THE LIES THAT RULED THE WEB - PART 2
HOW THE PENTAGON TRIED TO CONTROL INFORMATION ON THE ADVANCED AEROSPACE THREAT IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM (AATIP) - continued.
May, 2019
Something pretty significant occurred in the May of 2019, Steven Greenstreet reported the Pentagon saying that AATIP was a UAP program (7). At last, the Pentagon was officially on the record stating that AATIP was UAP.
‘In a statement provided exclusively to The Post, a Department of Defense spokesman said a secret government initiative called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program “did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena.”’
The statement to the New York Post was from Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood. Was this a new chapter in open transparency from the Pentagon? Even the New York Times and Politico articles of 2017 failed to get (or at least disclose) an official USG statement that AATIP was specifically and categorically UAP. Now we had it on record, confirmed from various spokespersons that AATIP was a real program, studied UAP such as those from the Navy reports (Nimitz 2004, and Roosevelt 2015) and also that Luis Elizondo was the Director.
By the end of May 2019, open and honest UAP transparency was happening.
June, 2019
By June ‘they’ had got their act together. A new statement was received by John Greenewald via FOIA. This time the Empire had struck back, hard, under the intentions of a one Mr. Keith Kloor. A gentleman I had come across myself through email exchanges leading up to the Intercept article. For the second time we see confirmation from the Pentagon that AATIP was a UAP program, however, they now had walked back their claim from 2017 that Luis Elizondo was the Director or had any responsibilities under OUSD(I). He wasn’t involved at all with AATIP.
‘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.”’
– Kloor, K., The Intercept, (01/06/2019)
This was the first time that the Pentagon moved to change its position and walk back the general concept of UAP/UFOs, taking out Luis Elizondo by claiming that he had ‘no responsibilities’ with regards to AATIP, (and with it, anything he may or may not say about the UAP reality).
This was a stark contrast to what multiple testimony had claimed previously and caused a lot of controversy, not least in light of the fact there was enough evidence to place Elizondo at AATIP. And yet, they still maintained AATIP was a UAP program, and for a second time? What data were they accessing to determine these claims? What data did they access to suddenly, after 18 months, now change their position on Luis Elizondo?
At that point we all thought it was a simple mistake and that it would be rectified shortly.
Hal Puthoff (confirmed AATIP physicist) also verified his position and reached out to Alejandro Rojas;
‘Via email Dr. Hal Puthoff says he thinks the @theintercept article was a hit piece. He writes: “Documentation otherwise is dense. I reported to him (Elizondo) often in the Pentagon as an AATIP contractor.”
– Hal Puthoff via Alejandro Rojas, Twitter, (02/06/2019)
Subsequently, a document confirmed as genuine by John Greenewald (30), via the DOD, had been released to Twitter by George Knapp in 2019, confirmed that Luis Elizondo was apart of AATIP alongside Dr. Hal Puthoff (who would in 2019 also confirm Lue’s position at AATIP), and yet somehow the official statement from June was unmoved.
Released and verified document from George Knapp in 2019 detailing a list of AATIP employees that included, Luis Elizondo and Dr. Hal Puthoff.
John Greenewald of the Blackvault was instantly upon the AATIP attachment and managed to get a quick response from Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough. This is where things started to get even more strange. In the statement given to the Blackvault, she stated that the memo is genuine that lists special agent Luis Elizondo as part of AATIP, alongside Dr. Hal Puthoff and Senator Harry Reid. Gough then goes on to state that he (Elizondo) had no assigned responsibilities with AATIP, and then says that Elizondo interacted with the DIA office running the program at the time it was running, but did not lead it. Note she added the ‘assigned’ responsibilities to Sherwood’s first statement within the Kloor article. .
“I can confirm that the memo you’re referring to is authentic. DOD received it and responded to Sen. Reid…
…..It makes no change to previous statements. Mr. Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP while he was in OUSD(I). DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] administered AATIP, and Elizondo was never assigned to DIA. Elizondo did interact with the DIA office managing the program while the program was still ongoing, but he did not lead it.”
– Greenewald, J., and Susan Gough (Pentagon Spokesperson), (14/06/2019)
The question at the time was how can Elizondo have been confirmed to be at AATIP but have no responsibilities? Are we seeing a play on words here? Greenewald then reached out to senior physicist Dr. Hal Puthoff, who was on the list as a contractor for AATIP.
‘I have been following all the buzz back ‘n forth concerning Elizondo’s role in AATIP, and recognize that there are a number of misunderstandings – for reasonable reasons – given that the public doesn’t have detailed access to daily activities in Pentagon projects/offices. Unfortunately for the public, those not directly connected, e.g., in the Public Affairs Office, are often themselves sketchy about details concerning highly-classified sensitive programs for which they have little-to-no access for security reasons. However, I have no problem asserting that as an AAWSAP [Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program]/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.’
– Greenewald, J., and Dr. Hal Puthoff (AATIP contractor), (06/2019)
Additionally, as reported in the New York Times, and many times on camera and through verified documents, Fmr. Senator Harry Reid who created AATIP confirmed that,
AATIP was Aerospace
AATIP studied UAP (UFO)
Luis Elizondo was part of AATIP
September, 2019
This was not the end of the Pentagon turnaround, this was just the beginning. By the autumn of 2019 a new piece of information came through the channels. This time from the Navy to Swedish FOIA researcher Roger Glassel. An article which appeared in the Magazine UFO-aktuellt, released on Facebook and then via ‘The Unidentified’, which documented a few questions and answers with appointed Navy spokesperson, Joseph Gradisher. Most notably, Gradisher confirmed that the Navy was indeed involved with AATIP just as Elizondo has claimed in 2018.
After some later confusion on the Navy’s part, Susan Gough would eventually confirm the A5) Gradisher Navy statement to Greenewald was indeed correct as suggested by Elizondo. The Navy was involved with AATIP, *this is the same Navy that had the Nimitz (2004) and Roosevelt (2015) nuclear strike group UAP incursions.
Roger Glassel: Was the Navy involved in the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program to study Unidentified Aerial Phenomena reported by U.S. Navy pilots or other credible sources?
A5) Joseph Gradisher: The AATIP program involved offices from across the Department of Defense, including Navy. Details remain classified. For additional information, I would refer you to the Department of Defense.’
Roger Glassel: In the Navy’s effort to study reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, was former DOD/OUSDI employee Luis Elizondo involved in such effort?
A9) Joseph Gradisher: While he was a U.S. government employee, Mr. Elizondo occasionally provided coordination and professional connections/liaison within DoD and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.’
–Glassel, R., and Navy Spokesperson, Joseph Gradisher, The Unidentified, (17/09/2019)
Here we see something strange, again, in the statement from Navy spokesperson Joseph Gradisher. He skips around the question of whether Elizondo specifically was involved with the Navy effort to ‘investigate UAP’ and instead gives a generic answer as to his responsibilities. He answered the question without answering, avoiding any direct mention of UAP but didn’t denounce it either. Keep in mind at this point that Elizondo had just been officially removed from ever working at AATIP by the Pentagon.
‘Roger Glassel: What is the definition of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena used by the Navy and the U.S. Defense Department?
A10) Joseph Gradisher : “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)” is a term we borrowed from the UK – it’s any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified. The wide proliferation and availability of inexpensive unmanned aerial systems (UAS) isn’t contradictory, it’s just when the UAS is *NOT* immediately identifiable we refer to it as UAP. A quadcopter is immediately identifiable. As we have previously acknowledged, the number of incursions into our ranges has increased with that wide proliferation and availability of inexpensive UAS. Additionally, we use the generic UAP term in communications so as not to pre-judge the results of any investigation.Any range incursion by unauthorized craft affects the safety of our aviators and/or the security of our operations. Our revised reporting guidance solicits reports of any unauthorized craft (UAP or UAS) observed within our ranges so that we may investigate that range incursion. Incursions/sightings since 2014 may be referred to as either UAS or UAP, depending on the circumstances surrounding the specific incident in question.’
– Glassel, R., and Navy Spokesperson, Joseph Gradisher, The Unidentified, (17/09/2019)
Look closely. What do you see in these answers from Joseph Gradisher? One interpretation is that, ‘what we can’t identify immediately as UAS, we will most probably identify with further investigation eventually’ (which sounds very much like Condon Report that shot down Bluebook). However, he does not specifically state that.
Also, note the use of the capitalised ‘NOT’, really emphasising that UAP is just the beginning process and is never really unidentifiable. Arguably this is just a theory and can’t be verified, but the terminology used is still interesting. No definitions given to ‘Anomalous’ vehicles.
The question is are we seeing someone presenting the facts as they appear? Or are we seeing a control over the narrative? We can’t be sure and at this point the concept of being genuinely mistaken was credible.
What became very obvious, however, as I researched the history of the AATIP story, is the complete disconnect from December 2017 over the months that followed the summer of 2019. I found that in almost all areas regarding AATIP, an official statement had been made that contradicted the previous narrative.
December, 2019
Then after another six months, we see the killer blow they had been possibly building towards after successfully overturning Elizondo as the director or having and involvement in AATIP. This time Gough went further than Sherwood and claimed that neither AATIP or AAWSAP was a UAP program. A fatal strategic mistake as history would come to reveal.
‘Neither AATIP nor AAWSAP were UAP related,” said Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough in an e-mail to The Black Vault. “The purpose of AATIP was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace weapons system applications with future technology projections over the next 40 years, and to create a centre of expertise on advanced aerospace technologies.”
The now iconic ? symbol would literally be used to protest extreme UAP Secrecy.
Had they just used the same hidden methodology that bypassed them in December to denounce AATIP’s true UAP status? Some have claimed this was a master at work, taking their time with a subtle plan that needed time and specific interjection. It was perfect, almost. Well, not quite as history would have it. At the time I remember reaching out to a few people involved with the very outskirts of the initiative, one of whom told me the ‘no’ team had the upper hand. After all the promise, all the hope of finally being able to have UAP/UFOs acknowledged and officially investigated, it was seemingly over.
AATIP as a disclosure vessel was dead in the water by the end of summer 2019.
Some had made the argument that the Pentagon had seemingly set about and completed a 6 month- a year long plan, bringing in Susan Gough to have the oversight on such a delicate issue was vital to the turnaround, and with no way to peer review the data she was focusing her official statements on, it was almost impossible to refute. But again, this is just wild conjecture.
Enter stage left: Keith Basterfield, a long-standing researcher who looked at the employees of BAASS with specific regards to AAWSAP;
‘Based on the above, I can see two possibilities. Either BAASS was simultaneously running with the AAWSAP contract, and also conducting its own UAP investigations; or the AAWSAP work did indeed involve researching UAP. On the basis of what I have learned, I suggest that the latter is true, which is contrary to recent statements from Pentagon spokesperson Susan L Gough.’
– Basterfield, K., ScientificResearch.BlogSpot.com, (27/12/2019)
January, 2020
We now find ourselves in January 2020, and just to confuse things even more, yet another email exchange saw Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough converse with Roger Glassel, this time changing the narrative about AATIP, AAWSAP and BAASS whilst both contradicting and taking out previous Pentagon statements, again.
‘The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) was the name of the overall program. The Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP) was the name of the contract that DIA awarded for the production of all technical reports under AATIP. DIA awarded the contract to the sole bidder, Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), LLC.”
– Glassel, R., and Susan Gough, UFO Updates, Facebook (09/01/2020)
Despite having ‘Program’ at the end of AAWSAP, the claim this time is that AAWSAP was the name of the contract and not a specific program that BAASS would receive. Obviously, this statement as with every other statement is contradictory to the statements made by those who actually worked within BAASS and the AAWSAP ‘contract’.
‘Earlier when I asked the DOD about the details of the nature and goals for the AATIP, Lt. Col. Audricia Harris told me that the AATIP studies included ”anomalous events (such as sightings of aerodynamic vehicles engaged in extreme maneuvers, with unique phenomenology, reported by U.S. Navy pilots or other credible sources)”.
Susan Gough then withdrew that statement, saying “Lt. Col. Harris is no longer with my organization, and I cannot comment on why her explanation of AATIP included that it had looked at anomalous events. According to all the official information I have now, when implemented, AATIP did not pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena.”– Glassel, R., and Susan Gough, Facebook Group ‘UFO Updates’ (09/01/2020)
On top of ‘restructuring’ the AAWSAP narrative, here we see Gough really driving the knife home, pushing further and further to unpick the official statements of Pentagon spokespersons, Maj. Harris and Christopher Sherwood that AATIP was a UAP program. The original December 2017 statements in Politico and New York Times by Pentagon spokespersons Dana White and Thomas Crosson didn’t need to be unpicked because they officially didn’t disclose AATIP was UAP/UFO. Hypothetically, AATIP itself could therefore be managed by Gough as existing, but as a foreign technology identification program that ran only until 2012. The problem is when you take it too far…
As a good man recently said to me, ‘In the end, truth always prevails.’ He was of course, right. Going forward from the latest Pentagon walk-back in the early January of 2020, we found a new hope in the unlikeliest of places. In a tactical move that united UFO-Twitter, Luis Elizondo took an important interview with John Greenewald.
‘I gave the Pentagon ample time to deconflict their response and given them the benefit of the doubt that its ‘disfunction over palace’. Unfortunately, I no longer feel this is necessarily the case and therefore it is incumbent upon me to set the record straight….
….AATIP] it was not about advanced aircraft, it was indeed about UFO/UAPs. There is additional information that clearly indicates AATIP’s focus being UAP. I don’t think that info has been made public… yet. But I am certain it is forthcoming. There is documentation that provides no doubt as to what our focus was.”
– Luis Elizondo, ‘Luis Elizondo and the Black Vault interview’. The Black Vault. (13/01/2020)
The interview provided researchers within UFOTwitter an air of much needed resolution, an understanding between those who had previously fallen pray to the confusion of the Pentagon’s inaccuracies. I have always felt like that was the turning point (along with the Popular Mechanics article of February 2020). That was the moment when the momentum and unity really started to gather pace.
February, 2020
Then in the February of 2020, the Pentagon suffered its biggest blow to the walk-back initiative that undoubtedly had them on the ropes. The ‘south-paw’ of contradictions came in the form of an investigative journalist, formerly a detective, and ironically part of the Keith Kloor article from June 2019 that first disclosed the Pentagon statement that Elizondo wasn’t at AATIP.
Into the ring stepped the new Darling of UFOTwitter: Tim McMillan - A man who almost single handedly changed the entire narrative in the February of 2020 with the Popular Mechanics article, ‘Inside the Pentagon’s Secret UFO Program.’
Essentially, it was this novel length article that exposed some very dubious looking half-truths that had come from one particular Pentagon spokesperson. Susan Gough. It was from this article that social media campaigns were enraged with a prominent sense of anger, without this article there would have been no engagement of congress via the ‘Outreach Program’, and no ‘End UAP Secrecy’ ? campaign that targeted celebrities, journalists and scientists through social media. This was the moment we realised that either they were lying, or grievously mistaken on a historic level, and with this vitally important world altering UAP issue, there is no room for inaccuracies.
‘From cover to cover, the BAASS report references the government’s new buzzword for UFOs: UAP. However, nowhere could Popular Mechanics find a single reference to foreign (terrestrial) advanced aerospace weapon systems, or projected technological innovations based on current industry trends.’
What was the significance? Breaking it down, Tim McMillan essentially found strong, verified evidence that not only was AAWSAP a UAP/UFO effort that ended in 2012 alongside BAASS, but also that there was no evidence of Susan Gough’s claim that AAWSAP investigated advanced terrestrial weapons systems.
It begs the serious question, specifically what data was provided to Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough and from where?
According to Popular Mechanics author Tim McMillan, he was provided with documentation to examine and write about. Most significantly, a BAASS 10 month report from July of 2009, remember at this point in early 2020 Susan Gough had already confirmed that BAASS was awarded the AAWSAP ‘contract’ which was under AATIP, and they did not ‘pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena.’
BAASS 10 month report, who had the contract with AAWSAP/AATIP, filled with references to UAP/UFOs.
The following is taken from the Popular Mechanics article, ‘Inside the Pentagon’s Secret UFO program,’ and shows exactly the intentions of BAASS and AAWSAP with their interest in the ‘anomalous’.
Overview of the BAASS Physics Division’s efforts to conduct research on advanced aerospace vehicles, including the development of standardization for measurement of physical effects and signatures associated with UAP.
Overview of BAASS research for measuring and gleaning the effects on biological organisms from UAP.
Mention of Skinwalker Ranch in Utah as a “possible laboratory for studying other intelligences and possible interdimensional phenomena.”
Strategic plans to organize a series of intellectual debate forums targeted to broad audiences pertaining to the “potential disclosure of an extraterrestrial presence.”
Request for Project Blue Book files that have not been made public.
Mention of BAASS program dubbed “Project Northern Tier,” which involved securing documents related to instances where dozens of UFOs flew over restricted airspaces of facilities housing nuclear weapons’
– McMillan, T., ‘Inside the Pentagon’s Secret UFO program,’ (14/02/2020)
If AAWSAP and AATIP didn’t investigate UAP, why was the contractor BAASS loaded with UAP/UFOs? Why were they wanting data on Project Bluebook? Why do they mention UAP and the biological effects? Why does “UFO” apparently appear 16 times in the BAASS ten month report and the word “anomalous” appear 27 times?
‘From cover to cover, the BAASS report references the government’s new buzzword for UFOs: UAP. However, nowhere could Popular Mechanics find a single reference to foreign (terrestrial) advanced aerospace weapon systems, or projected technological innovations based on current industry trends.’
– McMillan, T., ‘Inside the Pentagon’s Secret UFO program,’ (14/02/2020)
The other important part of the McMillan article was the release of the Kit Green DIRD, his testimony on record and the fact that Tim made DOD aware of the existence of the documentation prior to the articles release. Kit Green states that AAWSAP was a UFO program which outwardly was made to look like it hadn’t anything to do with UFOs.
**Remember, that at this point Susan Gough had already stated to Glassel in January 2020 that AAWSAP was the contract part of AATIP.
‘But here’s where things get messy: Gough says when DIA funding dried up in 2012, the overarching AATIP program closed up shop as well. Every source we spoke to, however, says not only did AATIP not end in 2012, but the program is still ongoing to this day.’
March, 2020
At face value, something very strange was happening with the Pentagon ‘spokespersons’ when it comes down to being able to find and present factual UAPinfo on AATIP. Gough’s statements and FOIA responses are bizarre and struggle to show her workings – if this was mathematics class the school teacher would send her work back and ask her to explain her calculations.
March of 2020 brought up a lot of debate on this issue. Even now we must be careful on accusing people without more understanding of the situation. Now, as with back then, we weren’t sure if there was a illegal or unethical element to what was occurring, or even whether this was part of a wider DOD policy. The question whether there is some validity to claims that she (Gough) is transpiring to coordinate all UAP FOIA answers through herself is yet uncertain. (Claims through twitter and anonymous ear-whisperers have suggested that she is NOT a duly appointed FOIA officer, but has still made requests to consolidate all UAP unclassified data through herself).
Danny Silva posted an article to SilvaRecords that included the release of internal emails by researcher Dean Johnson.
Researcher Dean Johnson released emails with regard to UAP related FOIA requests.
A ‘UFO-Cover up’ is so 1990s cliché and something one might find in an X-Files plot, not running through the USAF, and the fact that such a concept might actually be real is beyond startling and difficult to believe.
Interesting to note at this point, we see reported issues with other journalists. Journalist Tyler Rogoway of The Drive/The Warzone, found himself apparently being stonewalled by none other than Susan Gough. The suggestion was that she would respond with an apology, and then disappear again for months without responding.
‘In fact, we don’t even have a ‘no comment at this time’ regarding this issue from the Pentagon’s spokesperson handling it. In the end, it is in the public’s interest to know how the media is being treated by the Department Of Defense on this issue after they themselves helped perpetuate it. Calling the situation disappointing and bizarre would be a huge understatement.’
Rumour has it a similar story was told by Tim McMillan, who apparently was asked by Gough to delay the February article until she had more time to respond. Thankfully, Popular Mechanics went ahead. When McMillan requested an updated statement from the illusive spokesperson, she ignored the requests (maybe they were in her junk email box?). Again, we must be careful without all the relevant data.
In our final part we will look at some of the discrepancies that have occurred since May 2020.
