1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Via Roger Glassel

    FOIA Request correspondence

    FOIA Response with Elizondo emails (Updates with new retractions)

    [OCR Text - May contain errors]

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

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Ravi

    Ravi New Member

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

    div New Member

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

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    For me the interesting this is this

    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?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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'.
  6. Gerard

    Gerard Member

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

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

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  8. Ravi

    Ravi New Member

    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....
  9. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    To be approved for public release. Or to be approved for a government repository through a public release request.

    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'.
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    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.

    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"


    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
    Metabunk 2019-08-18 08-32-20.

    (There's a greyscale 11 in the background of the version of this release by TTSA, which is not visible here)
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The forwarded emails on Aug 17 are signed:

    V/R Lue
    DERIVED FROM: ODNI HUMINT SCG dated 20120703

    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
  12. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

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

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    ? x might mean unknown?
  14. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    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 ?
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    kinda sounds like what Elizondo says, "security" stuff...
    Heres a job description for a lawyer to the Deputy Director of NPSMS

    and random stuff
  16. Gerard

    Gerard Member

  17. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

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

    Gerard Member

    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.
  19. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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]
  20. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    SCG stands for Security Classification Guide.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    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.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Via Coast to Coast, for some reason:

  24. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    hmmm. interesting.
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    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.
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  26. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2019
  27. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    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.
  28. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    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.
  29. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    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.
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

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

    igoddard Active Member

    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.
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

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

    igoddard Active Member

    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.
  34. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    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.
  35. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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?
  36. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Is there location metadata in the 2007 post of the Nimitz footage?
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, just this:

  38. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    I imagine AATIP would have received other information about the sightings in addition to the video files themselves.
  39. Couple of new things posted by John Greenewald today:

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

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1