TTSA's Form DD-1910 for FLIR, Go Fast, and Gimbal videos

[Gerard]

and the fact that LITERALLY there is no approval "signature" anywhere on that document.

and can you request 3 seperate things in one request? I'm trying to google that but @igoddard 's link keeps telling me its not available.
what do they do if someone wanted to release 2 of the requests but not the third?

The DD-1910 has now been confirmed as authentic by the DoD.

"I can confirm that the form DD1910 you asked about is a valid DD1910. The standard procedure is for blocks 1-7 on the form to be filled out by the submitter before sending to DOPSR; however, occasional exceptions have occurred.

Reference: https://www.theblackvault.com/casef...the-credibility-of-mr-luis-elizondo-and-ttsa/

 

[deirdre]

The DD-1910 has now been confirmed as authentic by the DoD.

Thanks! Of course we dont know if the 3 videos TTSA is claiming to be "go fast, gimbal and FLIR" are the same videos as in that document, since the Pentagon lady specifically says in you remail shot

not for general public release

 

[Agent K]

Thanks! Of course we dont know if the 3 videos TTSA is claiming to be "go fast, gimbal and FLIR" are the same videos as in that document, since the Pentagon lady specifically says in you remail shot

not for general public release

The request said "not for general public release," but the determination in block 6 was "CLEARED For Open Publication."
What does the big gray "11" mean?

 

[deirdre]

The request said "not for general public release," but the determination in block 6 was "CLEARED For Open Publication."
What does the big gray "11" mean?

good point. i'm seing 4s and 5s on documents i can see. ex https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/14/2002079286/-1/-1/0/README_DIB_SWAP_V1.4_2019.01.11.PDF

and again this document, doesnt show its number, but says "open publication"

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/RPAS/RPASSymposiumPresentation/Day%202%20Workshop%207%20Licensing%20Lance%20King%20-%20DoD%20Unmanned%20Aircraft%20Systems%20Training%20Programs.pdf

 

[Mick West]

Source: https://twitter.com/blackvaultcom/status/1124318902501068800


Source: https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1124321030288183296

 

[Mick West]

The emails from the Pentago Spokesperson, Sue Gough

 

[Gerard]

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 ?

 

[deirdre]

It makes more sense it would be cleared anyway. They are just blobs. I dont see how those vids (if the vids we have are the same vids as requested in the 1910 form) could be a threat to security.

 

[Mick West]

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.

 

[deirdre]

What does the big gray "11" mean?

it's a pain to open pdfs, but there are a bunch online. havent found another "11" but found some 8s, 10, 13. (attach screenshots below, if anyone cares)

They dont appear to be month or "quarter year" designations. Thinking it is like "inspector #5" or "inspector #2" you find on shirts/products you buy. ??

 

[deirdre]

1. found an "11".. the attached pdf is the full 1910 form (it opened right to my computer so no link)
and here is the actual manuscript online https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1051872.pdf

2. a second document with the "11" tag
https://www.dcaa.mil/Content/Documents/DCAA_FY2017_Report_to_Congress.pdf

Although both are military sites, so not sure what that means as far as 'copyright' rules.

 

[Agent K]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I agree. The request was for restricted publication, but the approval was for unrestricted publication. The spokesperson was right that any disclaimers "included in the approval must be followed," but in this case there were none. By the same token, if a request is for unrestricted publication, but the approval is for restricted publication, you follow the approval, not the request.

 

[deirdre]

This is the Air Force but i assume definitions are all the same. It's a bit more specific (from 2016)

Open Publication—The release or dissemination of information outside official government channels.

9.6. Website Publication. Information intended for placement on websites or other publicly accessible computer servers that are available to anyone requires review and clearance for public release. Review and clearance for public release is not required for information to be placed on DoD controlled websites or computer servers that restrict access to authorized users. Ensure websites are registered. Registration process is cover under AFI 35-107

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afi35-102.pdf

 

[igoddard]

Sure, I don't think that point of view really even conflicts with what Elizondo has been saying.

Elizondo does not give the impression that AATIP had at most a happenstance interest in UAPs. Instead, he claims AATIP was entirely UAP (ie, UFO) research. In contrast, the Reid letter gives no reason to believe AATIP was anything other than a program investigating technological threats from terrestrial adversaries. The terminologies used therein like "threat identification" are common military parlance totally unrelated to UFOs (a search of archive.org for "threat identification" pulls up a battery of military reports unrelated to UFOs). Reid's letter stands as evidence that AATIP was not UAP/UFO centered.

But claims by Elizondo in a video TTSA just posted, which I believe was his presentation @ MUFON, give a totally different impression than Reid's letter:



@ 6:21 Elizondo's AATIP History slide reads:

2007 - Program originally created as a bipartisan effort [...] to better understand UAPs encountered by U.S. military ad [sic] determine if they represent a national security threat

So he says AATIP was created entirely to research UAPs and figure out if they're dangerous.

@ 9:49 the slide says:

2008 through 2009 - Preliminary results are broad and promising, including vast amounts of data collection and analysis

With what he also says, apparently AATIP was receiving an avalanche of UAP data. Funny then that only this year the Navy set up a system to facilitate UFO reports. Odd too that the three videos apparently AATIP received in that avalanche were filed under "Unmanned Aerial Systems" and "Balloons" in offices of the Navy.

@ 13:48 the slide says:

AATIP evolved from AAWSAP to focus on UAP specific capabilities and concentrated on the "what and how" interrogatives

So AATIP was supposedly all about researching observed UFOs and trying to back-engineer advanced aerospace technology from confusing FLIR signals. Sounds perfectly unbelievable.

 

[igoddard]

So if Gough is right, it seems the Pentagon is saying Elizondo violated the terms of release, stipulating that "they could only share it with U.S. government agencies and industry partners." So are they going to penalize him? After over a year of high-profile world-wide publication, it seems not. So either they don't enforce such violations or there was not a violation.

 

[deirdre]

So either they don't enforce such violations or there was not a violation.

i think she was mistaken. TTSA might have violated a disclosure specification (that we wouldnt see on the form necessarily). But if it wasn't cleared it would say "not cleared".

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DOPSR/Docs/DOPSR%20BROCHURE.PDF?ver=2017-07-05-142406-460&timestamp=1499279056278

And according to my source above: (bold added)

Review and clearance for public release is not required for information to be placed on DoD controlled websites or computer servers that restrict access to authorized users

 

[igoddard]

I've read the back and forth between Mick and John and I think I get what John and Gough are saying...

(1) Elizondo filled out section 3.
(2) Approval for a DD 1910 is by default restricted to what is requested in section 3.

"Cleared for Open Publication" seems to be the boilerplate term appearing on all approved DD 1910 forms I can find (google image: "dd 1910" form). Therefore, why would a section 3 be included if approvals were always for unlimited public publication? Take for example this DD 1910:

In section 3 we see a request for limited publication. So why should we presume "Cleared for Open Publication 2" means, "What the heck, we decided you can publish this wherever and whenever you want"? Of course what the codes 2, 11 and others means certainly matters, but I can't find a key. But I don't think it follows that the applicant's specified limitations in section 3 get thrown out the window just because that boilerplate stamp gets applied.

 

[Mick West]

(2) Approval for a DD 1910 is by default restricted to what is requested in section 3.

Can you quote something official that actually says this?

In section 3 we see a request for limited publication.

No, we see a REASON for public clearance being requested.

Of course what the codes 2, 11 and others means certainly matters, but I can't find a key.

I'd suspect they are different offices and the stamps all mean exactly the same thing.

But I don't think it follows that the applicant's specified limitations in section 3 get thrown out the window just because that boilerplate stamp gets applied.

I think that's exactly what happens. The stamp means it is cleared for open publication.

It really has to be that way. In the example the material is going to be presented at a conference, open to Academia, Government, and Industry with no apparent security restrictions.
http://www.ndia.org/events/2017/10/23/20th-systems-engineering-conference/registration

So if it's being presented there it's essentially public, so it requires clearance.

 

[deirdre]

Therefore, why would a section 3 be included if approvals were always for unlimited public publication?

but that same 1910 (page 45) and the slide show is published here. so it wasnt JUST presented at the conference.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1043438.pdf

 

[igoddard]

Can you quote something official that actually says this?

No, other than Gough, I can't. That was my point to Gerard, that just the say-so, or opinion, of a FOIA request handler is not what one files FOIA requests for. Properly we want antecedent documents to substantiate such claims.

And I wasn't saying John and Gough are right, just that I think I figured out what they're saying because it's a bit confusing. By one reading, which I believe is wrong, they're saying section 3 was filled out by the DoD as the required limit on the release. I was not impressed by John's flippant and even insulting dismissal of your reasonable questions and doubts. Claims of officials should be (a) backed by documentation, or if not, at least (b) make sense prima facie.

 

[igoddard]

but that same 1910 (page 45) and the slide show is published here. so it wasnt JUST presented at the conference.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1043438.pdf

In that case the DD 1910 has comments in the Remarks section, that in part read:

We believe the information is unclassified and that it is ready for public release. From DMSCO's perspective, this brief does not violate any security concerns.

 

[Gerard]

I was not impressed by John's flippant and even insulting dismissal of your reasonable questions and doubts.

What discussion does this refer to ?

 

[igoddard]

What discussion does this refer to ?

The one linked to above...


Source: https://twitter.com/blackvaultcom/status/1124318902501068800


John frames Mick's insistence on supporting documentation as bias, saying, "your mind is made up," accuses him of "word play" and of ignoring "quite a bit of evidence to the contrary," all the while ignoring Mick's points and demanding automatic belief in the FOIA clerk's say-so. Not exactly a professional response or one I'd expect from someone who is an expert at interrogating authorities over possibly concealed facts.

The FOIA clerk says x, therefore x. Case close. Lol!

 

[Gerard]

The one linked to above...

"Open" is not "public"

I think most people would disagree with that. They seem like synonyms to me.

 

[deirdre]

The FOIA clerk says x,

I don't want to relook it up, but I don't think she is a FOIA clerk. She was the person who talks to the public, I think.
I'd be more comfortable, myself, if he talked to someone directly in the "Office of Prepublication.." department.

Either way if Elizondo misunderstood the goobly gook rules, I don't blame him. He said he wanted to make a database. (and i guess he sort of is) And according to the Airforce anyway, you don't need public release permission to make an inhouse database.

 

[Scaramanga]

Do we actually know for a fact that the three videos released are actually footage of the same objects the pilots claim to have seen ? I ask this because it is also claimed by those who were there that officials ( gotta love those 'men in black' ) turned up on board the ships and 'confiscated' the material. There is, as far as I can see, no date or time on the videos themselves...so where is the actual record or paper trail of any sort that these videos are associated with what the pilots claim to have seen ? How does Elizondo know they are the correct videos ? Is he the one who renamed them ( they clearly have been renamed )...and given that Elizondo was not working for AATIP in 2004 as AATIP did not exist then, how did Elizondo link the videos to the event ?

 

[Tim Johnson]

Scaramanga - we don't know for sure that these are the released videos per the Form DD 1910 (perhaps someone in the UFO enthusiastic/skeptic community has a FOIA request for the same videos?). However, Cmdr Fravor and Lieutenant Graves have corroborated the videos in Unidentified (they say they saw these videos. In Fravor's case, he saw it right after Tic Tac was recorded, and I believe the same for Graves or he at least recognizes the voices in the videos (Acoin recognizes the pilot voices as well)).

Does anyone know what to make of the fact that Graves says the GIMBAL (I think) video is just a snippet of a video that is about 10 minutes long and in much higher resolution?

Option 1: If the DOD modified the video to reduce quality and not show us everything, maybe it is a US craft and they don't want foreign govts to see details of the craft's functionality / capabilities.

Option 2: If TTSA modified the video, it definitely points to the narrative that TTSA is making this more mysterious than it is to make money. TTSA would only modify this if they know the public won't actually be able to get these same videos via a FOIA request. If we can get these videos via a FOIA request and they are of better resolutions and fuller in length, we would know TTSA modified these to fit into their narrative.

Mick - do you have a FOIA request out for these? I've heard there is a backlog of at least 100,000 FOIA requests out so it would be a waiting game.

 

[Mick West]

John frames Mick's insistence on supporting documentation as bias, saying, "your mind is made up," accuses him of "word play" and of ignoring "quite a bit of evidence to the contrary," all the while ignoring Mick's points and demanding automatic belief in the FOIA clerk's say-so. Not exactly a professional response or one I'd expect from someone who is an expert at interrogating authorities over possibly concealed facts.

The FOIA clerk says x, therefore x. Case close. Lol!

I'm going to be on John's Black Vault Radio live on Tuesday, 10AM pacific. We might discuss this disagreement.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSIbuxOfZRI

 

[igoddard]

I'm going to be on John's Black Vault Radio live on Tuesday, 10AM pacific. We might discuss this disagreement.

Too bad you guys didn't get into that, although it sounds like a second show is planned. John is an invaluable person to be present in the UFO discourse, a very sane and critical thinker who has clear evidence criteria. An evidence-first analyst.

But another of his document interpretations I have trouble with regards the Subject Area in Elizondo's DD-1910 form, about which he states (the part I take issue with is mostly in the second paragraph):

Moving on from that oddity; in section 1, item d, Mr. Elizondo (based on reporting, I will move forward he is the name redacted that filed this document), told DOPSR that the subject matter of the three videos (referenced in item b) were, "UAV, Balloons and other UAS." UAV, to the DOD, means "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle" or better known as a drone. Balloons are just that, but a really bizarre way to describe these videos of "unidentified aerial phenomena." And lastly UAS, to the DOD, means Unmanned Aircraft System. (Source: DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms).

Why would these descriptions be falsely attributed to the videos, as submitted to DOPSR, when according to Mr. Elizondo, his conclusions based on the program he was heading, said they were "unidentified?" Therefore, it's misleading as they can not be UAVs, UASs or balloons. Did he fabricate this line just to get the form pushed through?

From: https://www.theblackvault.com/casef...the-credibility-of-mr-luis-elizondo-and-ttsa/

Why would John assume attributing the videos to unmanned aircraft and balloons is false whereas labeling them UFOs in the public realm for profit motives is truthful? And to John's hypothesized scenario, why would Elizondo attribute them as unmanned aircraft "just to get the form pushed through" if the DoD recognizes them as UFOs? If this would help get his request "pushed through," then the DoD must favor the UAS attribution. In which case, how would it be a false attribution?

John has been very critical of Elizondo and AATIP, yet on the DD-1910 Subject Area he seems to do some logical gymnastics to preserve the impression that the videos are of UFOs, rather than taking a strict reading of the document. The strict reading is that between two interlocutors, Elizondo (DoD insider) and the DoD, the chosen language reflects what the parties believe to be their common understanding about the domain of discourse. And that understanding is that these videos show manmade unmanned aircraft.

 

[deirdre]

FOIA emails received concerning this public release request

https://www.metabunk.org/ttsa-video...change-release-under-foia.t10868/#post-233177