," description of the videos by Elizondo slide. John spots countless problem revealed in the emails and provides a level of insight one could only glean from an experienced FOIA filer like himself.

 

[Mick West]

@ 35:15 he makes some curious observations suggesting that Elizondo did some editing of the videos, although I don't really follow him and think he may be wrong, but be sure to listen to that part.

Converting from WMV to MP4 isn't really what I would call "editing". It's re-encoding.

 

[igoddard]

Converting from WMV to MP4 isn't really what I would call "editing". It's re-encoding.

It might violate a strict reading of the chain-of-custody criterion of being "unaltered." Although I don't see a format change as a big deal apart from it might cause degradation of quality.

John saying @ 36:12 the videos "were edited to strip out locational data" I suspect is wrong. Elizondo saying there is no location data does not entail that there was and he removed it. The first posting of the Nimitz footage in 2007 did not have location data. I don't think the raw ATFLIR footage has location data. Perhaps it could be added in a margin and then that margin removed, but I don't see John showing why we should believe there was location data in the original files.

 

[Agent K]

I don't think the raw ATFLIR footage has location data. Perhaps it could be added in a margin and then that margin removed, but I don't see John showing why we should believe there was location data in the original files.

Raw videos may well have metadata encoded as pixel values in the first row or column, though compression will mess it up even if it's not removed.

 

[deirdre]

John saying @ 36:12 the videos "were edited to strip out locational data" I suspect is wrong. Elizondo saying there is no location data does not entail that there was and he removed it.

But if there was no location data, then how did AATIP investigate these UFOs? AATIP came to the conclusion they were UFOs and they couldn't even rule out other planes or drones?

 

[igoddard]

Is there location metadata in the 2007 post of the Nimitz footage?

 

[Mick West]

Is there location metadata in the 2007 post of the Nimitz footage?

No, just this:

Name f4-2007.mpg
Size 13.1 MB (13127696 bytes)
Kind MPEG movie
UTI public.mpeg
Location /Users/mick/Documents/Debunking/Nimitz Tic-tac UFO
Created January 3, 2018 at 6:01:21 AM
Modified January 3, 2018 at 6:01:29 AM
Downloaded From https://web.archive.org/web/20070209104330if_/http://www.vision-unlimited.de:80/extern/f4.mpg,
https://web.archive.org/web/20070209104330/http://www.vision-unlimited.de:80/extern/f4.mpg
Format MPEG-PS
Duration 1 min 16 s 539 ms
Overall bit rate mode Constant
Overall bit rate 1 372 kb/s
ID 224 (0xE0)
Format version Version 1
Format settings CustomMatrix / BVOP
Format settings, BVOP Yes
Format settings, Matrix Custom
Format settings, GOP M=3, N=15
Duration 1 min 16 s 376 ms
Bit rate mode Constant
Bit rate 1 150 kb/s
Width 352 pixels
Height 240 pixels
Pixel aspect ratio 0.889
Display aspect ratio 4:3
Frame rate 29.970 (30000/1001) FPS
Frame count 2289
Standard NTSC
Color space YUV
Bit depth 8 bits
Scan type Progressive
Compression mode Lossy
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) 0.454
Stream size 11.0 MB (83.8%)
Chroma subsampling 4:2:0
Format MPEG Video
GOP, Open/Closed Open
GOP, Open/Closed of first frame Closed
Time code of first frame 00:00:00:00
Time code source Group of pictures header
ID 192 (0xC0)
Format version Version 1
Format profile Layer 2
Duration 1 min 16 s 539 ms
Bit rate mode Constant
Bit rate 192 kb/s
Channel(s) 2 channels
Sampling rate 44.1 kHz
Frame rate 38.281 FPS (1152 SPF)
Frame count 2930
Compression mode Lossy
Delay relative to video -34 ms
Stream size 1.84 MB (14.0%)
Format MPEG Audio

 

[Gerard]

But if there was no location data, then how did AATIP investigate these UFOs? AATIP came to the conclusion they were UFOs and they couldn't even rule out other planes or drones?

I imagine AATIP would have received other information about the sightings in addition to the video files themselves.

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

Couple of new things posted by John Greenewald today:

"The videos were never officially released to the general public by the DoD and should still be withheld," said Pentagon Spokesperson Susan Gough to The Black Vault earlier this year. Mr. Gradisher, on behalf of the Navy, confirms the Pentagon's position this week by adding, "The Navy has not released the videos to the general public."

"The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena," said Joseph Gradisher, official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. When asked why the phrase "UAP" is now utilized by the U.S. Navy, and not "UFO," Mr. Gradisher added, "The 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges."

Neither the cognizant Navy offices nor DOPSR have record of any correspondence responding to a request for unrestricted release of the subject videos in 2017," said Mr. Gradisher, thus confirming that no evidence exists that authorized a public release for the three videos in question.

Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...al-phenomena-not-cleared-for-public-release/#

 

[deirdre]

"The videos were never officially released to the general public by the DoD and should still be withheld," said Pentagon Spokesperson Susan Gough to The Black Vault earlier this year. Mr. Gradisher, on behalf of the Navy, confirms the Pentagon's position this week by adding, "The Navy has not released the videos to the general public."

I still think it was maybe an honest mistake by Elizondo. and the NYTimes isn't going to retract their claim of an official DOD release unless the DOD takes punitive action against Elizondo, and then THAT becomes a "big story" all the papers jump on.

Although I still don't get how "public release" means you can sell someone else's intellectual property for your own profit (TTSA). The whole situation is super weird.