1. Gerard

    Gerard Member

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

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

    [​IMG]
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
  2. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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
     
  3. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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"
    j.JPG


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

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The emails from the Pentago Spokesperson, Sue Gough

    Metabunk 2019-05-03 09-04-24.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    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 ?
     
  8. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, that's what I'm saying.
     
  10. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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. ??
     

    Attached Files:

  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Attached Files:

  12. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    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.
     
  13. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    This is the Air Force but i assume definitions are all the same. It's a bit more specific (from 2016)
    https://fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afi35-102.pdf
     
  14. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

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

    @ 9:49 the slide says:
    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:
    So AATIP was supposedly all about researching observed UFOs and trying to back-engineer advanced aerospace technology from confusing FLIR signals. Sounds perfectly unbelievable.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2019
  15. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    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.
     
  16. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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".
    upload_2019-5-6_19-49-59.

    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)


     
  17. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    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:

    [​IMG]


    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.
     
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Can you quote something official that actually says this?

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

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

    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
    Metabunk 2019-05-06 22-48-10.

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

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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
     
  20. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    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.
     
  21. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

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

    Gerard Member

    What discussion does this refer to ?
     
  23. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    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!
     
  24. Gerard

    Gerard Member

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

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
  26. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga New Member

    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 ?
     
  27. Tim Johnson

    Tim Johnson New Member

    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.
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    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
     
    • Like Like x 2
  29. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    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):

    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.
     
  30. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member