DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE/JOINT STAFF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 1155 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1155 Ref: 19-F-1420 July 1, 2025 Mr. John Greenewald The Black Vault, Inc. 27305 West Live Oak Road. Suite #1203 Castaic, CA 91384 Dear Mr. Greenewald: This is a final response to your June 25, 2019, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. The Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff (OSD/JS) FOIA Requester Service Center received your request on June 25, 2019, and assigned it FOIA case number 19-F-1420. We ask that you use this number when referring to your request. The Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (OATSD(PA)), a component of OSD, conducted a search of their records systems and located 154 pages determined to be responsive to your request. The documents were reviewed for equities by the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (OATSD(PA)), the Washington Headquarters Services, Executive Services Directorate, Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR), the United States Navy (Navy), and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Ms. Tanya R. Rose, PA’s Program Manager, Mr. Paul J. Jacobsmeyer, DOPSR’s Deputy, Mr. R. Strong, Navy’s Director NAVY FOIA/PA Program Office, and Mr. C.C. Davidson, DIA’s Chief of Records and Open Government in their capacity as an Initial Denial Authorities, have determined that portions of the 154 responsive pages are exempt from release. The redacted information is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552: • (b)(3), specifically exempted by a statute establishing particular criteria for withholding, applying 10. U.S.C & 424, organization or any function of an organization, and certain information pertaining to. Employees of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; • (b)(5), inter- and intra- agency memoranda which are deliberative in nature; this exemption is appropriate for internal documents which are part of the decision-making process, and contain subjective evaluations, opinions and recommendations; and • (b)(6), disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of individuals. Please note that we have considered the foreseeable harm standard when reviewing records and applying exemptions under the FOIA in the processing of this request. In this instance, fees for processing your request were below the threshold for requiring payment. Please note that fees may be assessed on future requests. If you have any questions or concerns about the foregoing or about the processing of your request, please do not hesitate to contact the Action Officer assigned to your request, L. Kelly Escueta, at [email protected] or 571-256-0110. Additionally, if you have concerns about service received by our office, please contact a member of our Leadership Team at 571-372-0498 or Toll Free at 866-574-4970. Should you wish to inquire about mediation services, you may contact the OSD/JS FOIA Public Liaison, Toni Fuentes, by email at [email protected] or by phone at 571-372-0462. You may also contact the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) at the National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA mediation services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS College Park, MD 20740 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 202-741-5770 Fax: 202-741-5769 Toll-free: 1-877-684-6448 You have the right to appeal to the appellate authority, Ms. Joo Chung, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency (PCLT), Office of the Secretary of Defense, at: 4800 Mark Center Drive, ATTN: PCLFD, FOIA Appeals, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700. Your appeal must be postmarked within 90 calendar days of the date of this response. Alternatively, you may email your appeal to [email protected]. If you use email, please include the words "FOIA Appeal" in the subject of the email. Please also reference FOIA case number 19-F-1420 in any appeal correspondence. We appreciate your patience in the processing of your request. As stated previously, please contact the Action Officer assigned to your request, L. Kelly Escueta, and reference FOIA case number 19-F-1420, if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Pamela Andrews Chief, FOIA Enclosures: As stated This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com (b)(6) From: Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:01 PM (b)(6) To: 1(131(61 (b)(6) (b)(6) M USA) =I (b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Attachments: Aerospace America UAP RTQ.docx Signed By: (b)(6) All, I had previously shared this query from Aerospace America with you for coordination. I appreciate your inputs. Based on all I've received, I've put together the WA package as in the attached. Most of the info came from our previous responses to queries. Please review, and provide any necessary feedback. The reporter's deadline is the but I'd like to wrap this one up soonest as well. Thanks! (b)(6) From: Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:49 PM To: (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Hi (b)(6) (b)(6) here. I'm a writer for Aerospace America, the monthly magazine in-print and online of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics - wvw.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.ord. 1 I'm working on a no-nonsense, just-the-facts story on the issue of UAPs that has been raised over the last couple years. I don't have any interest in the sensational aspects of this. I'm just trying to put together a piece that's as accurate and thoughtful as it can be with as much authoritative input as I can get. I know you've spoken on this matter several times recently but I'd like to get the Navy's latest input on a number of questions verbally or in writing from an SME (I imagine there must be some group of folks within the service who study UAP reports), the Office of the CND, or in the from the Navy writ large. I'm aware that it may not be possible to answer some questions. So that you know what I'd like to ask. here are a few questions. 1) Several recently released videos from F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIRs are said to show UAPs? Does the U.S. Navy confirm that these are genuine videos from F/A-18 Super Hornets? Did the Navy approve the unrestricted release of the three videos in 2017? (b)(6) Documents released this month (August 2019) obtained via FOIA request show an August 2017 e (b)(6) (who claims to have led the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Pros ram) and (6)(6) of the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR). They show asking (6)(6) or e re ease of the three videos as unclassified documents. In an August 9, 2017 email Russo says he's checking with AVAIR to ensure that the (video) files are unclassified. Here's a link to the email chain if you've not seen it yet - https://silvarecord.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/FOIA-Response - (b)(6) AATIP-Video-Emails-2.pdf 2)Does the U.S. Navy confirm that the objects acquired in the videos are indeed unidentified aerial phenomena? 3)Has the U.S. Navy gathered any other data (radar or satellite for instance) that could corroborate the presence of the objects detected in the three videos? Does the U.S. Navy gather or has it gathered corroborating data for other unidentified aerial phenomena reports? 4)Has the U.S. Navy updated or created official guidelines or protocol for Navy personnel to report UAPs? If so, what is the official title or name of the guidelines/protocol? 5)Does the U.S. Navy have any evidence that the Raytheon AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared targeting pods carried by the F/A-18 Super Hornets in these videos were spoofed? 6)Has the U.S Navy or the contractor (Raytheon) examined the AN/SQ-228 pods carried by these aircraft for tampering, whether in terms of hardware or software? Does the U.S. Navy routinely inspect targeting pods and other sensors for tampering? 7)Does the U.S. Navy confirm that there has been an increase in the number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering military-controlled ranges and designated airspace over the last decade? I'm happy to provide more detail on the article if you'd like - or connect you with my editors at AIAA. (6)(6) and (6)(6) -(b)(6) )- My contact information is below. Thanks for your time. b)(6) or a erospace America Magazine www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org (b)(6) ;b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Thursday. May 23 2019 11:56 AM (b)(6) To: ;A) Subject: 1-W: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP (b)(6) Signed By: The statement I sent... b)(6) 1111M From: Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 4:57 PM (b)(6) To: 'Steven Greenstreet' < Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP Steven, Below is what I can provide as a Defense Department Spokesman. The Department of Defense is always concerned about maintaining positive identification of all aircraft in our operating environment as well as identifying any foreign capability that may be a threat to the homeland. The department will continue to investigate, through normal procedures, reports of unidentified aircraft encountered by US military aviators in order to ensure defense of the homeland and protection against strategic surprise by our nation's adversaries." -The AATIP program did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena. Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI, up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017." The video you reference in the NY Times article was made releasable for research and analysis purposes by U.S. government agencies and industry partners. and not for general public release." ### Sincerely, Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon, (b)(6) www.detense.gov (b)(6) From: Steven Greenstreet Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:17 PM To: (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Nev York Post questions re: AATIP 1 All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. (b)(6) thanks for taking these questions. A response sometime this week would be gnat. Did AATIP study unidentified flying objects (UFOs)? Did Luis Elizondo work in the AATIP program? Was Luis Elizondo the head of the AATIP program (in a leadership role)? How long was Luis Elizondo employed by DoD/DIA/Pentagon/Etc? Were the military UFO videos included in this NYTimes article OFFICIALLY released by the DoD or were they "leaked"? Caution-https://vvww.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html < Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html > What is the DoD's official stance on UFOs? Thanks! Steven Greenstreet STEVEN GREENSTREET Senior Manager. Video Production and Series Development (b)(6) (b)(6) < Caution-ma ilto:(" 6) nypost.com < Caution-http://nypost.com > 2 [b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2U I 5:3b PM To: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL US Reid, Garry P SES OSD OUSD INTEL (US) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DOD Source] press request from WIRED (UNCLASSIFIED) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged More Elizondo items. Sincerely, (b)(6) Original Message From b)(6) Sent: I uesday, May 1, 2018 12:21 PM (b)(6) To: 1(b)(6) (b)(6) 1(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) CC: Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] press request from WIRED (UNCLASSIFIED) (b)(6) work with 1M°) n DOPSR and wanted to give you a heads up on 4 FOIA requests that we are processing and preparing to return to the OSD/JS FOIA office. The requests are for any correspondence submitted to and returned from DOPSR concerning the clearance of videos for Mr. Luis Elizondo. I know that 03)(6) initially said that we wouldn't have records, but after a search, we found 16 pages of responsive records (mostly emails). We are providing them to the FOIA office with the recommendation that USD(I) and Navy review them prior to release. If you have any questions or need further information about these requests, please let me know. Thanks! (b)(6) Original Message From (b)(6) 1 Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:23 PM To: (b)(6) (b)(6) <(b)6) —(b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] press request from WIRED (UNCLASSIFIED) Sounds good to me. You can't suck blood from a turnip. Thanks for the heads up. Sincerely, (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:09 PM 1-21b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) ,(b)(6) Cl(b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] press request from WIRED (UNCLASSIFIED) CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED (b)(6) DOPSR has now received a FOIA request for any paperwork filed by Elizondo to DOPSR. As we discussed, DOPSR has no such paperwork, so we will probably be returning a "no records found" result to the FOIA office. Just FYSA. If you have any questions please contact myself or (b)(6) . Thanks! v/r, (b)(6) How are we doing? ** Comments - https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fsa=card&sp=139133&s=110&dep=*DoD ** 2 Original Message From: (b)(6) Sert: -riday. January 5. 2018 11:23 AM (b)(6) To: (b)(6) CC:1(3)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] press request from WIRED (UNCLASSIFIED) (b)(6) I am so glad you reached out to us. I was attempting to track down the correct POC to discuss this. I have explained to that a clearance by DOPSR does not equate to permission to release property owned by DOD. It is part of a process to coordinate release. Do you have the actual form she is referring to that was cleared? Sincerely, Original Message From: (b)(6) Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 11:18 A M To: t)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) A(b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DOD Source] press request from WIRED (UNCLASSIFIED) CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED /(b)(6) (b)(6) DOPSR has received an inquiry from a journalist from Wired Magazine, a Ms. Sarah Scoles; please see the email string below. She indicates that she has been working with (b)(6) on her inquiry. We should have just pointed Ms. Scoles back to (3)(6) in the first instance, so we apologize for muddying the waters here. DOSPR does not have the expertise or authority to interact with the press. Can ATSD/PA take over from this point? We'll be happy to help, but this is outside our realm. Thanks! (b)(6) 3 How are we doing? ** Comments - https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fsa=card&sp=139133&s=110&dep=*DoD ** Original Message From: WHS Pentagon ESD Mailbox SECREV Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 11:04 AM To .(b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] press request from WIRED Would you mind addressing these questions? (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) On Behalf Of Sarah Scoles Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 11:16 AM To: WHS Pentagon ESD Mailbox SECREV (b)(6) Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] press request from WIRED All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hi (b)(6) I wrote a week or so ago about some paperwork/authorization questions, and I have a couple more specific ones, if you have a few minutes and are able to answer them. I'll save the ones that relate to the specific program/videos I'm interested in for in the press office, but if you can answer these general process and interpretation questions, I woul very muc appreciate it. 1.For DD Form 1910, is there an approval stamp that says "Cleared for open publication / [DATE] / Department of Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review"? 2.When DD Form 1910 has that stamp, what does that mean in terms of the information's release--can it then appear anywhere, and be posted or published by anyone, and be considered official and authorized? 3. Is there another step in the process, for information to be considered "released," after the information has DOPSR approval via form 1910? 4. In Directive 5230.29, it says that if a document that has been "cleared for public release" that document's information "may be released without restriction by the originating DoD Component or its authorized official." Am I interpreting correctly that the originating Component is the organization within the DoD to whom the files first belonged, and that its 4 authorized agent is someone within that organization? If so, if a document "cleared for release" is made public by someone who has left the DoD but was once an authorized official, is that okay? 5. DOPSR does not deal with documents meant for the media--is that correct? To clear something for media release, one has to deal with a different office? Thanks very much for your help! Sarah On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 6:39 AM, WHS Pentagon ESD Mailbox SECREV (b)(6) Caution-mailto0x6) wrote: Good Morning, The Major should be able to supply you with proof of clearance for the videos. That can be either a letter which has a "Cleared" stamp, a DD form 1910 (stamped), or even an email stating it is cleared. Not everything goes through DOPSR; they might have gone through their own PAO for clearance. In either case, they should have the proof of the videos being cleared. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Thank you for your time and have a great day. (b)(6) DOPSR Original Message From b)(6) b)(6)(cid:9) On Behalf Of Sarah Scoles Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 7 13 PM To: WHS Pentagon ESD Mailbox SECREV (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] press request from WIRED All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hello, My name is Sarah Scoles, and I'm a journalist and contributor at WIRED magazine. I'm working on a story that involves the claim that certain videos went through DOPSR and were officially approved for release to the public. I was wondering if you could tell me what paperwork would be available to back that claim. I'm just asking about the process/documentation in general--if a source showed me paperwork purporting to prove that a piece of media had gone through your office/procedures and been approved for release, what paperwork would that be? I've been speaking tolb)(6) in the press office about the specifics of the story I'm working on, so I apologize if this is jumping the chain. She and I should be speaking again shortly, and if this question is more 5 appropriately directed to her, then I apologize, and please just let me know, and I will ask her directly the next time we talk. Respectfully, Sarah Sarah Scoles Freelance science journalist Contributing writer, Wired; contributing editor, Popular Science Author, Making Contact: Jill Tarter and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence < Caution-Caution-https://www.amazon.com/Making-Contact-Tarter- Extraterrestrial-Intelligence/dp/1681774410/ < Caution-https://www.amazon.com/Making-Contact-Tarter- Extraterrestrial-Intelligence/dp/1681774410/ > > Caution-Caution-www.sarahscoles.com < Caution-http://Caution- Caution-www.sarahscoles.com > <Caution-Caution-http://www.sarahscoles.com < Caution- http://www.sarahscoles.com > > I Denver, CO Sarah Scoles Freelance science journalist Contributing writer, Wired; contributing editor, Popular Science Author, Making Contact: Jill Tarter and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence < Caution-https://www.amazon.com/Making-Contact-Tarter-Extraterrestrial- Intelligence/dp/1681774410/ > Caution-www.sarahscoles.com < Caution-http://www.sarahscoles.com > I Denver, CO CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED 6 P)(6) (b)(6) .1 I I • From: Sent: Wednesday, September 112019 11:48 AM (b)(6) To: WASHINGTON DC (USA). Cc: (b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA (6) Signed By: All, Here's the link to story... he published yesterday. I will reprint in my daily information Warfare News Clips package tomorrow. As for his Q below on the identifiers... I told him I would share the dates as soon as I received them. (see sepcor). Thanks for your assistance! (b)(6) From Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 11:10 AM To: Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA (b)(6) Hello Thank you for your help again with my story. I have no idea if you care to peruse what you offer information for, but the final story I wrote (published yesterday) is found here: https://www.theblackvault.comidocumentarchive/u-s-naw- confirms-videos-depict-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-not-cleared-for-public-release, A quick ask, if I may, you said, "Additionally, the Navy's official identifiers for the referenced videos do not match the names referenced (Flirl, Gimble and GoFast)... the Navy identifies these videos by the respective dates of the observations/sightings." Are you able to offer what the real identifiers are for the three videos? Sincerely, 1 (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://www.thebiackvauit.com (b)(6) =1 1— From: (b)(6) Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:53 PM To: (b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA (b)(6) 1)In A2, you said the Navy has not publicly released characterizations or descriptions relating to the videos. In A3, you say the Navy designates the objects contained as "unidentified aerial phenomena". My confusion is why (b)(6) would identify the objects as UAV's, UAS's and balloons, when the official Navy designation was UAP? Is there any explanation for this? t)(6) Al) You'd have to contact on his descriptions. I can't comment or speculate on how/why he referred to them in that way. 2) To sum it up, and ensure accuracy, what is publicly referred to as the FLIR1, Gimble and GoFast videos are considered "unidentified" to the Navy? This is accurate? A2) The Navy considers the phenomena contained/depicted in those 3 videos as unidentified. 3) Lastly, is there any official definition, in the form of a document or a statement, that defines "unidentified aerial phenomena"? A3) 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. (b)(6) From: Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 4:03 PM To: (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) (b)(6) 2 (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA (b)(6) Thank you very much for your statements. To verify, you'd like these attributed to Spokesperson for Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare? A quick follow-up, if I may. In A2, you said the Navy has not publicly released characterizations or descriptions relating to the videos. In A3, you say the Navy designates the objects contained as "unidentified aerial phenomena". My confusion is why (b)(6) would identify the objects as UAV's, UAS's and balloons, when the official Navy designation was UAP? Is there any explanation for this? To sum it up, and ensure accuracy, what is publicly referred to as the FLIR1, Gimble and GoFast videos are considered "unidentified" to the Navy? This is accurate? Lastly, is there any official definition, in the form of a document or a statement, that defines "unidentified aerial phenomena"? Thank you for your time and consideration. I aim to now publish this tomorrow, so any input on the above is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://www.thebiackvadt.com (b)(6) (b)(6) From: (b)(6) Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 12:38 PM To (b)(6) kb)(6) (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) USA) < (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA Good Afternoon= I was out Friday, and needed a last concurrence from one of my subject matter experts. Here's our response to your questions. Regards, (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 9:25 AM To: Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA Hello, sir, and happy Friday! I hope you don't mind me following up. I know things are hectic, especially after a holiday weekend, but thought I would check in. I know you had mentioned to hopefully have an update this week, did you still think that might be possible? I appreciate any update you might be able to offer, and if not, no worries. I'll continue to hold off, but just wanted to check in. Thanks again! Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://www.theblackvault.com From: (b)(6) Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:31 AM 4 To:11(6)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA (b)(6) Still researching the videos piece with Naval Air Systems Command... who "owns" the videos. Working with a couple different offices... where they are each researching their respective aspects. Talked with one this morning to help them scope their research. Bottom line... \.vith the holiday weekend coming, I probably won't hear anymore from them until next week. I hope to wrap this all up then. Wanted to keep you in the loop. (b)(6) (b)(6) Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements (Lb)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 3:35 PM To: (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA No problem, sir. Your reply is much appreciated anyway. Happy Friday, and I look forward to hearing from you when they get back to you. Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://www.thebiackvauit.com (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Friday, August 23,2019 10:07 AM To (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA (b)(6) I don't have responses for you yet... I've reached out to the Navy command that has cognizance over the videos but have not heard back as yet. I can't give you answers until I learn more from them. Will keep you posted and will respond as soon as I hear back. Regards (b)(6) (b)(6) Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements (b)(6) 4(b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 6:58 PM To: o(b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA I appreciate that, and any information you can provide! Have a wonderful rest of your evening. Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://m.vw.theblackvault.com (b)(6) From: Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 7.08 AM To: (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA (b)(6) Query received. I have to do some research on this. Regards, (b)(6) Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements (b)(6) (b)(6) ro ) From Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 3:06 PM To: b)(6) Cc: Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy v./as OCA Dear (b)(6) I hope you recall our pleasant conversation a couple months ago. I appreciated your time on the phone. As a reminder, I work as a television producer and writer in Los Angeles, and have reported quite a bit on the claims of "To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science", along with the U.S. Navy videos they released claiming they are UF0s/UAPs etc. 7 There is much controversy about what they label the FLIR1, Gimble and GoFast videos. In short, it has been determined that (3)(6) requested their release via a DD Form 1910, but only for USG use only, and not for publication. Now, through a recent FOIA release, a string of emails show (b)(6) communication with DOPSR. What I am seeking comment on, is the most chronologically recent email in the chain. I put a screen shot below for reference. (b)(6) GS-15, civilian) worded the DD Form 1910 request for USG use only and the videos were not to be published in any form to the public. However, through email, (b)(6) said to broaden the request for usage to "unrestricted." Please look at DOPSR's b)(6) message below, in which he asked for the OCA (in this case, the Navy) to offer up their stance that if metadata was removed, the videos would be unclassified. If they did, unrestricted access would be granted by DOPSR. So, it relied on the Navy. It appears by this FOIA request, that the Navy never communicated any verification. If they did, it was not released in this FOIA response. So, instead of operating off the assumption, I am seeking comment to the below questions, if possible. This is for a story this week, so I would appreciate any response you could give me as time permits. 1) Did the Navy respond to DOPSR's request to approve a "unrestricted" release authority to (13)(6) in regards to these three videos? If so, does that email grant an unrestricted, PUBLIC, release for these videos? (b)(6) described the videos on the DD Form 1910 as "UAV, Balloons and other UAS." In addition, (b)(6) 2y (b)(6) emails describe the videos in generality, as "balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc). Does the Navy agree these are the proper identifiers to describe the referenced Flir1, Gimble and GoFast videos? 3) 1(b)(6) and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science describe these three videos as UFOs or UAPs, and not with the same description as (b)(6) on official paperwork. Can the Navy comment on the claims made by TTSA, that these videos represented as UF0s/UAPs by them, and the fact that they were described in a much different way on official documents? 4) I have a statement from OSD regarding the videos (which I will also put below for reference). I'd like to ask, since the Navy was the OCA for them, if you could comment as well. In question form, according to the U.S. Navy, were the videos labeled as FLIR1, Gimble and GoFast ever released to the public, or was the approval only for internal use? 5) If the answer to #4 is that the videos were not meant for public release, can you tell me the security classification of the videos at the time they were requested, and the security classification as it stands right now, if it has changed. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. As I mentioned, time is of the essence, so anything you can provide me would be greatly appreciated. Reference Email from (b)(6) . . 8 (13)(6) From: (b)(6) Sent Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:20 PM To: (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) 1(b)(6) b)(6) Subject RE: (W/Fielegi+ (U) ATTN: (b)(6) DOPSR Request-Part 3 Attachments: (b)(6) DOPSR Request 20170809.pdf CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED/ A4.-44.64441.4— (b)(6) 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: GoFast.wmv FLIRl.mp4 Ginble Vid.wmv Thanks, (b)(6) (b)(6) Defense Office of Prepublication & Security Review Pentagon Room 2A534 (b)(6) CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED//FOR-AffiEfik—iirsE-eNtY —Original Message-- From' (b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:39 AM To: (b)(6) Subject: RE: (U) ATTN: l(b)(6) I DOPSR Request-Part 3 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 donut! Thanks againl Pentagon Statement about video release: @You replied to this message on 6/3/2019 8:13 AM. The videos were never officially released to the general public by DoD and should still be withheld. Regards, (:0X6) Pentagon Spokesperson Defense Public Affairs Operations DOD website: https://www.defense.gov/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense Instagram: https://mvw.instagram.comideptofdefense Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.comicompanyiunited-states-department-of-defense Sincerely, (b)(6) 1 Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://www.theblackvault.com )(6) (b)(6) 10 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: I hursdav June b 2UI9 IU:24 AM (b)(6); (b)(3):10 USC § 424 p)(6) To: (USA) Subject: FW: RE: Media Enquiry Attachments: RE- (Non-DoD Source.] Follow-up Article - Need Assistance (28.1 KB) (b)(6) Signed By: Attached and below are what we provided. We are working to get a statement that accurately reflects Mr. Elizondo's duties after ATTIP ended. This is the statement I put out. "The Department of Defense is always concerned about maintaining positive identification of all aircraft in our operating environment as well as identifying any foreign capability that may be a threat to the homeland. The department will continue to investigate, through normal procedures, reports of unidentified aircraft encountered by US military aviators in order to ensure defense of the homeland and protection against strategic surprise by our nation's adversaries." "The AATIP program did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena. Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI, up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017." "The video you reference in the NY Times article was made releasable for research and analysis purposes by U.S. government agencies and industry partners, and not for general public release." ### Thanks, Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon, SIPR: (b)(6) www.defense.gov (b)(6) From:"6) (USA) Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 10:08 AM Tol(b)(6) ()) (b)(6) Cc: O) Subject: RE: RE: Media Enquiry Hi (b)(6) 1 The videos were never officially released to the general public by DoD and should still be withheld. entagon pokesperson Defense Public Affairs Operations DOD website: https://www.defense.gov/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/deptofdefense Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense Linkedln: https://www.linkedin.com/company/united-states-department-of-defense (b)(6) From: < Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 9 39 AM Jb)(6) CC: (3)(6) OSA) 0 )(6) . PM Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Media Enquiry All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. (b)(6) Dear I hope you had a wonderful weekend. I wanted to circle back on my email below. I saw a story published this weekend, you had issued some statements to The Intercept / Keith Kloor about AATIP and Mr. Elizondo. In regards to my message below, it appears that most of the questions may be answered with the full talking points. Could I just ask — may I have the complete statement / talking points that were released this past week regarding Mr. Luis Elizondo and AATIP? It is much appreciated. As (3)(6) can attest, I write extensively on these issues, and am very interested in accuracy, vs. much of the sensational stuff I see on television about all this. One outstanding question would be the below (unless your full statement addresses this). Do you have any comment here? 1) With b)(6) confirming the DD Form 1910 does not approve the three named videos (in relation to this story- aution- ttps://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team-confirms-pentagon-did- release-ufo-videos/1963912703 < Caution-https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team- confirms-pentagon-did-release-ufo-videos/1963912703 > ) it calls into question the original video published by the NY Times in this story: Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo- harry-reid.html < Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html > and then Mr. Elizondo, who is connected with a corporation called To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, published a total of three videos here: Caution-https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ < Caution- https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/> It was reported the DD Form 1910 was the "authorization" that got these videos out — but we know now by b)(6) statement that is not true. Can you comment about these three videos? Can you confirm that the t ree vi • eos are the ones connected to the DD Form 1910? Are they, or should they be, classified or just still withheld? 2 Lastly, no doubt, The Intercept's article caused quite a conversation, including a message by one of the original December 2017 journalists who covered the story. I pasted it below. He's insinuating (late on a Sunday night) that a new Pentagon statement is coming. Is there any truth to this and that what was told to The Intercept is going to change? I appreciate any insight you can give me. Thank you! Bryan Bender* "BrvanDBender • 9h I'd stay tuned for a much more definitive statement from the Pentagon this week. The Intercept's assertions and innuendo (it never definitively reported anything) were wrong. And the issue should be settled once and for all. Though with this crowd I won't count on it. Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com < Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com/ > (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 9:42 PM To: (b)(6) b)(6) Subject: Media Enquiry (b)(6) Dear I hope this email finds you well. I understand you have taken over the portfolio fort") and I had corresponded with her last year about some stories I worked on, in relation to the "AATIP Program." To explain my background, in addition to writing and producing for many television networks (I can get you a full list of credits, if needed), I frequently appear on radio and television speaking about government topics, documents, declassification etc. So, my intent with reaching out to you, is to be as accurate as possible when speaking or writing about these topics. This week, I worked with 10(6) to ensure accuracy on a different story, relating to DD Form 1910s. 3 Without being long winded, as I mentioned, I do frequently do television and radio interviews talking about various topics, AATIP is one of them. Through my contact with (b)(6) I learned that recent media attention to a "leaked" (now confirmed byl(b)(6) as legitimate) DD Form 1910 was not what the public was led to believe by a news story that offered an "exclusive." I hoped maybe I could reach out to you with some overall questions about the AATIP program since I spoke with lb)(6) last time — but if someone else is more appropriate, let me know. If possible, the below is a bit time sensitive, due to some articles being written now, but also some up-coming television series that I will be working on. My intent with the below, again, is to be as accurate as possible. 1) There has been mass confusion on whether or not the AATIP program dealt with UFOs. Can you confirm (or deny) there was any UFO or "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon" (UAP) aspect to the program? If there was — can you comment on if that was a major part of the AATIP? Minor? 2) There has been some confusion behind the name for AATIP. Originally OSD had said "Advanced AVIATION Threat Identification Program" and DIA said "Advanced AEROSPACE Threat Identification Program." Can you clarify what name is correct, or was it one version at DIA and another at OSD? 3) A man by the name of Mr. Luis Elizondo has been giving lectures and interviews, along with appearing on a new up-coming series for The History Channel called Unidentified. He is being advertised on that network as having run the AATIP program, and has done various media appearances also stating he ran the program. Is there any official statement on his claims? 4) With (ID)(6) confirming the DD Form 1910 does not approve the three named videos (in relation to this story: Caution-https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team-confirms-pentagon-did- release-ufo-videos/1963912703 < Caution-https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team- confirms-pentagon-did-release-ufo-videos/1963912703 > ) it calls into question the original video published by the NY Times in this story: Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo- harry-reid.html < Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html > and then Mr. Elizondo, who is connected with a corporation called To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, published a total of three videos here: Caution-https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ < Caution- https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/> It was resorted the DD Form 1910 was the "authorization" that got these videos out — but we know now by statement that is not true. Can you comment about these three videos? Can you confirm that the three videos are the ones connected to the DD Form 1910? Are they, or should they be, classified or just still withheld? I really appreciate your time in responding. I look forward to your response, as time permits. Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com < Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com/ > (b)(6) 4 Mailing Address: (b)(6) 5 ;b)(6) From: Ryan Abravane r(b)(6) Sent: Friday, July 26, 2U i3 I I UU AM To: -(b)(6) (USA) Cc: OSD Pentagon PA Mailbox Duty Officer Press Operations; (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Statement - CBS News All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hellos Thank you for your reply. If these questions below cannot be answered, please inform me of any other statements that could better elucidate this topic. For background, the genesis of this story is from Bigelow Aerospace and Lockheed Martin working together on and off since 2004. Individuals previously affiliated with the US Government encouraged Robert Bigelow to invest in pseudoscientific projects in the early 1990s. This later led to the AATIP program where two highly credible Lockheed scientists participated in the 38 papers produced. These events and politically connected individuals initially persuaded highly credible individuals to interact with TTSA. Most of whom later dropped out including Lockheed. The remaining individuals, including Luis Elizondo, are now participating in a stock scam. In addition husband worked for Bigelow Aerospace around 2007. flew the F/A-18 Super Hornets with aboard the Nimitz and she appeared in documentary films with her identity concealed. Thank you for your assistance. Ryan Abravanel 1) Is this FLIR tape uploaded in Feb. 2007 property of the Department of Defense? Caution-https://web.a rchive.org/web/20070209104330/Caution-http ://www.vision- unlimited. de/extern/f4.mpg < Caution-https://web.archive.org/web/20070209104330/Caution- http://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/f4.mpg > claimed this tape was recorded by aka a Navy VFA-41 L Black Aces pilot stationed on the Nimitz. claims he used his helmet camera during a training exercise and then used his FLIR targeting pod to capture data on the target. Somehow he obtained a copy of the FLIR data, stored it in a locker and then a degraded copy was released in 2007 on a conspiracy website. Then 10-years later it was "released" by the DoD to the NY Times and TTSA. is currently participating in an article with Slate magazine on this story. 2)If the FLIR tape is DoD property, was this leak and theft investigated? 3)Did Luis Elizondo interact with AATIP under official duties of his job? 4)How did Elizondo's job relate to AATIP? 5)Who was the director of AATIP? On TTSA's new page which is raising up to $30 million from the public, Elizondo's listed as the "program element director" for AATIP. 6)In the 2009 Senator Reid letter, is Dr. Kit Green and Cohn Kelleher the two other blacked out names under the AATIP contractors next to Hal Puthoff? If not, who are these contractors? FOIA released documents- Caution-https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/6-14-2019-6-00-11- AM.png < Caution-https ://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/6-14-2019-6- 00-11-AM.png > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:53 PM < Caution-mai to > > wrote: Hello Ryan, Please send your questions to myself and Mr. Chris Sherwood, cc'd. Regards, Pentagon Spokesperson Defense Public Affairs Operations DOD website: Caution-https://www.defense.gov/ < Caution-https://www.defense.gov/> Twitter: Caution-https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense < Caution-https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense > 2 lnstagram: Caution-https://www.instagram.com/deptofdefense < Caution- https://www.instagram.com/deptofdefense > Facebook: Caution-https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense < Caution- https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense > Linkedln: Caution-https://www.linkedin.com/company/united-states-department-of-defense < Caution- https://www.linkedin.com/company/united-states-department-of-defense > (b)(6) From: Ryan Abravanel Sent: Monday, July 22 2019 5:18 PM TO: 16)(6) (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Statement - CBS News Hello, I was trying to reach Charles Summers or someone in the Office of Secretary of Defense. I understand that the OSD would like to clarify the situation involving Luis Elizondo, the AATIP project and the three videos released by the NY Times. As you're likely aware, various Pentagon spokespeople have given contradictory statements. Luis Elizondo is employed by TTSA. Last month, they added Christopher Mizer to their Board of Directors and granted him 300,000 shares with a nominal value of $1.5 million. Mr. Mizer has an exceptional history of promoting penny stock scams. He was involved in IFAN which used misrepresentations to inflate the stock to a market valuation of $70 million with zero assets. He worked on IFAN with Thomas Hughes who was previously sentenced to 8-years in federal prison for securities fraud using the same patents as IFAN. The SEC is now investigating TTSA. It is clear that Mr. Elizondo's representations regarding AATIP are being used for stock fraud regardless of the accuracy of his claims. 3 Please let me know who I can contact to send my questions. This investigation is being prepared for CBS News. I appreciate the consideration and assistance. Best, Ryan Abravanel Beverly Hills 4 I P)(6) b)(6) From: Ryan Abravanel r Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 7:48 PM (b)(6) To: USA) Subject: iNon-uou ourcej Ke. rUIA release All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. This release was verified by John Greenewald posting his FOIA response letter. On Sun Aug25 2019 at 8:49 PM Ryan Abravanel wrote: I 1- Can your office verify if these emails were released via FOIA? The emails are of Luis Elizondo requesting the release of the 3 video to DOPSPR. There was no FOIA response letter sent to the requester. The attachments were sent by email to an Australian researcher who requested them by email last year. One of the emails has Elizondo saying the 3 videos (FLIR, GoFast, Gimble) were sent via SIPR to DOPSR. However, no such videos are available on SIPR. FOIA request and attachment links: Caution-https://www.metabunk.org/ttsa-videos-declassification-email-exchange-release-under- foia.t10868 < Caution-https://www.metabunk.org/ttsa-videos-declassification-email-exchange-release-under- foia.t10868 > Direct link: Caution-https://www.metabunk.orglattachments/16pg-responsive-doc-pdf.38091 < Caution- https://www.metabunk. orgiattachments/16pg-responsive-doc-pdf.38091 > Thanks, Ryan 1 [b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 201 • (b)(6); (b)(3):10 USC § 424 ;13)(6) To: (USA) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Aa izon o question Signed By: (b)(6) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged (b)(6), (b)(3) 10 USC § 424 I don't have an accurate accounting of his employment history with AATIP. I have been provided this statement from OUSD(I). Mr. Luis Elizondo: • Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI, up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017. • He started with OUSD(I) on 28-Sep-08 as an Intelligence Operations Specialist. The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program: • The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program ended in 2012. It was determined that there were other, higher priority issues that merited funding and it was in the best interest of the DoD to make a change. • The DoD takes seriously all threats and potential threats to our people, our assets, and our mission and takes action whenever credible information is developed. • The Department of Defense is always concerned about maintaining positive identification of all aircraft in our operating environment as well as identifying any foreign capability that may be a threat to the homeland. • The department will continue to investigate, through normal procedures, reports of unidentified aircraft encountered by US military aviators in order to ensure defense of the homeland and protection against strategic surprise by our nation's adversaries. New Navy reporting procedures: • The Navy has updated and formalized the process by which reports of any such suspected incursions of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled ranges and designated air space can be made to the cognizant authorities. • For safety and security concerns, the Navy takes these reports very seriously and investigates each and every report. ### This is what I have currently, Uttice ot the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs 0 erations-Pentagon, 1 www.defense.gov (b)(6); (b)(3):10 USC § 424 From: Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:05 AM To /b)(6) 11b1)(6) 1 (b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] AATIP / Elizondo question Please send your PA guidance. As you know, Elizondo never worked for DIA., but was assigned to DIA for a period while at OUSDI. Sent with BlackBeny Work (www.blackberry.com) From: Steven Greenstreet < iljJi Date: Wednesday. May 29. 2019, 9:41 AM To: (b)(6), (b)(3):10 USC § 424 Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] AATIP / Elizondo question (b)(6); (b)(3).10 USC § 424 We might be going to print with a story and I need a statement on this. Pentagon/OUSDI statement to me is that Elizondo had "no responsibilities with regards to AATIP while at OUSDI" However they said "it's possible" he had responsibilities with AATIP while at DIA. So my question is: "Did Luis Elizondo work with AATIP in ANY leadership role at anytime?" My follow-up questions is, "Did Luis Elizondo have ANY involvement with AATIP at all?" My deadline is end of day tomorrow. Thanks! Steven STEVEN GREENSTREET Senior Manager. Video Production and Series Development (b)(6) nypost.com 2 On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 7:29 PM wrote: Steven - I've been in touch with OSD/PA - the Pentagon press desk and we're discussing a way forward to get you something. Not clear just now if that will be tomorrow. (b)(6)• (b)(3)10 USC § 424 Sent with BlackBen)/ Work (www.blackberry.com) ib)(6 ) - From: Steven Greenstreet <s Date: Thursday. May 09. 2019. 1:41 PM To: (b)(6); (b)(3):10 USC § 424 Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] AATIP / Elizondo question Hello. Just checking in on this. Thanks! STEVEN GREENSTREET Senior Manager. Video Production and Series Develo ment nypos .com (b)(6) On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 11:49 AM Steven Greenstreet < wrote: Ok tomorrow morning works. I'll push the story and await your response. NOTE: Luis Elizondo no longer works for DIA or DoD as he resigned in 2017 and is now a producer on the History Channel. So does 10 USC 424 still apply to former employees? STEVEN GREENSTREET Senior Manager, Video Production and Series Development On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 11:38 AM wrote: Steven — I won't have an answer until tomorrow morning at the earliest. I hope that works for you. Under 10 USC 424, we don't comment on employees, positions, etc., so I'll need to coordinate a response. 3 b)(6); (b)(3):10 USC § 424 (b)(6) From: Steven Greenstreet Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 11:25 AM To: (b)(6) (b)(3).10 USC § 424 Subject: [Non-DoD Source] AATIP / Elizondo question Thank you for taking time on the phone just now. I just simply need to confirm whether Luis Elizondo was in charge of the AATIP program while at DIA or had any role with AATIP whatsoever. Elizondo claims he "took over as Director of AATIP in 2010" So my question is: "Did Luis Elizondo work with AATIP in ANY leadership role at anytime between 2008 and 2012?" My follow-up questions is, "Did Luis Elizondo have ANY involvement with AATIP at all between 2008 and 2012?" Thank you so much. My deadline is end of day today. I appreciate your help with this! Best, 4 Steven Greenstreet STEVEN GREENSTREET Senior Manager, Video Production and Series Development nypost.com 5 b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Monday September 16 2019 12:53 PM (b)(6) To: Cc: b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Additional information The Navy will not comment on claims/comments from any outside parties with respect to the videos you've mentioned. (b)(6) b)(6) From Sent: Monday, September 16 2019 12:05 PM To: b)(6) Cc: b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Additional information Thank you, sir, as always this is very helpful. Based on this, I will be publishing a piece on your information on the Nimitz / FLIR1 video, so thank you again, as this will be very helpful. In the interest of covering all the bases, and I believe I may know what your answer will be (but I have to ask to be as accurate as possible), can I get any comment to the following: The U.S. Navy states that they have "no information on how they were released into general circulation," when referencing the Gimbal and GoFast video. However, it has widely been reported in the media, that To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science is taking credit for bring all three videos being out to the public, and representing them as having been through "the official declassification review process of the United States government." (All three videos hold this description here: https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com) These claims stem from their board member Mr b)(6) which the FOIA has determined was the original requester of the DD FORM 1910. With that informat on, cant e avy comment on the claims made by To The Stars, and their admission that it was their board member that secured the "release" of the videos? (I understand if the U.S. Navy has "no comment" on the above. Just in an interest of accuracy, I would be remiss if I did not ask.) Thank you so much again. I do appreciate your time, attention and detail, and I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, 1 (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://www.theblackvault.com (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 8:50 AM To Cc: Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Additional information (b)(6) — As we discussed: With respect to the 2004 sighting by aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68); that video was widely shared throughout the ship at that time. In 2007, one of those crewmembers posted the video onto the public web. In 2009, the online post of the video came to the attention of Navy officials who, in consultation with Navy law enforcement personnel, decided not to pursue the matter. Given the time since recording (approximately 5 years), the widespread distribution of the recording within the ship at the time of recording, and the size of the crew at the time (approximately 5,000), it was determined that there was no way to accurately determine who might have released the video. With respect to the other 2 videos cited, the Navy has no information on how they were released into general circulation. "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. (b)(6) From:I Sent: Thursday, September 12 2019 2:05 PM 2 To: (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] OFF THE RECORD OFF THE RECORD — NO RESPONSES WILL BE ATTRIBUTABLE Hello (b)(6) Yet again, thank you for your help this week. I am not seeking any attributable comments on this email, but hope I may ask you a question off the record? First, here is what was published last night with your latest, should you have an interest: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/u-s-navy-releases-dates-of-thr ee-officially-acknowledged-encounters-with-phenomena/ I do not want to take up much more of your time, but I wanted to reach out about the videos themselves. Full disclosure, I have had open FOlAs for the videos themselves for months. And, as far as I know, the Navy is processing the request (but have no ETA). The bigger follow up to all of this that I want to do, is the grander context of the videos themselves. Yes, we know the CLIPS were made and leaked out, and now the Navy has stated they are UAPs. However, I am interested in the longer form of them. Is that something public affairs can help with, or would help with? Being unclassified, I am wondering if that route can produce a review for public release through your office, but in larger context? My biggest aim is to see if what has leaked out, was altered in any way, including the pilots voices, but moreso, be able to produce a copy that IS cleared for public release. I assume they were not edited or it would have been made known0, but it's one element of why I do not trust "leaked" material as we do not know what we are seeing, is actually the material itself. Since other information offered about the website is now proven erroneous, I do want to verify (if I can) the visuals/audio itself. The second aspect to a bigger follow up falls into probably some uncomfortable territory, and that would be if there is an investigation into what happened. It is well established now by your office, and OSD, via official statements given to me these videos should have never been released, yet they are. I am interested in enquiring on what happens with this now? I mean, does the Navy (or someone else) investigate this? Or have they? Again, I am not seeking comment for anything here, and our conversations on this if you choose to respond to them are off the record. I just feel there is a missing piece of the puzzle in relation to the officials stance on the videos not being cleared, and whether or not action will be or is being taken? I appreciate any insight or guidance on where you think I may go for that. I look forward to hearing from you... Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://www.theblackvault.com<htto://www.theblackvault.com/> (b)(6) 3 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: (USA) Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 3:59 PM To: (b)(6) MI Subject: RE: -Non-DoD Source- Comments for Aerospace America Magazine Signed By: (b)(6) (b)(6) Basically a knee-jerk reaction by He was duty officer yesterday, saw questions about a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet & imagery from the same, and automatically sent to Navy, without noticing that her actual questions were about OUSD(I), not Navy. He also sits far away from II:1 and I, so he hasn't been at all tracking the "fun" we've been with UFO/UAP/Elizondo questions. These are the same two questions I have from her. I have the answer to (1), as we've had to answer that previously; need to get an answer from OUSD(I) and OGC on (2). I'll probably answer (1) today while working on (2). Answer to (1): liniorked in OUSD(I) as a supervisory intelligence specialist from Sept. 28, 2008, until he resigned effective Oct. 4, 2017. [note for you, this was not his whole time in DoD, just the time in OUSD(I), which is what the reporter asked.] Regard, From: Sent: I hursday, September 5, 2019 7:01 AM To: (b)(6) (USA) 4b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Comments or Aerospace America Magazine (b)(6) Y 0 U1 (b)(6) referred her questions on o Navy? (b)(6) From: 1(b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:41 PM To Subject: Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Comments for Aerospace America Magazine Good afternoon ,(b)(6) I sent the email below to the address below after calling OUSDI (Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) earlier this afternoon. I explained a couple of questions I had pertaining to my article having to do with OUSDI and i(b)(6) (b)(6) and asked to whom I should send an email. They gave me this email address. The one sentence reply below is what I just received. It makes no sense to me but I'm doing as kb)(6) recommended and contacting you. So, can the Navy clear this up? Thanks for your help. 1 (bX6) For Aerospace America Magazine www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org b)(6) Original Message From: b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Sent: VVed, Sep 4, 2U19 4:23 pm Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments for Aerospace America Magazine I refer you to the Navy. b)(6) Pentagon Spokesman Indo-Asia Pacific Security Affairs (b)(6) From fb)(6) Sent: Wednesday. September 4, 2019 4:1/ PM To: b)(6) Subject: [Non-DOD Source] Comments for Aerospace America Magazine All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hello. Jan Tegler here. I'm a writer for Aerospace America. the monthly magazine in-print and online of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics - Caution-www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org < Caution-http://www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org > . I'm working on a no-nonsense, just-the-facts story on the issue of unidentified aerial phenomena that has been raised over the last couple years. This stems from the 2017 release of video footage from U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIR (AN/ASQ-228) electro-optical and infrared cameras. Some reporting claims the video clips show UAPs. I'm trying to put together a piece that's as accurate and thoughtful as it can be with as much authoritative input as I can get. Pm speaking to a range of people for the article, from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Raytheon (maker of the Super Hornet ATFLIR) to the Senate and House Intel conunittees and active/retired Navy Super Hornet pilots to gather whatever pertinent information I can. A small corner of the story has to do with Mr. Luis Elizondo who claims to have arranged for the release of three videos known as "Flirl". "GoFast" and "Gimble". He also claims to have led a Pentagon office known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) which is r eported to have existed between 2007 (created by ex-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) and 2012. In June. Pentagon spokesman (b)(6) said the following: "Mr. [Luis] 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." A June 24. 2009 letter from then Senator Harry Reid to William Lynn III. the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the time. requested Special Access Prop-am status for AATIP. An attachment to the letter includes a list - "FY 10 Preliminary Bigoted List of 2 Government Personnel". It lists eleven people whom Senator Reid wished to have special access to AATIP. Luis Elizondo's name is included on the list with the title "Special Agent UDSI. Govt." Some have claimed this document proved Elizondo led or was involved with AATIP. His title with OUSDI however is listed as "Director. National Programs Special Management Staff'. Apparently NPMS manages access for SAP programs. So. I have two simple questions which I hope OUSDI can answer. 1)ailing what years did Mr. Luis Elizondo work in OUSDI. and what was his title? 2)Was Mr. Elizondo responsible for clearing individuals for access to SAP programs? The answers to both questions could help clear up whether Mr. Elizondo actually led the AATIP program or whether he simply cleared individuals for access to the prop-am. I'm ha s to irovide more detail on the article if you'd like - or connect you with my editors at AIAA. Ben Immotta < Caution-mailto and l i l 1- 1- < Caution- > i• My contact information is below. Thanks for your time. 111-i7Vi7To- For Aerospace America Magazine Caution-www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org < Caution-http://www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org > (b)(6) 3 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 6:38 AM To: (b)(6) Cc: —(b)(6) (USA); I (USA); (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Signed By: (b)(6) Categories: UAP AATIP '(3)(6) UFO (b)(6) As stated previously, the videos have not been publicly released. This office does not have the videos.., they are under the cognizance of the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). FOIA requests for these videos may be submitted by following the instructions at this site: http://www.navair.navy.milifoiai My previous responses may be attributed to: 03)(6) spokesman for the Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. (Note Information Warfare NOT Information Dominance.., we rebranded in 2015) FYI, as noted, I am working the couple answers still outstanding and will provide those answers once received. Due to the joint (multi-service) nature of the investigations into these incursions into military training ranges, however, DoD Public Affairs ())(6) cc'd) will have the lead for any subsequent inquiries. (b)(6) Captain, U.S. Navy (Ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements (b)(6) Frorr(b)(6) Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 4:43 PM To: (b)(6) Subject: Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Yes. I'm back like a bad penny with other questions. In addition to my earlier question below here are two more. r)(6) b)(6) My editor b)(6) and (b)(6) have asked if we can obtain copies of the ATFLIR eo clips trom January z], U1 from your office. tilie ottice ot me uurJO for Information Dominance? 1 I'm bothering you about it because we'd like to include them with my article and according to your office they were never approved for release to the public. So I thought it appropriate to ask. Please let me know. The second question pertains to how I should attribute the answers to the my questions which you've provided. Are these answers attributable to Admiral Robert P. Burke, the VCNO? Or should they be attributed to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance? Alternately, should they be attributed to U.S Navy Public Affairs Officer (b)(6) Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance? Please let me know. Thanks. (b)(6) Original Message From )(b)(6) To:P(6) Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2019 2:26 pm Subject: Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Happy Monday (b)(6) I'm back with another question, this time a simple detail. When didl(b)(6) (former VFA-11 Super Hornet pilot quoted in the 2017 NY Times story) leave the U.S. Navy? Was he honorably discharged in June 2019? (bX6) Original Message From (b)(6) To:p)(6) Sent: I nu, Sep 19, 2019 4:1b pm Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Understood. (b)(6) Original Message From: W(6) To:(b) ) Sent: I hu, Sep 19, 2019 4:14 pm Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Again, we are not going to discuss (confirm or not) any specific reports or sightings. From: b)(6) Sent: 1 hursday, September 19, 2019 3:48 PM To: Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Fair enough (W(6) To be clear, my article is not focused on UAPs. The focus is on incursions of the unauthorized or unidentified aircraft, UAS or UAPs into military controlled training ranges and designated air space, a challenge the Navy has acknowledged. I appreciate any information or input the U.S. Navy can provide and fully understand that you may not be able to answer some questions. 2 If it helps, I'll simplify my question. Was there an unauthorized incursion in range space near NAS Patuxent River in recent months? (b)(6) Original Message From: M(6) Cc. b)(6) ( U Jfik ) (b)(6) Sent: Thu, Sep 19, 2019 3:21 pm Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine 5) I can't and won't speculate on the nature of specific sightings. As the investigation process proceeds. the information obtained from each individual report of any suspected training range incursion will be investigated in its own right. Navy. Department of Defense, and other government agencies will analyze all reports. to include any eyewitness statements, flight profiles, any video, and any other materials to support a better understanding of this threat to the safety and security of our aircrew and operations. The information obtained in these reports will be catalogued and analyzed for the purpose of identifying any hazard to our aviators. This process could involve multiple Department of Defense and Intelligence Community organizations. Any report generated as a result of these investigations will, by necessity. include classified information on military operations. Therefore, no public release of range incursion information (including frequency of sightings/observations, etc.) is expected. From: Sent: Thursday. September 19. 2019 3:14 PM To: (b)(6) Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Thank I'll follow up with Just spoke with her yesterday actually. I'll await any word on question 4 and in the meantime, I have one more query that relates to question 3 which you got back to me on yesterday. I'll make this question 5. 5) Was there another occurrence of a UAP incursion in recent months in the test range near NAS Patuxent River similar to those captured in the 2015 videos? On inal Messa e From: To Cc: SA) < t Sen ep pin Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine I in DOD Public Affairs is the POC to discuss ay investigations/issues related to the release of the 2015 videos m2017. I owe you the response to number 4 still. 3 ;13)(6) From Sent: Wednesday, September , • To: Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Excellent Thanks for the clarification on question 3. I'll await any additional input you can provide. My compliments once more for your work on this. (b)(6) (b)(6) Sent: Wed, Sep 18, 2019 4:47 pm Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine (b)(6) I'll have to research 1, 2 and 4 to see if/what we can answer. As for 3.... Yes... as part of our efforts to encourage our aviators to report any observations of UAPs, members of our team have been visiting squadrons, explaining what the team is trying to accomplish.., and soliciting their input/reports. Additionally, Naval Aviation leadership has reached out to their leaders throughout their respective chains of command supporting the effort and encouraging the reporting of any sightings/observations. Let me emphasis... these three videos are not the sole focus of our investigations.... They, like all every other observation/sighting of UAPs, are part of the larger investigation process. Each individual report is investigated in its own right, and the data is analyzed and catalogued for the purpose of identifying, if possible, the UAP observed, and that data is added to other information to help us get the complete picture. Regards, Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strate ic Engagements From:11.--1.413)(6) Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 4:15 PM To: Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Thanks once again. (b)(6) Several follow up questions. 4 1)Is Navy law enforcement investigating how the two January 21, 2015 videos were released? 2)Is the release of the two videos from January 21, 2015 a criminal offense? 3)Has the office of the DCNO for Information Warfare been meeting with Navy fighter squadrons in recent months to learn more about reports of UAPs? 4)The AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR video clips from January 21, 2015 showing the ATFLIR displays include range information, the altitude of the Super Hornets, their speed, etc. Not included on the displays are some relevant meta-data, including position information. If the Navy does not know how the videos were released, does it know how some data was removed from the ATFLIR displays in the video clips? Again, I understand that the Navy may not be able to answer some of these questions. Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 11:26 am Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Here are the responses to your follow-up questions. Regards, (b)(6) Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements (b)(6) From: Sent: Fri da Se tember 13, 2019 12:29 PM To: (b)(6) Subject: on- ource] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Waiting for one additional piece of information. As soon as I get that, I will provide the responses for the latest set of questions you sent. Regards, From: Sent: ues ay, ep em er I, 5: _ PM 5 To: px6) Subject: Re: INon-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Thank you (b)(6) (b)(6) Ori inal Messa e From: b)(6) To: Cc: Sent: Tue, Sep 10, 2019 4:50 pm Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Received. Working responses and will respond as quick as I can. (b)(6) Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements )(6) b)(6) From! ISM"' Sent: uescia , September 10, 2019 12:04 AM To: Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Okl. I have a few follow up questions for you. But first I want to express my thanks for your help and your professionalism, and that of the DCNO office. I understand that this a topic that isn't easy for the Navy or DoD in general to respond to in absolute terms for a variety of reasons ...no matter how much the public might desire black and white explanations. I'm doing my best to bring as much simple clarity to the UAP issue as possible with my article. Again, I understand you may not be able to answer some questions. So the first of my questions has to do with the videos has claimed to have had cleared for release by DoD. You say "those videos have not been authorized for general release". If that's the case, does the Navy know how the videos were put into "circulation"? Were they leaked by Navy personnel? 2)You mention that the Navy's "official identifiers" for the three videos do not match thosej iven to them by someone (perhapsilll as we can see in the August 2017 email chain between him andk(6) of the Defense Office of Prepublication an ecurity Review (DOPSR). The email chain was released via a FOIA request from Swedish researcher You mention that the Navy identifies these three videos by "the respective dates of the observations/sightings". As far as I'm aware the three videos include one from 2004, and the other two from either 2014 or 2015. What are the dates on which the video footage from these respective clips were shot? 3)In answer to my questions (5 and 6) you state that the AN.ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting FLIRs have a "robust self-diagnostic capability to conduct periodic or commanded Built-In Test analysis "Have the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIRs deployed on F/A-18 Super Hornets experienced faulty pixle/imagery optics and fusion correlation problems? If so, are these a known issue with the AN/ASQ- 228? 4)You state that "as the investigation of UAP sightings is ongoing we will not discuss individual sighting reports/observations." Two questions arise here. First, does the Navy have an office, program or organization dedicated to the investigation of UAP sightings? If so, what is the name of that organization? 6 Second, and perhaps this is a matter of semantics but it is important, you say "Consistent with the wider proliferation and availability of inexpensive unmanned aerial systems, sightings of this nature have increased in frequency from 2014 until now " Does that statement indicate that the "incursions" or "sightings" that have been reported since 2014 have been identified as UAS? Not UAPs? To be completely transparent. I ask this because of the July 16. 2019 letter sent by Congressman Mark Walker (NC) to Secretary of a the Navy Richard Spencer. Rep. Walker asks Secretary Spencer a number of specific questions can send a copy of his letter if you wish) including whether the Department of Defense is continuing to log reports/sightings of UAPs and fully investigate the origins of the accounts. I have been in touch with Rep. Walker's office and yesterday they forwarded me the response Congressman Walker received to his letter (I can send a copy of this letter as well if you wish) from Undersecretary Modly on July 31. 2019. As you can read. Undersecretary Modly states "There have been a number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled training ranges and designated air space in recent years." The Undersecretary does not mention that these were UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena), only that they were unidentified aircraft. Obviously, aircraft come in many forms - from fixed wing types to helicopters and aerial drones. But they are all vehicles which operate in earth's atmosphere, flying by gaining lift as they move through the air. UAPs could be said to include vehicles that fly outside earth's atmosphere. The Undersecretary goes on to say (similarly as you did) that "the wide proliferation and availability of inexpensive 'unnamed aerial systems has increasingly made airspace de-confliction an issue for our aviators." He goes on to say that "Naval aircrews have been provided reporting guidance to determine the frequency and location of UAS operating in training areas. The guidance supports objective, data-driven analysis of these incursions into training areas." The foregoing indicates that the Navy's "reporting guidance" for aircrews pertains to UAS - not UAPs. Undersecretary Modly's statements could be interpreted to mean that the U.S. Navy has problems with unmanned aerial systems making incursions into its training ranges - but not unidentified aerial phenomena. Is that the case, are the incursions exclusively by UAS? Again, your statement to me is "As the investigation of UAP sightings is ongoing. we will not discuss individual sighting reports/observations." So perhaps you can see my confusion. Is the Navy investigating reports of UAPs? Or is it investigating only reports of UAS incursions as Undersecretary Modly indicates? Are the incursions into military-controlled training ranges due to UAS? Or are UAPs making incursions as well? That's an important distinction. Finally, is the "process by which reports of any such suspected incursions can be made to the cognizant authorities" being "updated and "is fomalizing" for UAPs or UAS. or both? Any clarity on these questions would be appreciated. I want to be as accurate as possible. And thanks once more for your help. Original Message '11'1 1,11 I Sent: Mon. Sep 9. 2019 3:54 pm Sub'ect: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine I've attached our responses to the questions you submitted. We will not be able to provide an SME to speak to you. Feel free to contact/call me if you still have questions. Regards. 7 Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements From I. b)(6) Sent: tuesday, September 3,2019 3:39 PM To Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Ok (b)(6) I'd appreciate any clarity you can provide. Though it's unlikely, if there's an SME who can speak that would be great. Cutting through the sensationalism that surrounds this is my goal. And I imagine that could be positive for DoD and the Navy as well. 0 From: (b)(6) To: ) Sent: Tue, Sep , pm Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine (b)(6) Will try and have all the answers in time for you! To date, I have been the only one authorized to speak on these issues.... We have not put an SME forward. I will ask, but I do not believe that will happen. (b)(6 (b)(6) 111.. From Sent: luesaay, septemner 3, 2019 3:20 PM To: Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Hi Yes, my deadline is September 17. My thanks for your help. Is there any chance of chatting with an SME? Ori inal Messa e From: b)(6) To b 0) 0A0) Sent: Tue, Sep 3, 2019 ): am Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Good Morning, blb711 Got your request... and I will have to do some research to get some of the answers. 8 Are you on a deadline? Regards, Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements pipz ) (b)(6) From: SSeenntt:: Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:49 PM To: Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Comments on UAP Incursions for Aerospace America Magazine Hi 1(b)(6) (b)(6) here. I'm a writer for Aerospace America, the monthly magazine in-print and online of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics - www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org<http://www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org>. I'm working on a no-nonsense, just-the-facts story on the issue of UAPs that has been raised over the last couple years. I don't have any interest in the sensational aspects of this. I'm just trying to put together a piece that's as accurate and thoughtful as it can be with as much authoritative input as I can get. I know you've spoken on this matter several times recently but I'd like to get the Navy's latest input on a number of questions verbally or in writing from an SME (I imagine there must be some group of folks within the service who study UAP reports), the Office of the CNO, or in the from the Navy writ large. I'm aware that it may not be possible to answer some questions. So that you know what I'd like to ask, here are a few questions. 1)Several recently released videos from F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIRs are said to show UAPs? Does the U.S. Navy confirm that these are genuine videos from F/A-18 Super Hornets? Did the Navy approve the unrestricted release of the three videos in 2017? Documents released this month (August 2019) obtained via FOIA request show an August 2017 email chain between (who claims to have led the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program and of the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR). They show asking for the release of the three videos as unclassified documents. In an August 9, 2017 email Russo says he's checking with NAVAIR to ensure that the (video) files are unclassified. Here's a link to the email chain if you've not seen it yet - https://silvarecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FOIA- Response AATIP-Video-Emails-2.pdf 2)Does the U.S. Navy confirm that the objects acquired in the videos are indeed unidentified aerial phenomena? 3)Has the U.S. Navy gathered any other data (radar or satellite for instance) that could corroborate the presence of the objects detected in the three videos? Does the U.S. Navy gather or has it gathered corroborating data for other unidentified aerial phenomena reports? 4)Has the U.S. Navy updated or created official guidelines or protocol for Navy personnel to report UAPs? If so, what is the official title or name of the guidelines/protocol? 5)Does the U.S. Navy have any evidence that the Raytheon AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared targeting pods carried by the F/A-18 Super Hornets in these videos were spoofed? 6)Has the U.S Navy or the contractor (Raytheon) examined the AN/SQ-228 pods carried by these aircraft for tampering, whether in terms of hardware or software? Does the U.S. Navy routinely inspect targeting pods and other sensors for tampering? 7)Does the U.S. Navy confirm that there has been an increase in the number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering military-controlled ranges and designated airspace over the last decade? 9 I'm happy to provide more detail on the article ifyou'd lace - or connect you with my editors at AIAA, (b)(6) 1Wnd My contact information is below. Thanks for your time. For Aerospace America Magazine www.aeros aceamerica.aiaa.org<http://www.aeros aceamerica.aiaa.org> [1:1)(6) iltcl [b)(6) (b)(6) From: (USA) Sent: Monda Ma 6 2019 2:27 PM To: (b)(6) Subject: : on- o ource V : Media Enquiry Signed By: (b)(6) ii Hi John, 'III 1- Within our office, with departure for her new duty station, is the now lead (primary contact) for any questions regarding the old AATIP program. Regards, (b)(6) From: .b)(6) (b)(6) WWI Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 8:11 AM To (b)(6) :USA) (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Media Enquiry All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Dear (b)(6) Thank you again for your help last week. I did not want to overstay my welcome and begin asking about something else quickly, as I am under the impression that (b)(6) MAY be the one to answer my below email. I sent it to him through the weekend, since I believe he took over dealing with IMO) 'previous work. I had spoke with her about a year ago on information related to the below, but I thought I would forward it over to you, in casel(b)(6) is not the right one to ask. You were so helpful last week, I was hoping maybe you could point me to the right person to address the below, if this is something you orl(b)(6) can not help me with? Thank you so much for your time... Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com < Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com/ > 1 (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 9:42 PM (b)(6) b)(6) To Subject: media Enquiry (b)(6) Dear Mr I hope this email finds you well. I understand you have taken over the portfolio for and I had , corresponded with her last year about some stories I worked on, in relation to the m. To explain my background, in addition to writing and producing for many television networks (I can get you a full list of credits, if needed), I frequently appear on radio and television speaking about government topics, documents, declassification etc. So, my intent with reaching out to you, is to be as accurate as possible when speaking or writing about these topics. This week, I worked with (b)(6) to ensure accuracy on a different story, relating to DD Form 1910s. Without being long winded, as I mentioned, I do frequently do television and radio interviews talking about various topics, AATIP is one of them. Through my contact with (b)(6) I learned that recent media attention to a "leaked" (now confirmed by (b)(6): I as legitimate) DD Form • I was not what the public was led to believe by a news story that offered an "exusive." I hosed ma be I could reach out to you with some overall questions about the AATIP program since I spoke with last time — but if someone else is more appropriate, let me know. If possible, the below is a bit time sensitive, due to some articles being written now, but also some up-coming television series that I will be working on. My intent with the below, again, is to be as accurate as possible. 1) There has been mass confusion on whether or not the AATIP program dealt with UFOs. Can you confirm (or deny) there was any UFO or "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon" (UAP) aspect to the program? If there was — can you comment on if that was a major part of the AATIP? Minor? 2) There has been some confusion behind the name for AATIP. Originally OSD had said "Advanced AVIATION Threat Identification Program" and DIA said "Advanced AEROSPACE Threat Identification Program." Can you clarify what name is correct, or was it one version at DIA and another at OSD? 3) A man by the name of Mr. Luis Elizondo has been giving lectures and interviews, along with appearing on a new up-coming series for The History Channel called Unidentified. He is being advertised on that network as having run the AATIP program, and has done various media appearances also stating he ran the program. Is there any official statement on his claims? 4) Withlb)(6) confirming the DD Form 1910 does not approve the three named videos (in relation to this story: Caution-https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team-confirms-pentagon-did- release-ufo-videos/1963912703 < Caution-https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team- confirms-pentagon-did-release-ufo-videos/1963912703 > ) it calls into question the original video published by the NY Times in this story: Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo- harry-reid.html < Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html > and then Mr. Elizondo, who is connected with a corporation called To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, published a total of three videos here: Caution-https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ < Caution- 2 https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/> It was reported the DD Form 1910 was the "authorization" that got these videos out — but we know now by statement that is not true. Can you comment about these three videos? Can you confirm that the t ree vi. eos are the ones connected to the DD Form 1910? Are they, or should they be, classified or just still withheld? I really appreciate your time in responding. I look forward to your response, as time permits. Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com < Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com/ > (I5X6y- PX0 3 [b)(6) (b)(6) From: (USA) Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 10:51 PM To: 'Keith Kloor' Cc: USN DCNO N2N6 (USA) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] journalist queston Signed By: b)(6) Keith, What I can tell you now is that after the videos first appeared in the New York Times in December 2017, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) began an investigation focused on the classification of the information in the video. The AFOSI investigation determined that the videos were not classified. However, simply being unclassified does not automatically mean that information may be released to the public. An OSD internal review — not a formal investigation — determined that while a request had been submitted in August 2017 to the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR) for release of the videos to government and industry partners for research purposes, DOPSR did not grant final approval for the videos to be released to the general public. This is all I have at the moment; I may have more later. FYI, AFOSI did the investigation into classification because the investigation was initiated at OSD level, not Navy. Regards, II I' Pentagon Spokesperson Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs From: (b)(6) II(b)(6) Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 12:32 PM To ii(6) WI Cc: b)(6) (USA) 4b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: Re: [Non-DOD Source] journalist queston All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. 1 -just following up with you, per (b)(6) previous email. I thought I'd keep everyone on the thread for Folks, I'm honestly perplexed about something. Months ago, went on the record to John Greenewald about the three videos never being authorized for public release.(Somehow, the media only picked up on this in the last several days, when Joe confirmed that the videos were never approved for public consumption. We in the media can be slow at times, but hey that's a separate issue.) Anyway, given that the three videos were leaked to the media without authorization, I'm curious if there is any official investigation into this? After all, it's not a mystery who obtained the videos and who was responsible for disseminating them to the media (and speculating on them all over the print and television landscape). And rest assured, these folks are pretty happy with the way things have turned out, so they don't seem too worried about consequences. Here's a short clip from two nights ago, when the latest media cycle on the videos revved up: Caution-https://twitter.com/TheGunzShow/status/1174157866795769856 < Caution- https://twitter.com/TheGunzShow/status/1174157866795769856 > It's Tom DeLonge, crowing about all the attention and saluting one of his business partners, Luis Elizondo, who is chortling in the background about all the latest attention the videos have received in the press. Delonge has also publicly (on Instagram) credite , another former Pentagon official, with orchestrating the campaign to publicize the "UAPs"--to use otticial tJSG parlance--in the media. Now this is not news, since these guys have parlayed the videos into a History Channel series about mysterious UFOs threatening military assets and sites. (Maybe you've seen the show?) They use all this attention to also make explicit and very public pleas for financial investment into their company. My point being: These guys have been quite open (indeed, bragging) about all their efforts on the Hill, the media, etc, to publicize these three Pentagon videos, which according to you all, should never have seen the light of day. My question: Is there an investigation into the unauthorized release and media dissemination of the three Pentagon videos, and if so, where does that investigation stand? Thank you, On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:46 AM b)(6) (b)(6) wrote: (b)(6) I'm not available to talk until later this afternoon. In the meantime, here are the answers to your specific questions. 2 1) Is your office or any office within the Navy investigating this unauthorized release and public distribution of the videos, and if so, what came of it? Al) With respect to the 2004 sighting by aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68); that video was widely shared throughout the ship at that time. In 2007, one of those crewmembers posted the video onto the public web. In 2009, the online post of the video came to the attention of Navy officials who, in consultation with Navy law enforcement personnel, decided not to pursue the matter. Given the time since recording (approximately 5 years), the widespread distribution of the recording within the ship at the time of recording, and the size of the crew at the time (approximately 5,000), it was determined that there was no way to accurately determine who might have released the video. (b)(6) With respect to the other 2 videos cited, Department of Defense Public Affairs cc'd) can speak to you about any investigations into the leak of those. 2) The incursion of commercial or private UAVs onto restricted military airspace is a known problem. Has your office or any office within the Navy investigated the incidents chronicled on those three videos? If so, what was the specific finding? To be clear, I'm trying to understand not how the Navy classifies or categorizes the objects in the videos--but what conclusion it reached. A2) As stated in the press reports, we consider the objects depicted as unidentified aerial phenomena. Those three sightings/observations are part of the larger issue of an increased number of training range incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena in recent years. The Navy, DoD and all the services take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. Any incursion into our training ranges by any aircraft, identified or not identified, is problematic from both a safety and security concern. Safety of our aircrews is paramount. Unauthorized and unidentified aircraft pose a risk to flight safety. Additionally, it is vital we maintain security on our operations. Our aviators train as they fight. Any intrusions that may compromise the security of our operations, tactics or procedures is of great concern. As the investigation process proceeds, the information obtained from each individual report of any suspected training range incursion will be investigated in its own right. Navy, Department of Defense, and other government agencies will analyze all reports, to include any eyewitness statements, flight profiles, any video, and any other materials to support a better understanding of this threat to the safety and security of our aircrew and operations. The information obtained in these reports will be catalogued and analyzed for the purpose of identifying any hazard to our aviators. This process could involve multiple Department of Defense and Intelligence Community organizations. Any report generated as a result of these investigations will, by necessity, include classified information on military operations. Therefore, no public release of range incursion information (including frequency of sightings/observations, etc.) is expected. Regards, 3 (b)(6) (b)(6) Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements (b)(6) (b)(6) iga From: r Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 10:23 AM Subject: [Non-DoD Source] journalist queston Dear My name is I am a NYC-based journalist and an adjunct professor of journalism at the NYU J- school. Over the last year, I have written several feature stories on the UAP/UFO news that is in the headlines again this week. (See here < Caution-https://issues.org/ufos-wont-go-away/ > and here < Caution- https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/ > , for my past two articles.) I am working on a follow-up and your recent statements in the media raise several unanswered questions I am seeking clarity on. 4 1)You have stated that the three videos should never have been released for public consumption. It has been established that former Pentagon employee ..requested declassification and release of the three 1(b)(6) videos shortly before he resigned and was hired by To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA). Somehow, the videos wound up in the company's possession, which then made them available to the public via the media. Is your office or any office within the Navy investigating this unauthorized release and public distribution of the videos, and if so, what came of it? 2)The incursion of commercial or private UAVs onto restricted military airspace is a known problem. Has your office or any office within the Navy investigated the incidents chronicled on those three videos? If so, what was the specific finding? To be clear, I'm trying to understand not how the Navy classifies or categorizes the objects in the videos--but what conclusion it reached. Lastly, would you able to spare a few minutes today to speak with me over the phone about this? Many thanks, 5 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: (USA) Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 6:11 PM To: Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) Cc: Subject: RE: (Non-DoD Sourcel Lue Elizondo/AATIP (b)(6) Signed By: Mr. (b)(6) I'm assisting on this issue. Seeking some guidance on what to say in the interim — specifically, in addition to (b)(6) (b)(6) and calling us daily, often more than once (with additional information and `suggestions'), we've also received ca s o ay from Brad Byers, former senior advisor to former Secretary Mattis. My inclination at this point is to not take any more phone calls from them/discuss anything with them over the phone until you complete your discovery, and we reach an approved statement for release. We'd tell them they're welcome to send an email, but we're not going to discuss over the phone anymore. Wanted to run that by you, first. Regards, e ense Public Affairs Operations, OSD(PA) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 9:52 AM ,(b)(6) To: Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) • Massenaill Joseph Todd Todd) COL )(6) USARMY OSD OUSD INTEL (US) (b)(6) 1 (b)(6) Cc: X6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Lue Elizondo/AATIP Mr. Carranza, Attached please see the latest email from Mr. Elizondo which is more pointed, and an email from the Navy which confirms Mr. Elizondo "did play a role in facilitating connections and introductions to other DoD elements that were working Cl/safety issues similar to those encountered by Navy." s. (b)(6) and myself feel perhaps we've been asking (b)(6) (b)(6) the wrong question. Once we , established that Elizondo had little to do with AATIP (at least rom • ISD(I)'s perspective), we should have been asking something along the lines of, "what responsibilities did Elizondo have while in OUSD(I) for coordinating with the Services, especially Navy, regarding the reporting, tracking, and/or investigation of unidentified aircraft or UAP incidents?" OSD(PA) would like to respond to the outstanding media queries a line that is not contradictory to the original statement that "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI, up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017," but is accurate in his duties as they related to Unidentified Areal Phenomena (UAP) and support to the service. Question - What responsibilities did Elizondo have while in OUSD(I) for coordinating with the Services, especially Navy, regarding the reporting, tracking, and/or investigation of unidentified aircraft or UAP incidents? Media outlets outstanding queries: The Intercept, Keith Kloor POLITICO, Bryan Bender VICE, MJ Banias HUFFPOST, Alejandro Rojas The War Zone, Joseph Trevithick UFO-aktuellt, Roger Glassel V/r, Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon (b)(6) UL -(b)(6) (b)(6) NIPR: (b)(6) SIPR: www defense.gov From: (b)(6) p Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 10:33 AM (b)(6) (6) To: Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) (b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: (USA) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Lue Elizondo/AATIP Mr. Carranza, Per our conversation earlier, Mr. Elizondo called me yesterday and again today insisting he was involved in ATTIP and continued to support the effort when it ended in 2012 through 2017. Mr. Elizondo has insisted--in recent public forums-- that the AATIP "mission" is still ongoing at the Pentagon, just not in an official capacity. He added the program was not a SAP. He said the program transitioned to the Navy and is currently being run by former United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence called me yester ay an vouc ed or Mr. Elizondo, he sent the attached documents and the email below. Mr. Elizondo said he has several interviews scheduled for Friday and he would like a clarifying statement put out by DoD, or he will be forced to defend himself. He said he will provide additional documents supporting his claim shortly. I don't know who or if anyone in the Special Program Office should be involved? Here is the first of six weekly installments of the History Channel series "Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation." As discussed, we'll send the next five installments (minus transcript) as they air. http://mms.tveyes.com/transcript.asp?StationID=2580&DateTime=5/31/2019%2010:03:40%2OPM&playclip=true&pbc= search%3a%2b(pentagon) 2 Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon (b)(6) ](b)(6) NIPR: b SIPR: www.defense.gov (b)(6) From: Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:59 PM b)(6) To: Massengill, Joseph Todd (Todd) COL USARMY OSD OUSD INTEL (US) -(b)(6) Cc: tb)(6) (USA) " 6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Lue Elizondo/AATIP (b)(6) Col Massengill, Do you know who is the OGC representative for OUSD(I)? I feel this issue with Luis Elizondo needs to be looked at by the Special Programs Office and OGC at this point. I would like to have these two offices review what is in the public space and recommend a way forward. Luis Elizondo is featured in a History Channel special for the next five weeks and this issue will continue to be in the public eye. I want to make sure we are not stepping out of our swim lane. Thanks, Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon, (b)(6) (b)(6) (13)(6) NIPR SI PR: www.detense.gov (b)(6) From(b)(6) Sent-londay, June 3 2019 12:36 PM TO: IMO) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Lue Elizona/AATIP All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. 3 Hi Attached are a two examples of the documentation Lue may feel compelled to release if there is not a clarification of his continuing active role in coordinating activities with Navy and other agencies related to UAP issues right up until his departure and resignation from OSD. Frankly, it might well be to Lue's benefit and that of TTSA and the History Channel to have a pissing match about this with DoD/OSD but personally I'd hate to see that. I'm glad that does not seem to have occurred to Lue yet but it may become unavoidable if there is not some clarification since his integrity is publicly being called into question. I also want to point out that Lue insists that he was NOT detailed to DIA, another falsehood according to Lue. I know your office and its credo very well and fully understand that you and your colleagues are absolutely committed to being as transparent as possible. There is not the least question in my mind regarding your integrity or that of your colleagues in OSD Public Affairs based on serving in OSD during 2 Administrations. However, you have clearly have not been given a full or complete picture on this issue. I hope this information proves useful. There is much more than this sample. Lue has a lot of friends on the inside who I believe will continue to push out more unclassified information on his behalf if this becomes a pissing match. Indeed one of them will soon be appearing on the History Channel show talking about their work with Lue on these matters AFTER the time period you seem to believe he was no longer involved with AATIP (although that individuals identify is protected). I hope this information proves useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if! can be of further assistance. Lue cherishes his relationship with DoD and does not want to escalate this but as you can imagine after the intercept story by Kloor pressure is building on him to respond. In my view it is probably best for you to continue this discussion directly with Lue going forward; it is not really my affair, but I did want to give you a head's up as I can see where this may be heading and it seems to me to be preferable to avert a public clash over this if possible. Sincerely, —Christopher Mellon PS: Last week I appeared on GMA, Fox, Inside Edition etc. Below is a sample. I imagine I may be asked to comment publicly on this issue soon myself. If so, obviously I will have no choice but to set the record straight. Lue was clearly continuing to work the UAP issue at a high level right up until the end. Here is where I am coming from on the larger UAP issue if interested: Caution-https://www.foxnews.com/science/christopher-mellon-official-ufo-sightings-real < Caution- https://www.foxnews.com/science/christopher-mellon-official-ufo-sightings-real > 4 5 (b)(6) From: Reid, Garry P SES OSD OUSD INTEL (US) Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 3:40 PM To: (b)(6) i r (b)(6) Cc: Subject: Rh: Non-DoU Source) New York Post questions re: AATIP Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged The only question I see for me is about the AFOSI investigation. There was no investigation. AFOSI conducted an inquiry and determined there was not sufficient information to warrant a CI or Criminal Investigation against Mr Elizondo. From (b)(6) Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 2:54 PM To: Reid, Garry P SES OSD OUSD INTEL (US) -(b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP Mr. Reid, Based on Mr. Tipton's response (attached), I'm sending this New York Post request to your office. Wr i Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon 1 From: 13)(6) Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 9:29 AM b)(6) To: Ti ston Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL USA Cc b)(6) Cummin s Matthew C Matt) SES OSD OUSD (b)(6) -(b)(6) INTEL (USA) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP S r, The reporter asked for a response by the end of this week. Wr, (b)(6) Office of the Secretary of Defense (b)(6) Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon, (b)(6) (b)(6) NIPR SIPR: (b)(6) www defense.gov (b)(6) From: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) Sent: Tuesday, April 30 2019 8:27 AM To b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD (b)(6) INTEL (USAtb)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source New York Post questions re: AATIP (b)(6) We'll take a look. Is there a time urgency? Thanks Neill From: " 6) 4(b)(6) Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:31 PM To: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) 4b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP Mr. Tipton, Seeking your help with this media query from the New York Post. Attached are the latest talking points I could find, but they don't address his questions regarding Luis Elizondo. V/r, (b)(6) (b)(6) Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon, (b)(6) )(6) Li (b)(6) (b)(6) NIPR (b)(6) SIPR: 2 www.defense.gov jb)(6) From: Steven Greenstreet Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:17 PM To:r6) (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. (b)(6) thanks for taking these questions. A response sometime this week would be peat. Did AATIP study unidentified flying objects (UFOs)? Did Luis Elizondo work in the AATIP program? Was Luis Elizondo the head of the AATIP program (in a leadership role)? How long was Luis Elizondo employed by DoD/DIA/Pentagon/Etc? Were the military UFO videos included in this NYTimes article OFFICIALLY released by the DoD or were they "leaked"? Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html < Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html > What is the DoD's official stance on UFOs? Thanks! Steven Greenstreet STEVEN GREENSTREET Senior Manager. Video Production and Series Development (b)(6) —(b)(6) (b)(6) < caution-ma ilto (b)(6) nypost.com < Caution-http://nypost.com > 3 P)(6) From: Sarah Scoles <[email protected]> Sent: Monday September 9 2019 7:06 PM (b)(6) To: (USA) Cc: (b)(6) (USA) Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] press request for book with an AATIP chapter All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hi I hope your week is starting out well. I'm just checking back in on this. My deadline for returning the second draft is Friday. I understand you won't be able to answer all the questions (ever or before the deadline), but whatever you are able to respond to, I would greatly appreciate in the service of having the most accurate account possible. Thank you, Sarah On Thu Sen 5 2019 at 10:33 AM Sarah Scoles wrote: Hi I hope you're doing well. I just got the edits back from the publisher and would like to incorporate whatever answers you're able to provide when I turn the draft back around to her. Do you happen to know when answers might be possible? Thanks in advance, Sarah On Thu, Au 8 2019 at 4:55 PM Sarah Scoles wrote: Thank you for the update! I had to turn a draft of the book in, but there will be plenty of time during the editing process to incmporate any answers you're able to provide. Best, Sarah On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:35 PM SA) < Ca utio n- mailto > > wrote: Hi Sarah, Sorry for the delay, we're still working on these. One of the key people who needs to assist with answers is on vacation, and won't return until late next week. Regards, (b)(6) From: Sarah Scoles Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 6:03 PM (b)(6) b)(6) To: < Caution- mailto b)(6) Cc: r)(6) (USA) 4b)(6) Caution- maiI to 1(b)(6) F> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] press request for book with an AATIP chapter All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. (bX6) (bX6) Hi and I'm just checking back in on this. Thanks for the help. Sarah b)(6) On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 1:13 PM Sarah Scoles )(6) X6) wrote: 2 Thank you again for agreeing to take questions. Since books are on paper forever, and there's been so much contradictory information in the media about AATIP, I'm really just hoping to lay out a current, evidence- based version of the program, to the extent that information is permitted to be public. My questions are below. There are quite a few of them, and for that I apologize, but, like I said, I'd like to be as definitive and correct as is publicly possible. I understand that some questions might not have answers you're at liberty to give, but I appreciate whatever you're able to say. If any of them don't make sense, just let me know here or at and I can try to clarify. My deadline is 8/1. Best, Sarah 1. Can you explain how AAUP relates to AAWSAP? had said it was another name for the same program, but others in the media have claimed AATIP was the UAP-research portion of the larger, more broad AAWSAP, so I'm just hoping to make the distinction or lack thereof clear. 2. What was the program's classification level? had earlier said that everything they'd found to date had been unclassified.) 3. Around the same time that AATIP began, Bigelow started a company called Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, a subsidiary of Bigelow Aerospace. Was BAASS a subcontractor for AATIP? 4. Also during the beginning of AATIP, BAASS worked with an organization called MUFON—the Mutual UFO Network—to investigate civilian reports of UFOs. It was called the Star Team Investigators Project. How much, if any, of the AATIP funding went to this project? 5. What documentation did the AATIP program produce? 6. The NYT claims that there is a 2009 Pentagon briefing summary on AATIP. had not been able to find such a document previously. Has that changed? 7. Previously, you stated that AATIP "did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena." told me, in terms of AATIP's mission, that it existed "to investigate foreign advance aerospace weapon threats from the present out to the next 40 years and build the infrastructure to house a center of expertise on advanced aerospace technologies. The potential national security threat posed by unconventional or leap aerospace vehicles was a specific area of interest." She also said "the purpose of the program was to assess far-term foreign advanced aerospace threats the United States," including 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. Does "unidentified aerial phenomena" fit under the mandate as she described it—specifically, does this term refer to foreign unidentified aerial phenomena? 3 8. Within AATIP investigations, did evidence exist of aircraft that were not associated with other nations or US military projects? 9. Was AATIP a UFO investigation program? 10.Elizondo claims that the program did not end in 2012, although its funding did. I have found no evidence to support that. Does evidence exist to support that claim? 11.Elizondo claims he has a successor who is running AATIP. Is that claim true? If so, who is the successor? 12. previously confirmed that Luis Elizondo worked for the DoD but not that he worked for AATIP. You've said previously that he "had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI, up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017." Can you confirm that? 13.If he had no responsibilities related to AATIP during his time at OUSDI, why did the Pentagon not address that when Elizondo initially claimed to be director of the program? 14.When I filed a FOIA request for the resignation letter Elizondo allegedly submitted to James Mattis, a "no records" response came back. Does your office have any indication this letter (as shown here,Caution-Caution-https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkAir78XcAA1SJs.jpg < Caution- https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkAir78XcAAlSJs.jpg> < Caution-Caution- https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkAir78XcAA1SJs.jpg < Caution- https://pbs.twimg.com/mediaJDkAir78XcAAlSJs.jpg> > ) was submitted officially? 15.Previously, the Pentagon said the name of the program was the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program, but more recently, it said the second A stood for "Aerospace." Can you explain this change? 16.In terms of the DD Form 1910 and the DOPSR process 1. I had a pretty extensive back-and-forth with about how the process would have needed to progress for the videos to have been considered "released," so I don't want to make you go into that. Can I just confirm that the Pentagon stands by its statement that it did NOT release the two videos that appear in the New York Times story of December 2017? 2. You also spoke to me previously about the ins and outs of the 1910 that became public, its validity, etc. So I won't re-ask about that. However, it is not clear to me that there is a link between the video names on that form ("GoFast," "Gimbal," and "FLIR") and the videos shown here: Caution-Caution-https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal < Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal > <Caution-Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal < Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal > > , Caution-Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage < Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage > < Caution-Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage < Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage > > , Caution-Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-nimitz-flirl-video < Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-nimitz-flir 1 -video > < Caution-Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-nimitz-flirl-video < Caution- https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-nimitz-flir 1 -video > > . Anyone can re-title something to match a title on a form! So I was wondering: Are the three videos that have 4 become public the same three referred to on this Form DD 1910? Caution-Caution- https ://www. theblackvault.com/casefiles/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/redacted-Clearance- Request_1556576605509_85063552_ver1.0-1 jpg < Caution- https ://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/redacted-C learance- Request_1556576605509_85063552_ver1.0-1 .jpg > < Caution-Caution- https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/redacted-Clearance- Request_1556576605509_85063552_ver1.0-1 jpg < Caution- https ://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/wp- c ontent/uploads/2019/02/reda cted-Clearance- Request_1556576605509_85063552_ver1.0- 1.jpg > > 17.Were those videos analyzed as part of AATIP? 18.What, if any, physical objects did Bigelow's company investigate as part of AATIP? 19.What, if any, physiological studies did Bigelow's company do as part of AATIP? 20. Last year, the DIA released a list of 38 documents that AATIP produced (Caution-Caution- https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-advanced-aviation-threat-identification- program-aatip-dird-report-research/ < Caution-https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the- advanced-aviation-threat-identification-program-aatip-dird-report-research/ > < Caution-Caution- https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-advanced-aviation-threat-identification- program-aatip-dird-report-research/ < Caution-https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the- advanced-aviation-threat-identification-program-aatip-dird-report-research/ > >). How much of the AAUP funding went toward production of these reports? 21.Can you explain how these documents, in general, fit with the program's mandate as described above? On Thu Jul 18 2019 at 8:54 < Caution- mat > < Caution-Caution- (b)(6) mailto < Caution-mailto > >> wrote: Sarah, You can send your questions, we will answer what we can. Sincerely, (b)(6) I i I 5 Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon < Caution-mailto > < Caution- Caution-mailto b") < Caution-mailto > > SIPR: P(6) l< Caution- mailto b)(6) > < Caution-Caution- (b)(6) mailto < Caution-mailto >> Caution-Caution-www.defense.gov < Caution-http://Caution-Caution-www.defense.gov > <Caution-Caution- http://www.defense.gov < Caution-http://www.defense.gov> > b)(6) From: Sarah Scoles ,r 6) Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:26 PM b)(6) To:03") < Caution- mailto (13)(6) > < Caution-Caution- I mailto-b") < Caution-mailto > >> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] press request for book with an AATIP chapter All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hi I hope you're doing well. We communicated a few months ago when I was checking the authenticity of a copy of a form DD 1910. I mentioned then that I have been keeping up with AATIP developments because they'll be included in a book I'm working on. I didn't want to keep bothering you with every individual 6 request, so I thought I'd wait until it was almost time to turn the draft in to make sure my information is the most complete and up-to-date possible. The draft is due 8/1, so I wanted to get in touch to see if you'd be willing to field some questions. I know you may not be able to answer all of them, but I'd like to do my due diligence and make sure my ducks are in the straightest row possible. I'm sure this is a program/topic that takes up more of your time than you'd prefer, and I apologize for that. But I appreciate the Pentagon's official statements, positions, and insights and their contribution to the accuracy of reporting. (This, for background, is the story I initially wrote, Caution-Caution-Caution- https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/ < Caution- https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/ > < Caution-Caution- https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/ < Caution- https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/ > > < Caution-Caution- Caution-https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/ < Caution- https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/ > < Caution-Caution- https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/ < Caution- https://www.wircd.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/ > > >, for which I worked with nd which goes into the DOPSR details and the uncertainties about the media's portraya o t e program and the videos that have been associated with it.) Thanks for considering it. Sarah 7 b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 2:32 PM To: Ryan Abravanel (b)(6) Cc: Subject: :Non-Do ource Suestions - CBS News b)(6) Signed By: Ryan, Thanks for sending. Looking into all of these. 1-11 From: Ryan Abravanel Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:38 PM To. OW) (USA) Vshl b)(6) Cc. X6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Questions - CBS News All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. r x6) Hi Please let me know if you can answer these questions. Thank you, 1)Is this FLIR tape uploaded in Feb. 2007 property of the Department of Defense? Caution-https //web.a rchive .o rg/web/20070209104330/Caution-http : //wvvw.vi sion- unlimited. de/extern/f4 .napg < Caution-https: //web.a rchive .o rg/web/20070209104330/Caution- http://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/f4.mpg > 2)If the FLIR tape is DoD property, was this leak and theft investigated? 3)Did Luis Elizondo interact with AATIP under official duties of his job? 1 4)How did Elizondo's job relate to AATIP? 5)Who was the director of AATIP? On TTSA's new page which is raising up to $30 million from the public, Elizondo's listed as the "program element director" for AATIP. 6)In the 2009 Senator Reid letter, is Dr. Kit Green and Colm Kelleher the two other blacked out names under the AATIP contractors next to Hal Puthoff? If not, who are these contractors? FOIA released documents- Caution-https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/6-14-2019-6-00-11- AM.png < Caution-https://wvvvv.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/6-14-2019-6- 00-11-AM.png > 2 [b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Monday Auoust 19 2019 11-34 AM b)(6) (b)(6) To: (b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) Cc: b)(6) Subject: RE:I.Non-UoU Source.' RE: Freedom of Information Act, 18-1-0b44, Final Ilesponse Thanks all. I agree with having PA answer these questions — as you know the drill — we don't answer questions under the FOIA and we don't interpret what was sent either. (b)(6) If we pass to you, will you answer the requester or would you have us to ask the requester to direct his questions to the Public Affairs Office? (b)(6) Comments: https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=card&sp=125562 (b)(6) From: Serf Monday August 19 2019 10.03 AM b)(6) To: USA) (b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: RE: Non-DoD Source.' RE: Freedom ot Information Act, 184-0644, Final Response (b)(6) (b)(6) Thanks for the quick response. I have informe f Mr. Greenwald's email and will let her decide on how we are going to go forward. I figured if it was not in t e socuments then it probably never happened. R, (b)(6) 1 From: (b)(6) Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:58 AM To. b)(6) (b)(6) (USA) .(b)(6) b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Freedom of Information Act, 18-F-0644, Final Response Our instructions are to not respond and forward requests to Public Affairs The answer to his question is no; Navy did not respond. Had they responded, it would have been part of the case file/responsive records. This is why Mr. Elizondo was told in the email that the information owner needed to verify it was OK to release once the metadata was removed. As we've said before, that condition was never met. Defer tcl ion the rest. Feedback: https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=card&sp=139133&s=110&dep=*DoD From: (b)(6) Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:45 AM To (b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Freedom of Information Act, 18-F-0644, Final Response (b)(6) Can you answer Mr. Greenwald's question below about the email? I did not see such an email in our records, but that does not mean it does not exist. Thanks, I 2 (b)(6) From 6) Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:25 AM To b)(6) •(b)(b) b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) b)(6) b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Free i om of Information Act, 18-F-0644, Final Response All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Thank you all for this FOIA release. I have a short question regarding this, in hopes to get a response either from the FOIA office, or PA, which I also cc'd. Although I have other questions in to the public affairs office, I am hoping in regards to this specific FOIA release, I can possibly get a short quote that I can use for a story publishing this Wednesday. It is in regards to page 1, or the most chronologically recent email in the pdf release. In short, DOPSR (b)(6) stated if the OCA (the Navy) were to submit in writing, that the videos would be considered "Unclassified" if the metadata was removed, then Mr. Luis Elizondo could move forward with releasing them to the public, instead of the limitations he noted on the DD Form 1910. Can I ask — was there ever an email received from the Navy (or any other agency/personnel) authorizing the videos to be released to the public? I do note I have previous statements from OSD regarding the videos, and the fact that they were never to be released to the public. I'd like to reinforce (or correct, if need be) those statements, given the release of this new material. Thank you for any response you can give. I do appreciate your response. The story I am currently writing does public Wednesday morning, so even a short addressing of the above would be phenomenal. 3 r )(6) (b)(6) From: Sent Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:20 PM To: Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US) Cc: (b)(6) b)(6) Subject: RE: (U/A14*Q.),(U) ATTN: Russo - DOPSR Request-Part 3 Attachments: Elizondo DOPSR Request 20170809.pdf CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED//FGA-Okr4C441.44641444— Lue, If the Service-level OCA verifies to me (simple one-sentence email is fine) that removing the metadata from the video! makes them UNCLASSIFIED, please feel free to move forward with release. Videos referenced: GoFast.wmv FLIRl.mp4 Ginble Vid.wmv Thanks, ,b)(6) (b)(6) Defense Office of Prepublication & Security Review (b)(6) Sincerely, John Greenewald, Jr. Owner/Founder The Black Vault Caution-http://www.theblackyault.com (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) 4 Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 5:41 AM To: (b)(6) j(b)(6) CC: b)(6) t)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Freedom of Information Act, 18-F-0644, Final Response Good morning Mr. Greenewald, The final response for your case (18-F-0644) was sent by mail last week. I have attached a copy for your convenience. r, (b)(6) FOIA Action Officer OSD/JS FOIA Requester Service Center Executive Services Directorate (b)(6) Let us know how we are doing: Caution-https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=card&sp=125562&s=110 < Caution- https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=card&sp=125562&s=110> Original Message From: b)(6) < Caution-mailto (b)(6) > (b)(6) < Caution- mailtdb" ) >> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 8:21 PM To IMP < Caution- ma ilto:OX6) > Cc: (b)(6) < Caution- mailto:; (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Freedom of Information Act, 18-F-0644, Interim Response All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hello, Can I please get a status for this request? Thank you! Sincerely, John Greenewald, Jr. Owner/Founder The Black Vault 5 Caution-Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) (b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 11:14 AM To: (b)(6) < Ca ut ion-m a i Ito (b)(6) CC: (b)(6) Caution- mai to:.(b)(6) Subject: Freedom of Information Act, 18-F-0644, Interim Response Good afternoon, Please see the attached for the Interim Response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Thank you. (b)(6) (b)(6) Let us know how we are doing: Caution-Caution-https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=card&sp=12.5562&s=110 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 8:59 AM py6) To: (USA) (b)(6) fb)(6) Cc: 4 ( )(0) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - was OCA (b)(6) Signed By: Greetings et al, Likewise, DOPSR has no record of the Navy providing their approval for unrestricted release. The conditions were for (b)(6) to share with cleared contractors only and await for NAVY to approve for public release. NOTE: The investigation by AFOSI determined the videos were not classified. However, that in itself does not automatically approve the material for public release. (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) How am I doing? Let me know at https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=card&5p=139133845=11084dep=*DoD (b)(6) From: Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:58 AM (b)(6) To (b)(6) (USA) <0)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) 1 Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA As mentioned earlier... I am trying to come up with answers for next set of questions. Question 1 (below) in particular is still unknown: 1) Did the Navy respond to DOPSR's request to approve a "unrestricted" release authority to (3)(6) in regards to these three videos? If so, does that email grant an unrestricted, PUBLIC, release for these videos? I've now spoken to the Naval Air Systems Command FOIA Office as well as the F/A-18 Program manager... the 2 offices that get involved in response to any request for release of the UAP videos. Neither one has any record of any response to I DOPSR) in 2017... as referred to in the copy of the Russo note to (also below). In fact, the FOIA office said no requests for release were received by them in 2017. Do you (or anyone else in DoD) have any record of a Navy response to the issue in 2017? Thanks, OTMF From Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 3:06 PM To: 4(b)(6) cc:00) Subject: [Non-DOD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA Dear (b)(6) I hope you recall our pleasant conversation a couple months ago. I appreciated your time on the phone. As a reminder, I work as a television producer and writer in Los Angeles, and have reported quite a bit on the claims of "To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science", along with the U.S. Navy videos they released claiming they are UF0s/UAPs etc. There is much controversy about what they label the FLIR1, Gimble and GoFast videos. In short, it has been determined that (b)(6) requested their release via a DD Form 1910, but only for USG use only, and not for pub ication. Now, through a recent FOIA release, a string of emails show (3)(6) Communication with DOPSR. What I am seeking comment on, is the most chronologically recent email in the chain. I put a screen shot below for reference. (b)(6) (GS-15, civilian) worded the DD Form 1910 request for USG use only and the videos were not to be published in any form to the public. However, through email, (b)(6) said to broaden the request for usage to 2 "unrestricted." Please look at DOPSR's10)(6) message below, in which he asked for the OCA (in this case, the Navy) to offer up their stance that if metadata was removed, the videos would be unclassified. If they did, unrestricted access would be granted by DOPSR. So, it relied on the Navy. It appears by this FOIA request, that the Navy never communicated any verification. If they did, it was not released in this FOIA response. So, instead of operating off the assumption, I am seeking comment to the below questions, if possible. This is for a story this week, so I would appreciate any response you could give me as time permits. (b)(6) 1) Did the Navy respond to DOPSR's request to approve a "unrestricted" release authority to in regards to these three videos? If so, does that email grant an unrestricted, PUBLIC, release for these videos? 2) Imp described the videos on the DD Form 1910 as "UAV, Balloons and other UAS." In addition (b)(6) (b)(6) emails describe the videos in generality, as "balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc). Does the Navy agree these are the proper identifiers to describe the referenced Flir1, Gimble and Go Fast videos? 3) (b)(6) and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science describe these three videos as UFOs or UAPs, and not with the same description as (b)(6) on official paperwork. Can the Navy comment on the claims made by USA, that these videos represented as UF0s/UAPs by them, and the fact that they were described in a much different way on official documents? 4) I have a statement from OSD regarding the videos (which I will also put below for reference). I'd like to ask, since the Navy was the OCA for them, if you could comment as well. In question form, according to the U.S. Navy, were the videos labeled as FLIR1, Gimble and GoFast ever released to the public, or was the approval only for internal use? 5) If the answer to #4 is that the videos were not meant for public release, can you tell me the security classification of the videos at the time they were requested, and the security classification as it stands right now, if it has changed. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. As I mentioned, time is of the essence, so anything you can provide me would be greatly appreciated. Reference Email from (b)(6) . . 3 (b)(6) From: (b)(6) Sent Thursday, Auaust 24, 2017 3:20 PM To: 1(b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject RE. (1.1//1Q‘kiii).(U) ATTN: (b)(6) DOPSR equest- art 3 Attachments: (b)(6) DOPSR Request 20170809.pdf CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED/ 44-44.644141.1i— (b)(6) 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: GoFast.wmv FLIRl.mp4 Ginble Vid.wmv Thanks, (b)(6) (b)(6) Defense Office of Prepublication & Security Review Pentagon Room 2A534 (b)(6) CUkSSIFICAT1ON: UNCLASSIFIEDHFOR-AffiEfik—E15E-efttol —Original Message--- From: (b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:39 AM To: (b)(6) Subject: RE: (U) ATTN y(b)(6) - DOPSR Request-Part 3 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 donut! Thanks againl Pentagon Statement about video release: RE: RE: Media Enquiry To Ii Cc @ You replied to this message on 6/3/2019 8:13 AM. Hi The videos were never officially released to the general public by DoD and should still be withheld. Re•ards Ir• - en agon po esperson Defense Public Affairs Operations DOD website: https://www.defense.gov/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/deptofdefense Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense Linkedln: https://wwvv.linkedin.com/companv/united-states-department-of-defense Sincerely, • (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://www.thebiackvault.com 5 (b)(6) From: (b)(6) (b)(6) Sent: Saturday September 7 2019 7:44 AM To: b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: b)(6) b)(6) . Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for information All, Looks good to me as well. Vh-, (b)(6) From Date: Friday. Sep 06. 2019. 6:02 1'M Tolib)(6) t,11,111, (b)(6 (USA) (b)(6) Cc.(b)(6) WASB TNG b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) Subject: Kb. [Non-DollSource] equest for information I personally don't see any problems with the proposed statement. were out of the office today, but I believe both are back early next week. '11:110-1 • From( b)(6) Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 6:55 AM b)(6) To:(b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) 1 (b)(6) 1(b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for information (b)(6) This response seems to be on point from DOPSR's perspective. (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) How am I doing? Let me know at https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=card&5p=1391338ts=110&dep=*DoD (b)(6) b)(6) From: — 1 (USA) < Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 6:24 PM To: b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) - (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Request for information So, my proposed response to him is going to be: (b)(5) 2 I Side note to all — USAF has taken over the OUSD(I) account here from Hence, unless you get a query spec!tic to some ing (b)(6) said, please take him off your distro on this matter and replace with . I will continue to assist Uriah as I did for b)(61 by leading the coordination of responses on li/AATIP. Regards, (b)(6) From: Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 4:21 PM To: 1(b)(6) (USA) < Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Request for information All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. asked me to contact you. He alleges that you have distributed a document that claims the Tic Tac video (there is more than one) is faked. I would appreciate any information you can send me. Thank You Jack Sarfatti (PhD theoretical physicist) Caution-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR52W5d8qY8&feature=share < Caution- https://vvvvvv.youtube.com/watch?v=yR52W5d8qY8&feature=share > 3 JACK SA Sent from iCloud Begin forwarded message: From: JACK SARFATT (b)(6) Date:05'09/2019 b)( To: Cc: Elie Davis b)(6) ,Sharon 11 Weinber!aerr") ,Nick Pope tb)(6) ,Bunafato Kim h (6) trenike Larry b)(6) >,levit creon (b)(6) ,Alexander John b)(6) ,Teorge Knapp (b)(6) George Filer (b)(6) David Kaiser (b)(6) b)(6) Don Rich" b)(6) j _ Gary Bekku ni (b)(6) ,Ronald Pandolfi (b)(6) i. .it Green (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Benko Ralph ,Jim Angleton (b (6) mer John G." Vanser Keith r 6) ,Kevin Knuth f(b)(6) Kevin Day (b)(6) irnes Wi11ian(b)(6) IMillnnj Franc (b)(6) .Robert Addinall (b)(6) linYNVAZ ,art wapier Gary Bek-k-uin (b)(6) Gantner Tony b)(6) Bmie s William (b)(6) .Bruce Maccabeel(b)(6) ,Bruce Comet (b)(6) Mauriziolliatatia 1(b)(6) [Mau1rice 3assinan (b)(6) Paduroiu Sinziana (b)(6) Zelentsov Dinitr41nifred wolf b)(6) Iishlove Je 111 Shimansky Arik (b)( )(6) 6) ( ( b 6 ) ) - , t P w a a ra g d o i e g r m Research Group tb)(6) .Grant Cam 1 er • on 1 ""Mil 1 subject: On (b)(6) [allegation that the Tic Tac video is faked etc. Well, Matthew when you have an alternative explanation to my obvious Popper-falsifiable parsimonious "radical conservative" (John A Wheeler) using only elementary mainstream theoretical physics in the manner taught to me mainly by Hans Bethe at Senior Physics Honors Seminar 1960 Cornell (with Peter Goldreich another student) please show it to us. I note you seem a good experimental physics professor, we theorists have a somewhat different set of values. Of course, independent test of concept is important, but don't ask me to make bricks without straw. We need a massive effort to develop the metamaterials. That requires money and a large number of scientists. Ca ution-https://www.academ ia.ed u/s/8ffc4e4b8b/mathematical-notes-jsarfatti-physics-tic-tac- v2 < Caution-https://www.academia.edu/s/8ffc4e4b8b/mathematical-notes-jsarfatti-physics-tic-tac- v2 > Caution-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR52W5d8qY8&feature=share < Caution- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR52W5d8qY8&feature=share > 5 I hope you now understand that the paper you cited Caution- https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5663 < Caution-https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5663> on metamaterial emulation of warp drive is orthogonal to what I am talking about? Wanser can explain to you if you do not see the distinction. My point is even if Pandolfi is correct about that particular video (although Kevin Day vouches for it) it does not change the fact that my obvious application of Einstein's field equation to metameterials says that such Tic Tac Tech is real. I have complete faith in my equations because they are simple and actually obvious — any good physics undergrad at Cal Tech could come to same conclusion if given HYPOTHETICAL FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS reported by Fravor and Day. The Russians are working on this I am sure. (b)(6) From: Matthew Szydagis Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM To: Jack Sarfatti (b)(6) Subject: Re: Pandolfi's allegation that Tic Tac ain't for real while (b)(6) and I may not see eye to eye on physical explanation, I agree with Jack 100% that there is *something* interesting going on here to look at, based on reliable sources: Caution-https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-briefs-us- senators/index.html < Caution-https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/ufo-sightings-navy- briefs-us-senators/index.html > Caution-https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/04/the-us- navy-confirmed-on-the-record-that-ufos-are.html < Caution- https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/04/the-us-navy- confirmed-on-the-record-that-ufos-are.html > 'Wow, What Is That?' Navy Pilots Report Unexplained Flying Objects ...Caution- https://www.nytimes.com > 2019/05/26 > politics > ufo-sightings-navy-pilots < Caution- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved =2ahUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2FCaution- www.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F05%2F26%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fufo-sightings-navy- pilots.html&usg=A0vVaw3KrahLunxnR09aA7iki80m > 'Fleet of UFOs' Followed US Aircraft, Navy Pilot Says I Live ScienceCaution- https://www.livescience.com 65585-ufo-sightings-us-pilots < Caution- 6 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved =2a hUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjABegQIBhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2FCaution- www.livescience.com%2F65585-ufo-sightings-us- pilots.html&usg=A0vVawOcuiBBGrwNQxX5WIrMAVFB > Navy pilots speak out on UFO sightings - CNN Video - CNN.comCaution-https://www.cnn.com ) videos > 2019/05/29 ) pilots-speak-out-on-ufo-sighti... < Caution- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved =2a hUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjACegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2FCaution- www.cnn.com%2Fvideos%2Fus%2F2019%2F05%2F29%2Fpilots-speak-out-on-ufo-sightings- jeanne-moos-ebof-vpx.cnn&usg=A0vVaw029X2hu6WvHzAdtQjYxMUV > Congress Briefed On Classified UFO Sightings As Threat To Aviator ...Caution- https://www.huffpost.com ) entry ) navy-briefs-congress-ufos_n_5d0baf7... < Caution- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved =2a hUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjADegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2FCaution- www.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fnavy-briefs-congress- ufos_n_5dObaf79e4b06ad4d25cf1be&usg=A0vVawOcT6bAYUZ7yi0vym Rm2thk > Navy pilots report seeing UFOs in US airspace Video - ABC NewsCaution- https://abcnews.go.com > video ) navy-pilots-report-ufos-us-airspace-63331... < Caution- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved =2a hUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjAEegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.co m%2FUS%2Fvideo%2Fnavy-pilots-report-ufos-us-airspace- 63331280&usg=A0vVaw1P2gq6kfLjNppDcsf-eu1i> Republican lawmaker presses Navy on UFO sightings - POLITICOCaution- https://www.politico.com ) 2019/07/30 > navy-mark-walker-ufo-1441105 < Caution- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved =2a hUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjAFegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2FCaution- www.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2019%2F07%2F30%2Fnavy-mark-walker-ufo- 1441105&usg=A0vVaw26jE3LyxKZiYAJaUwu_nH1 > Senators briefed on UFO's as speculation grows surrounding naval ...Caution- https://www.foxnews.com ) politics > u-s-senators-briefed-on-ufos-as-suspici... < Caution- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved =2a hUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjAGegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2FCaution- www.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fu-s-senators-briefed-on-ufos-as-suspicions-grow- surrounding-naval-sightings&usg=A0vVaw1vrk28mXQDDBeKAUnynzFW > UFOs Are Real, But Don't Assume They're Alien Spaceships I SpaceCaution- https://www.space.com > ufos-real-but-not-alien-spaceships < Caution- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved =2a hUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjAHegQIABAB&url=https%3A%2F%2FCaution- www.space.com%2Fufos-real-but-not-alien-spaceships.html&usg=A0vVaw3dNCI4fh3UY-- iGb_S5WXV > UFOs reported by Navy pilots, who tell New York Times they spotted ...Caution- https://www.cbsnews.com > news > navy-pilots-ufo-reports-confirmed-new... < Caution- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved =2a hUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjAlegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2FCaution- www.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fnavy-pilots-ufo-reports-confirmed-new-york-times-military- unidentified-flying-object%2F&usg=A0vVaw1E5wYYVT0E-_OeCjFxwUUc > Senators briefed on UFO sightings by Navy pilots: report - Business ...Caution- https://www.businessinsider.com ) senators-briefed-on-ufo-sightings-by-na... < Caution- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ve d=2ahUKEwjss7CQprrkAhVCIVkKHXBACwIQFjAJegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2FCaution- www.businessinsider.com%2Fsenators-briefed-on-ufo-sightings-by-navy-pilots-report-2019- 6&usg=A0vVaw2592iQnppukWn5P5eAMyTh > 7 Last time I checked, CNN, ABC news, NBC news, the New York Times, and the Huffington Post were not tabloids. (Also, I rebuke the allegations of pseudo-science, especially if directed against me: I am a real scientist who is funded by the Department of Energy to do real work. Furthermore, relativity was once deemed to be "pseudo-science". I believe in Germany detractors of Einstein called it "Jewish physics". Science disparaged today becomes scientific "dogma" tomorrow.) (b)(6) On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:09 PM Jack Sarfatti (b)(6) wrote: The discussion is not premature. Flight of Tic Tac if true, and assume it is, is smoking gun 'table- top on steroids' obvious blatant clear evidence for the reality of low power warp drive. No alternative competent explanation to mine is even possible within known physics. Indeed, the problem is simple once one has the correct organizing idea. I do not think Fravor and Day have lied. If such a document that Ron cites exists then JAG should investigate because the people who wrote it may be working for the Russians. In any case I should be involved in the investigation. Whoever gets this military technology first will have overwhelming strategic advantage. Damn the torpedoes full warp speed ahead! 8 ib)(6) From: Gary S Bekkum (b)(6) Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 5:33 AM To: Jack Sarfattiltb)(6) (b)(6) Subject: Re'(b)(6) allegation that Tic Tac ain't for real 9 I dreamed about this thread before reading it this morning. Curiously there was some contention (in the dream) that discussion of warp drive in the context of the observed phenomena was considered premature, at best, by the interested parties (represented by Ron?). It is implied (in Ron's response) that the observed phenomenon is already known to and understood at the core secret level of the government. The alleged fraud therefore is the presentation of an alternative (incorrect) hypothesis to the public at large. (Of greater concern should be the government's inability to keep the core secrets from detection in the SCIF.) On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:14 PM Jack Sarfatti (b)(6) (b)(6) wrote: Ron Is Commander Fravor a fraud? What about 1(b)(6) I Day? What about (b)(6) ?What about the guy who you worked for in CIA OM) My position is that IF the Tic Tac evidence is real, then I have the unique correct mainstream physics explanation for it. Furthermore, even if the whole Tic Tac story turned out to be some Black Disinformation Influence Operation of Psychological Warfare the joke is on the mysterious Puppet Masters because what I say will work anyway or I am a Monkey's Uncle! b)(6) From: Ronald Pandolfi (b)(6) Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 5:59 PM To: Jack Sarfatti b)(6) b)(6) Subject: Re: UAPs and Multi-Media Travel Problem is Elizondo is a fraud and so is Tic Tac video --just another Techno Scam. Ronald Pandolfi, Ph.D. Director, TACP-Network Kashmir-Robotics, a division of Kashmir World Foundation Caution-www.KashmirWorldFoundation.org < Caution- http://www.kashmirworldfoundation.org/> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:54 PM Jack Sarfatti (bxs) wrote: What's wrong with you people? Any real testing requires huge resources of money and people. Meantime we have a smoking gun — the Tic Tac. 10 Nothing any of you have proposed comes close to explaining the evidence. Tic Tac is a fact demanding explanation. I have given the only plausible obvious one. We are not proposing a "theory" looking for evidence. The evidence is there. Now if any of you can do a table- top experiment by all means do so. That NOT my job as a theorist. I am like a detective on a homicide case. Tic Tac is a national security threat as Elizondo has said. From: Kevin Knuthlb)(6) - (b)(6) Date: Wednesday, September 4 2019 at 5:42 PM To: Matthew Szydagis b)(6) (b)(6) Caution-https://omny.fm/shows/savage-nation-with-michael-savage/the- climate-of-hate-on-the-americandeft < Caution- https://omny.fm/showsisavage-nation-with-michael-savageithe-climate-of- hate-on-the-american-left > Ta rg PO) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) Gary S Bekkum (b)(6) Caution- (b)(6) (b)(6) ri - 1(b)(6) Subject: Re: UAPs and Multi-Media Travel Matthew, > table-top proof of concept is crucial I totally agree, as would any good physicist (Hans Bethe, included). Theory must be tested... period! It is fallacious to assume that just because there is only one theory on the table, that it is correct. If this technology truly requires low-energy, then one ought to be able to perform a table-top proof-of-concept. At this point, we know so little about these UAP. We cannot even go as far as stating that they all use the same technologies for propulsion. They need to be STUDIED (yes, I am shouting). Furthermore, as one who is interested in understanding and developing the propulsion technologies of any of these objects, it is important to keep all the hypotheses, and proposed mechanisms on the table until they can be shown to be not viable. Focusing on one technique, even if it happens to be the technique that the TicTac UAPs use, would preclude us from DOING BETTER than our guests, which could prove to 11 be the critical perspective. I don't want to just do what they do. I want to do it better. And that requires that we generate multiple hypothetical mechanisms, test them, and improve them. It is time to follow the model of the Wright brothers! Cheers Kevin (b)(6) Editor-in-Chief of Entropy Associate Professor of Physics 1(16) (b)(6) Caution-http://knuthlab.rit.albany.edu < Caution- http://knuthlab.rit.albany.edu/ > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:13 PM Matthew Szydagis (b)(6) (b)(6) wrote: table-top proof of concept is crucial On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:11 PM Jack Sarfatti (b)(6) b)(6) wrote: Hal's paper only has the kinematical half of the whole story. He does not have the essential dynamical half— how to produce what Hal describes with small amounts on on-board energy to explain the observational fact. That's what I have done qualitatively. Hal basically described what a distant observer outside the warp field surrounding the Tic Tac using EM far field signals (radar, visual sighting — Fravor et-al) he does not describe how meta-materials are able to accomplish that in terms of known physics. I have done that. I first broached that explanation at General Pete Worden's invitation to DARPA/NASA 100-year Starship meeting in Orlando Oct 2011. Re: Dark energy, its energy density is way too small to explain Tic Tac. It would have to be amplified. In any case, I have shown IN PRINCIPLE how to do the job using elementary battle-tested mainstream theoretical physics — conceptually it's not at all a difficult problem. From: Matthew Szydagis (b)(6) Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM 12 i (b)(6) To: Hal Puthoff (b)(6) Subject: Re: UAPs and Multi-Media Travel Hal, speaking of your attached paper, that's basically what I meant, it can't be coincidence: since dark energy is everywhere, as -68% of the energy density of the universe, tapping into it would mean "free" energy: no fuel to carry around, no propellent, and dark energy of course violates conversation of energy ironically given its fixed density. So, it is inexhaustible, and completely within the realm of "established" science. I'd have to study your paper again to see if there is a connection numerically. One issue is that dark energy is actually negative pressure not negative density, since we live in a de Sitter not anti de Sitter space (most likely, based on the cosmological data) Jack, another fact to consider though is a so-called "warp drive" is even easier to imagine as working at speeds only < c, but with all the other benefits (like moving the space, instead of moving through it) Caution-https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5663 <Caution- https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5663 > for example (up to 0.25c!) On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:22 PM Hal Puthoff .(b)(6) wrote: Interesting, but I just don't know the answer, or how to address it! As for the earlier discussion of UAPs burrowing into the earth, I have heard anecdotal reports of it, but not much in the way of assessing credibility. If the spacetime metric is being manipulated as in my attached paper, all ordinary matter would look like butter, so not out of the question. Hal Original Message From: Matthew Szydaqis (b)(6) (b)(6) To: Hal Puthoff (b)(6) sent: vved. 6ep 4, 2U19 1:17 pm Subject: Re: UAPs and Multi-Media Travel few THz => 60 micron wavelength (of light). Imagine that there is a new force beyond the Standard Model which has a characteristic "half-life" (or half-length actually!) based on the mass of the force carrier (h-bar*c)/(2*rest-mass energy) = 60 microns if energy — few meV. 13 What particle is hypothesized that has a mass of a few meV?? The chameleon particle for explaining dark energy (note, -not- DM): Caution-https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.04908.pdf < Caution- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.04908.pdf> Quoting from the paper: Astrophysical me surements of the dark energy density imply an energy scale of A = 2.4 meV, corresponding to a length scale of hbar*c/A 80 pm. Surely this is no coincidence? (The power of dimensional analysis!) On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:32 PM Hal Puthoff (b)(6) wrote: I calculated a bit of bandwidth at - 5 THz, not far from what you calculated. A 20/1 reduction in waveguide size for the 60 micron wavelength, excellent micro miniaturization. Hal Sent from my iPhone On Sep 4, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Luis Elizondo (b)(6) b)(6) FvToite: Ha! Precisely.:) By the way congrats on your paper, no easy achievement for sure! Very Best Regards Lue Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android < Caution- https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=ln Product&c=Globalin tern al_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig AndroidUsers&af wl=ym&af sub 1=Internal&af sub2=Global YGrowth&af sub3=EmailSignature > On Tue Sep 3 2019 a t 6:19 PM, Kevin Knuth < Caution-mailtcl >> wrote: Thank you, Luc! Yeah... , multi-media travel would mean something else... like Harry Potter going from Book to Movie! Looking forward to hearing from Hal! Cheers Kevin Kevin H. Knuth, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief of Entropy Associate Professor of Physics 14 (b)(6) Caution-http://knuthlablit.albany.edu < Caution- http://knuthlab.rit.albany.edu/ > On Tue. Sec) 3. 2019 at 9:06 PM Luis Elizondo b)(6) b)(6) jwr te: hi Kevin! its actually • mum-mealum davel" I will defer to Hal for the physics. :) he is WAY more qualified than me to answer your insightful question... Best, Lue Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android < Caution- (b)(6) lobal_Internal_YGro wth_AndroidEmailSig AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af sub1=Internal&af s ub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6.02 PM. Robert Powell (b)(6) (b)(6) > wrote: i Kevin, As Peter noted, there is only one witness who said the Nimitz UAP moved through the water and that witness has not been consistent on the speed so I wouldn't use the Nimitz case for UAP water movement. In the Aguadilla case the object doesn't slow much upon entering the water but there is a detectable drop in speed as it enters the water and there is indication of a very slight splash. So I'm not convinced that we have sufficient information to state if UAPs can move through water without interaction. There is sufficient anecdotal information to conclude that UAP movement through water can be much faster than we can achieve, although some supercavitating torpedoes can reach speeds approaching 200 knots. I would agree with Peter that there isn't enough information on UAP movement through water to draw any conclusions. As for moving through solids, I have not heard of any reports of this. I do think the way UAPs interact through various media could be a clue to their type of propulsion. Robert On 9/3/2019 7:21 PM, Peter Reali wrote: Hi Kevin, the evidence for them going through water in the Nimitz case is very weak, only one witness has said this as far as I know of. The Aguadilla case has a small object going through water without slowing down but showing water disturbances. Other than that the SCU has not done any serious investigations of any other incidents. Other members may know of such incidents but we have not studied it to put it 15 through the test for its veracity. If all we have are narratives of this kind of stuff [going through water] then it is highly suspect and should be avoided until some physical evidence comes up to examine it in detail. The Aguadilla case has heat signatures of it coming and going through the water so that gives some evidence to study. Regards, Peter On Tuesday/9/3/2019 5:53:02 PM, Kevin Knuth wrote: Dear Lue and Hal (ane everyone else), I have a question or two about UAPs and multi-media travel. UAPs have been observed in the Nimitz case (2004) to travel from low- Earth orbit (space) to air to water. You have come to call this feature multi-media travel. First, and most importantly, have UAPs been observed to move through solid Earth? If so, can you point to concrete examples for which there is some kind of publicly available evidence? One surprising fact is that UAPs move through the air without obvious disturbance (sonic booms, heat dumps, etc). As far as I understand (please correct me if wrong), in the Nimitz case, the UAPs were observed to travel as fast as 500 knots through water. On one hand, this would suggest that the UAPs move through the water without disturbing it. However, sonar works by sound waves reflecting off objects, which requires an interaction between the UAP and water. Is anything known about what is going on here? Thank you in advance for your time. Sincerely, Kevin Knuth Kevin H. Knuth, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief of Entropy Associate Professor of Physics (b)(6) Caution-http://knuthlab.rit.albany.edu < Caution- http://knuthlab.rit.albany.edu/ > Sent from iCloud Sent from iCloud 16 b)(6) (b)(6) From: (USA) Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 9:46 PM To: (b)(6) )(6) b)(6) ject: RE: fNon DoD Source Statement - CBS News 1(b)(6) Signed By: Yes No —this must be one of the networks that the latest "UFO guy" (Robert Kiviat) is pitching his show idea to see email I sent you separately, that I wrote before I saw below; this might change my proposed res a s asically an "expose" on false/misleading things Elizondo/TTSA are saying and profiting from. Sean/Duty, this is actually an OUSD(I)/SOLIC (and OGC!) issue that I've been helping with. I'll respond back to him, have him send his questions to and I. Regards, From: Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 8:41 PM To Cc (USA) <4=1 1 Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Statement - CBS News (b)(6) (b)(6) an Is this the UFO guy? 1,7r. (b)(6) Sent from my iPhone On Jul 22 2019 at 6:22 PM, wro e: AT&L Team, Is this you, or OGC? V/r Sean From: Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 5:18 PM 1 b)(6) To' Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Statement - CBS News Hello, I was trying to reach Charles Summers or someone in the Office of Secretary of Defense. I understand that the OSD would like to clarify the situation involving Luis Elizondo, the AATIP project and the three videos released by the NY Times. As you're likely aware, various Pentagon spokespeople have given contradictory statements. Luis Elizondo is employed by TTSA. Last month, they added Christopher Mizer to their Board of Directors and granted him 300,000 shares with a nominal value of $1.5 million. Mr. Mizer has an exceptional history of promoting penny stock scams. He was involved in IFAN which used misrepresentations to inflate the stock to a market valuation of $70 million with zero assets. He worked on IFAN with Thomas Hughes who was previously sentenced to 8-years in federal prison for securities fraud using the same patents as IFAN. The SEC is now investigating TTSA. It is clear that Mr. Elizondo's representations regarding AATIP are being used for stock fraud regardless of the accuracy of his claims. Please let me know who I can contact to send my questions. This investigation is being prepared for CBS News. I appreciate the consideration and assistance. Best, Ryan Abravanel (b)(6) Beverly Hills 2 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 2:07 PM (b)(6) To: Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA), 11 b)(6) I(IJSA1 (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) Subject: RE: (U/Arriidegik) [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP Matt, I do not believe he did exercise any such oversight; he certainly was not asked to do so at any time while he worked for us. And as Mr. Tipton confirmed he also did not give him any such responsibility. As such, I don't want anyone to suggest that Elizondo had anything to do with AATIP. We have not been able to confirm that he ever should have or did have any connection to that program. In the absence of that information we should not suggest that he was connected in any way, despite the unfortunate misunderstanding that resulted in Ms. White "confirming" it. Thanks, (b)(6 From: Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) d(b)(6) Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 1:59 PM 1(b)(6) To: (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (USA) 4b)(6) (b)(6) 1(1)(6) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) Subject: RE: (Ufireeert Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP (b)(5) (b)(5) (b)(6) 1 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 1:45 PM (b)(6) b)(6) To: Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) <(b)(6) •(b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) cc i(b)(6) (b)(6) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) (b)(6) Subject: RE: (UllFettterNon-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP (b)(6) Unfortunately, Ms. White misunderstood our TPs at the time. We never intended to have her "confirm" anything about Elizondo's connection with the AATIP because we never confirmed he had one. Quite the opposite. Nevertheless, she apparently "confirmed" it and no one corrected the record. Thanks, (b)(6) From: (b)(6) b)(6) Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 1:33 PM (b)(6) (b)(6) To: Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) (b)(6) cc (b)(6) 1(b)(6) (b)(6) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) (b)(6) Subject: RE: (UNFEK449+ Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP Mr. Cummings, I'm concerned with previous public DOD statements, particularly this one from POLITICO, Dec. 2017 where DOD confirmed his role in AATIP. I assume this was while he was with DIA. Rather than referring to DIA, I recommend we/DOD acknowledge what role he had with DIA. Can we parse out his responsibilities? I expect expanded coverage if we/DOD say Mr. Elizondo had no duties related to the AATIP while in OUSDI. It will be misunderstood by the media and generate further suspicion. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111 "Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo. But she could not say how long he was in charge of it and declined to ans\.•ver detailed questions about the office or its work, citing concerns about the closely held nature of the program." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html I asked WHS for his employment dates. They provided that "at the time of Mr. Luis Elizondus' resignation, effective 10/4/2017, he was working for OUSD(I). His eOPF has been forwarded to the National Records Center." V/r, (b)(6) 2 Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon (b)(6) (b)(6) www.defense.gov (b)(6) From: Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) < Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 10:22 AM b)(6) b)(6) To b)(6) (b)(6) 1(b(6) (b)(6) (USA) b)(6) Cc (b)(6) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA)Q)(6) Subject: RE: (b)(6) Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP (b)(5) (b)(5) (b)(5) (b)(5) (b)(5) Matthew C. Cummings, DISL (b/(6). (b)(6) 3 r From: o(6) b)(6) Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 10:17 AM (b)(6) (b)(6) To: Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) >; (b)(6) (USA) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) 4(b)(6) Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP (b)(6) Mr. Thank you. (b)(6) Office of the Secretary of Defense (b)(6) Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon. (b)(6) www.detense.gov (b)(6) From: Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) < Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 8:16 AM b)(6) To:(b)(6) (b)(6) (USA) 40(6) (b)(6) Cc: b)(6) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) •(b)(6) Subject: RE: (U//FOU0) [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP (b)(5) 4 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: :b)(6) . (b)(6) Sent: . To: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) (b)(6) Ccr)(6) Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD IN 'ill (1ThAkl(b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP Sir, The reporter asked for a response by the end of this week. V/r, (b)(6) 5 (b)(6) Office of the Secretary of Defense (b)(6) Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon, (b)(6) www.defense.gov <No) From: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) - Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:27 AM To-(b)(6) kl(b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD (b)(6) rl(b)(6) INTEL (USA) (b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP (b)(6) We'll take a look. Is there a time urgency? Thanks Neill From: (3)(6) I <(b)(6) Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:31 PM (b)(6) To: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) < Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP Mr. Tipton, Seeking your help with this media query from the New York Post. Attached are the latest talking points I could find, but they don't address his questions regarding Luis Elizondo. V/r, (b)(6) (b)(6) I I Office of the Secretary of Defense (b)(6) Public Affairs Onerations-PentaRon, (b)(6) www.defense.gov (b)(6) From: Steven Greenstreet < Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:17 PM 6 vi:11 To Subject: [Non-DoD Source] New York Post questions re: AATIP All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. thanks for taking these questions. A response sometime this week would be great. Did AATIP study unidentified flying objects (UFOs)? Did Luis Elizondo work in the AATIP program? Was Luis Elizondo the head of the AATIP program (in a leadership role)? How long was Luis Elizondo employed by DoD/DIA/Pentagon/Etc? Were the military UFO videos included in this NYTimes article OFFICIALLY released by the DoD or were they "leaked"? Caution-https ://www.nytimes.com/2 017/12/16/us/politic s/penta gon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html < Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html > What is the DoD's official stance on UFOs? Thanks! Steven Greenstreet STEVEN GREENSTREET Senior Mana er. Video Production and Series Develo ment Caution-mailto nypost.com < aution- ttp: nypost.com > 7 (b)(6) From: Bingen, Kari A HON (US) Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 5:28 PM To: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD ()USD INTEL (US) tr)(6) Cc: 1(b)(6) (b)(6) Reid, Garry P SES OSD OUSD IN ILL (US) Subject: RE: AATIP (b)(6) (b)(6) Thanks I talked to I'm compiling a note to send to SD FO now. Original Message From: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (US) Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 5:24 PM To: Bingen, Kari A HON (US) 1(b)(6) Cc: Davidson, Eliana V SES OSD OGC (US) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) -(b)(6) eid, Garry P SES OSD OUSD INTEL (US) b)(6) Subject: AATIP Kari, As discussed. The only thing I didn't add was that I am working with USN N2/N6 on determining how we try to understand what these pilots are seeing. That's a subject for a briefing to you that is not baked yet nor have I even tried to schedule yet. My concern is that while there are incidents that merit follow-up and analysis, there are also a lot of secondary issues that I want to avoid completely (e.g. these kinds of statements that were given to the Times reporter). I also added Garry as you'll need his advice on how to handle the claim by Elizondo related to the letter he apparently talked to the reporter about. Thanks Neill In 2009, Sen Harry Reid send a letter to the DepSecDef related to a Senate mandate to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to assess "far-term foreign advanced aerospace threats the United States". That mandate led to the establishment of the Advanced Aerospace Threat and Identification Program (AATIP) to conduct studies and assess advanced lift, propulsion, and other technologies. AATIP was focused on assessing not only advanced technology, but also gathering information and reporting associated with 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). The mark that initially funded AATIP was co-sponsored by Senators Reid and Inouey in the July 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Bill. AATIP was initially executed by DIA, with OUSDI oversight, and ultimately terminated in the 2012 timeframe. The program was ended due to lack of real progress and concerns by some senior leadership about the viability of the program. This program was recently brought to the attention of the New York Times by a former USDI employee who left government suddenly in October of this year. The Times reporter contacted OSD PA today and we understand the Times will run a piece on Sunday on page Al. The note from the Times reporter included the following, "The program has been investigating unidentified aerial phenomena commonly known as UFOs, according to unclassified records obtained by the Times. The program has established the physical existence of extraordinary technological aircraft that look and behave like nothing in the known arsenal of any aviation systems, Defense Department records and interviews show. From craft that move at hyper velocity with no visible signs of propulsion to ones that hover and defy gravity with no visible means of lift, the characteristics of the objects documented by the Pentagon program, officials say, appear to be far beyond the capabilities of any country on earth. In his resignation letter to SecDef Mattis in October, the program's head, Luis Elizondo, at the time director of the National Programs Special Management Staff in the office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, said he was leaving to protest what he characterized as internal opposition and lack of resources for continued research." Per OSD/PA, the reporter has interviewed Senator Reid and she also apparently interviewed the two Navy crews from the alleged intercept she mentioned in her original note. She also has the inflight video tapes from that Navy intercept. She has other third-party sources who will provide "for and against" views on the DOD's need to research extraterrestrial activities. Other outlets (Politico and Washington Post) are apparently chasing this story as well. According to the reporter...this story won't "reflect bad on the Pentagon." When it does run, we may deal with follow- on questions from other outlets. OUSDI's position on this story is that: The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program was ended in the 2012 timeframe. It was determined that there were other, higher priority issues that merited funding and it was in the best interest of the DoD to make a change. The DoD takes seriously all threats and potential threats to our people, our assets, and our mission and takes action whenever credible information is developed. Neill Tipton Acting DDI/TCSP 7 F3X6) 2 (b)(6) From: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) Sent: Friday, September 6 2019 8:15 AM (b)(6) f. kb)(6) To: ...,(b)(6) Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) (b)(6) 1(b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) b)(6) Subject: RE: Aerospace America Magazine question on Elizondo (b)(6) Two things - while not specific to the questions asked, you should know that the Department's response to Sen Reid's request to "SAP" the AATIP was to deny that request, as not justified. I do not have a copy of the DepSecDef's memo back to Sen Reid, but have the DIA and USDI recommendations. I can't speak to what specific responsibilities Elizondo had with the national programs office, but I would bias to answer B as a security issue. Thanks Neill Original Message (b)(6) From: [(b)(6) (USA) Sent: Thursday, September 5 2019 9:4 PM To (b)(6) Tipton Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) b)(6) Cc b)(6) 0)(0 tb)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: Aerospace America Magazine question on Elizondo Gents, The news query below boils down to two questions: 1) During what years did Mr. Luis Elizondo work in OUSDI, and what was his title? 2) Was Mr. Elizondo responsible for clearing individuals for access to SAP programs? To the first question, I have provided the answer we've used previously: "Luis Elizondo worked in OUSD(I) as a supervisory intelligence specialist from Sept. 28, 2008, until he resigned effective Oct. 4, 2017." Note that I avoided the "what was his title?" part, sticking with the name of his position description/personnel billet he was assigned against as a federal civilian instead, per previous guidance from WHS HRD. (b)(5) 1 (b)(5) Regards, (b)(6) *****Full query below ***** From: (b)(6) 4b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:17 PM To. (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Comments for Aerospace America Magazine All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hello, Jan Tegler here. I'm a writer for Aerospace America, the monthly magazine in-print and online of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics - Caution-www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org < Caution- http://www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org > . I'm working on a no-nonsense, just-the-facts story on the issue of unidentified aerial phenomena that has been raised over the last couple years. This stems from the 2017 release of video footage from U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIR (AN/ASQ-228) electro-optical and infrared cameras. Some reporting claims the video clips show UAPs. I'm trying to put together a piece that's as accurate and thoughtful as it can be with as much authoritative input as I can get. I'm speaking to a range of people for the article, from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Raytheon (maker of the Super Hornet ATFLIR) to the Senate and House Intel committees and active/retired Navy Super Hornet pilots to gather whatever pertinent information I can. A small corner of the story has to do with Mr. Luis Elizondo who claims to have arranged for the release of three videos known as "Flir1", "GoFast" and "Gimble". He also claims to have led a Pentagon office known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) which is reported to have existed between 2007 (created by ex-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) and 2012. In June, Pentagon spokesman l0))(6) said the following: "Mr. [Luis] 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." A June 24, 2009 letter from then Senator Harry Reid to William Lynn III, the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the time, requested Special Access Program status for AATIP. An attachment to the letter includes a list - "FY 10 Preliminary Bigoted List of Government Personnel". It lists eleven people whom Senator Reid wished to have special access to AATIP. Luis Elizondo's name is included on the list with the title "Special Agent UDSI, Govt." Some have claimed this document proved Elizondo led or was involved with AATIP. His title with OUSDI however is listed as "Director, National Programs Special Management Staff". Apparently NPMS manages access for SAP programs. So, I have two simple questions which I hope OUSDI can answer. 1)During what years did Mr. Luis Elizondo work in OUSDI, and what was his title? 2)Was Mr. Elizondo responsible for clearing individuals for access to SAP programs? 2 The answers to both questions could help clear up whether Mr. Elizondo actually led the AATIP program or whether he simply cleared individuals for access to the program. I'm happy to provide more detail on the article if you'd like - or connect you with my editors at AIAA, Ben lannotta (b)(6) and Karen Smal [(312(6) My contact information is below. Thanks for your time. Jan Tegler For Aerospace America Magazine Caution-www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org < Caution-http://www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org> (b)(6) < Caution-mailto I 9-(6) > 3 (b)(6) From: Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) Sent: Friday, September 6 2019 8:15 AM b)(6) To: b 6 (b)(6) Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) b)(6) Cc: b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: Aerospace America Magazine question on Elizondo (b)(6) Two things - while not specific to the questions asked, you should know that the Department's response to Sen Reid's request to "SAP" the AATIP was to deny that request, as not justified. I do not have a copy of the DepSecDef's memo back to Sen Reid, but have the DIA and USDI recommendations. I can't speak to what specific responsibilities Elizondo had with the national programs office, but I would bias to answer B as a security issue. Thanks Neill Original Message b)(6) From:(3)(6) (USA) Sent: Thursday, September 5 2019 9:43 PM To: (b)(6) (b)(6) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) (b)(6) ib)(6) >: Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) <‘ Ab)(6) b)(6) cc (b)(6) b)(6) IJRTJI Subject: Aerospace America Magazine question on Elizondo Gents, The news query below boils down to two questions: 1) During what years did Mr. Luis Elizondo work in OUSDI, and what was his title? 2) Was Mr. Elizondo responsible for clearing individuals for access to SAP programs? To the first question, I have provided the answer we've used previously: "Luis Elizondo worked in OUSD(I) as a supervisory intelligence specialist from Sept. 28, 2008, until he resigned effective Oct. 4, 2017." Note that I avoided the "what was his title?" part, sticking with the name of his position description/personnel billet he was assigned against as a federal civilian instead, per previous guidance from WHS HRD. (b)(5) 1 (b)(5) Regards, (b)(6) *****Full query below ***** From: b)(6) i(b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:17 PM (b)(6) To: Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Comments for Aerospace America Magazine All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hello, Jan Tegler here. I'm a writer for Aerospace America, the monthly magazine in-print and online of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics - Caution-www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org < Caution- http://www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org > . I'm working on a no-nonsense, just-the-facts story on the issue of unidentified aerial phenomena that has been raised over the last couple years. This stems from the 2017 release of video footage from U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIR (AN/ASQ-228) electro-optical and infrared cameras. Some reporting claims the video clips show UAPs. I'm trying to put together a piece that's as accurate and thoughtful as it can be with as much authoritative input as I can get. I'm speaking to a range of people for the article, from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Raytheon (maker of the Super Hornet ATFLIR) to the Senate and House Intel committees and active/retired Navy Super Hornet pilots to gather whatever pertinent information I can. A small corner of the story has to do with Mr. Luis Elizondo who claims to have arranged for the release of three videos known as "Flir1", "GoFast" and "Gimble". He also claims to have led a Pentagon office known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) which is reported to have existed between 2007 (created by ex-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) and 2012. In June, Pentagon spokesmanr6) said the following: "Mr. [Luis] 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." A June 24, 2009 letter from then Senator Harry Reid to William Lynn III, the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the time, requested Special Access Program status for AATIP. An attachment to the letter includes a list - "FY 10 Preliminary Bigoted List of Government Personnel". It lists eleven people whom Senator Reid wished to have special access to AATIP. Luis Elizondo's name is included on the list with the title "Special Agent UDSI, Govt." Some have claimed this document proved Elizondo led or was involved with AATIP. His title with OUSDI however is listed as "Director, National Programs Special Management Staff". Apparently NPMS manages access for SAP programs. So, I have two simple questions which I hope OUSDI can answer. 1)During what years did Mr. Luis Elizondo work in OUSDI, and what was his title? 2)Was Mr. Elizondo responsible for clearing individuals for access to SAP programs? 2 The answers to both questions could help clear up whether Mr. Elizondo actually led the AATIP program or whether he simply cleared individuals for access to the program. I'm happy to provide more detail on the article if you'd like - or connect you with my editors at AIAA, Ben lannotta (b)(6) < Ca utio n-m a i Ito (b)(6) > (b)(6) and Karen Small ( ) )(6) < Caution- mailtc(" 6) ). My contact information is below. Thanks for your time. Jan Tegler For Aerospace America Magazine Caution-www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org < Caution-http://www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org> (b)(6) < Caution-mailto (b)(6) 3 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Monday. Auoust I?, ?019 8:5? AM b)(6) b)(6) To: USA (b)(6) Carranza Guillermo R SES (b)(6) OSD OGC (USA), Tioton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA); (b)(6); (b)(3):10 USC § 424 Cc: (b)(6) b)(6) b)(6) 1)(6) b)(6) b)(6) Cumminqs Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA). (b)(6) b)(6); (b)(3):10 USC § 424 Subject: Rh: Author Questions on AA' IP, Elizondo, etc. Attachments: Author S Scoles Questions on AATIP Aug 2019_DOPSR.docx (b)(6) Signed By: (b)(6) See DOPSR input highlighted in yellow - question 16, part 1 & 2. Also, has your office spoken to anyone in the FOIA Office reference any relative releases? There was a FOIA request for DOPSR's case files related to this subject matter. II (b)(5) How am I doing? Let me know at https://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=card&sp=139133&s=110&dep=*DoD 1 Original Message From: (b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 8:51 PM To:1(13)(6) (b)(6) arranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) <[email protected] Tipton, rJeill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) (3)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) lb)(6), (b)(3) 10 USC § 424 (b)(6), (b)(3) 10 USC § 424 (b)(6) )(6) Cc: (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) l(b)(6) b)(6) b)(6) (b)(b) b)(6) Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) b1(61 il(b)(6) b)(6), (b)(3) 10 USC § 424 Subject: Author Questions on AATIP, Elizondo, etc. Team, Ms. Sarah Scoles is writing a book on AATIP. In her own words, she wants to "lay out a current, evidence-based version of the program, to the extent that information is permitted to be public," and to be "as definitive and correct as is publicly possible." Hurray for her; something of a pain for us, to answer all her questions, especially as she keeps asking for (re) confirmation of things she's already been told. But I always applaud journalists' efforts to be as accurate as possible. Please see attached. The vast majority of the questions are specific to AATIP, and hence are DIA's to answer. But her questions cross into other offices' equities, too. Where I knew at least something of an answer, based on all our previous discussions, standing RTQ, and answers to reporters, I put it in, at least as a starting point. Feel free to correct/add/change. Though you should all skim all the questions, to help focus your efforts: DIA. Sorry, you pretty much need to review every question, except 12, 13, 14 and 16. For 17 - 19, I would guess we're going to say something along the lines of, "we don't discuss intelligence matters/we are not going to discuss the contents of the reports"-- unless the reports themselves have been/are releasable under FOIA? OUSD(I). Please focus on questions 6, and 10-14. Navy. Please focus on questions 7 and 16 part 2. DOPSR. Question #16, both parts. (b)(6) Particularly need your help/comment on #13. Regards, (b)(6) 2 ;b)(6) (b)(6) From: (USA) Sent: Thursday. August 8 2019 3:49 PM (b)(6) To: (b)(6) Carranza Gael mo R SES OSD OGC (USA). Tipton Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA)Kb)(6) (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) —(b)(6) Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA); b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: CBS News Questions on AATIP & Elizondo Attachments: CBS News Questions Aug 2019.docx Signed By: (b)(6) Team, To make it a little easier to see and track our answers & changes, I've put the questions and the (proposed) answers (in italics) in a word document. Please make any additional changes/comments to the attached document, using tracked changes. I'm still waiting for input on several questions, principally 3 & 4. Regards, (b)(6) Original Message (b)(6) b)(6) From (USA) Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 3:48 PM (b)(6) To: (b)(6) (b)(6) Tipton Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) (b)(6) t )(6) b)(6) D)(b) c__1(b)(6) j(b)(6) Subject: CBS News Questions on AATIP & Elizondo Importance: High (b)(5) (b)(5) 1 2 3 (b)(6) From: (USA) Sent: To: Subject: (b)(6) Signed By: Thanks for closing the loop (b)(6) ..(b)(6) From Sent: I uesday, May 14, Z019 /:18 AM b)(6) To:(3)(6) (USA) Subject: FW: History Channel Documentary (b)(6) -To fully close the loop....we did not support this production in any capacity. v/r, (b)(6) (b)(6) Chief, Community and Public Outreach Division Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:31 PM To:(b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: Subject: Re: History Channel Documentary Confirmed—we did NOT work on this production in any capacity. FYSA--our standing rule is to NOT provide support to conspiracy-theory!UFO-type productions. V/ r, -N. (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 11:36:21 AM To: (0) Cc<b)(6) Subject: FW: History Channel Documentary (b)(6) (b)(6) - My guess is no, but please check to ensure we didn't provide support to this. Thanks. v/r, b)(6) Chief, Community and Public Outreach Division Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs 1 (b)(6) Oriainal Messaae From tb)(6) (USA) d(b)(6) Sent: Wednesday. May U. 2019 2:29 I'M To ;b)(6) Subject: FVV: History Channel Documentary (b)(6) See below (link and the separate program description). I need to know whether Air Force (or commands/bases/wings) provided any information to the History Channel for this show. ublic Affairs Operations. OSD(PA) (b)(6) **** ****** https://www.history.com/shows/unidentified-inside-americas-ufo-investiqation History Channel's description of this on YouTube: "In December of 2017. The New York Times published a stunning front-page exposé about the Pentagon's mysterious UFO program. the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). Featuring an interview with former military intelligence official and Special Agent In- Charge, Luis Elizondo, who confirmed the existence of the hidden government program, the controversial story was the focus of worldwide attention. Previously run by Elizondo. AATIP was created to research and investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) including numerous videos of reported encounters, three of which %%fere released to a shocked public in 2017. Elizondo resigned after expressing to the government that these UAPs could pose a major threat to our national security and not enough was being done to combat them or address our potential vulnerabilities. Now. as a part of HISTORY's groundbreaking new six-part. one-hour limited series "Unidentified: Inside Americas UFO Investigation Tm," Elizondo is speaking out for the first time with Tom DeLonge, co-founder and President of To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science and Chris Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and Intelligence, to expose a series of startling encounters and embark on fascinating new investigations that will urge the public to ask questions and look for answers. From A+E Originals. DeLonge serves as executive producer.- 2 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 L:43 PM To: (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: I1C)I -- Aerospace America Magazine question on Elizondo (b)(6) Signed By: Categories: UAP AATIP Elizondo UFO (b)(6) Good afternoon (b)(5) Thank you for your patience and please let me know if you need anything else from my office. Wr, (bX6) (bX6) Original Message From: (b)(6) Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 10:34 AM To: (b)(6) (USA) < (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: RE: HOT -- Aerospace America Magazine question on Elizondo (b)(6) Hello, 1 Tracking and thank you for your email. I will share this with our Director (copied above). Thank you! Original Message (b)(6) From: (b)(6) (USA) < Sent- Fric av Senternher 20 7019 10.7 AM (b)(6) To: (b)(6) Subject: HU I --Aerospace America Magazine question on lizondo Importance High 1 (b)(6) it's been a couple w eeks, and I really need to hear from your office on how to respond to question #2 below, as e reporter keeps asking. (" 5) (b)(5) Regards, (b)(6) Original Message From (b)(6) (USA) Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 9:43 PM To: (b)(6) b)(6) b)(6) b)(6) 1(b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: Aerospace America MIa gazine question on Elizondo Gents, The news query below boils down to two questions: 1)During what years did Mr. Luis Elizondo work in OUSDI, and what was his title? 2)Was Mr. Elizondo responsible for clearing individuals for access to SAP programs? To the first question, I have provided the answer we've used previously: "Luis Elizondo worked in OUSD(I) as a supervisory intelligence specialist from Sept. 28, 2008, until he resigned effective Oct. 4, 2017." Note that I avoided the "what was his title?" part, sticking with the name of his position description/personnel billet he was assigned against as a federal civilian instead, per previous guidance from WHS HRD. (bX5) (b)(5) Regards, (b)(6) *****Full query below ***** From: (b)(6) b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:17 PM To: OSD Pentagon PA Mailbox Duty Officer Press Operations (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Comments for Aerospace America Magazine All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. Hello, 2 Jan Tegler here. I'm a writer for Aerospace America, the monthly magazine in-print and online of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics - Caution-www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org < Caution- http://www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org > . I'm working on a no-nonsense, just-the-facts story on the issue of unidentified aerial phenomena that has been raised over the last couple years. This stems from the 2017 release of video footage from U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIR (AN/ASQ-228) electro-optical and infrared cameras. Some reporting claims the video clips show UAPs. I'm trying to put together a piece that's as accurate and thoughtful as it can be with as much authoritative input as I can get. I'm speaking to a range of people for the article, from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Raytheon (maker of the Super Hornet ATFLIR) to the Senate and House Intel committees and active/retired Navy Super Hornet pilots to gather whatever pertinent information I can. A small corner of the story has to do with Mr. Luis Elizondo who claims to have arranged for the release of three videos known as "Flir1", "GoFast" and "Gimble". He also claims to have led a Pentagon office known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) which is reported to have existed between 2007 (created by ex-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) and 2012. In June, Pentagon spokesman ( 3)( 6 ) said the following: "Mr. [Luis] 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." A June 24, 2009 letter from then Senator Harry Reid to William Lynn III, the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the time, requested Special Access Program status for AATIP. An attachment to the letter includes a list - "FY 10 Preliminary Bigoted List of Government Personnel". It lists eleven people whom Senator Reid wished to have special access to AATIP. Luis Elizondo's name is included on the list with the title "Special Agent UDSI, Govt." Some have claimed this document proved Elizondo led or was involved with AATIP. His title with OUSDI however is listed as "Director, National Programs Special Management Staff". Apparently NPMS manages access for SAP programs. So, I have two simple questions which I hope OUSDI can answer. 1)During what years did Mr. Luis Elizondo work in OUSDI, and what was his title? 2)Was Mr. Elizondo responsible for clearing individuals for access to SAP programs? The answers to both questions could help clear up whether Mr. Elizondo actually led the AATIP program or whether he simply cleared individuals for access to the program. I'm happy to provide more detail on the article if you'd like - or connect you with my editors at AIAA, Ben lannotta b)(6) < Ca ution-mailtor6) > _ (b)(6) ) and Karen Small (b)(6) < Caution- mailto (b)(6) My contact information is below. Thanks for your time. (b)(6) For Aerospace America Magazine Caution-www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org < Ca ution-http://www.aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org > (b)(6) < Ca ution-mailto (b)(6) 3 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Thursday. May 2019 12:46 PM (b)(6) To: I (USN; Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) b)(6) Cc: Subject: RE Media Queries on AA HP and DD1910 (b)(6) Signed By: (b)(6) Thanks Get back with you soon. (b)(6) r/ (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) (USA) < (b)(6) Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 12:09 PM To (b)(6) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL U §71(b)(6) b)(6) b)(6) Cc b)(6) Subject: Media Queries on AATIP and DD1910 Importance: High Folks, (b)(6) Bringing everybody together on one email string. My colleague and I work different aspects of these issues. Any media queries about the DOPSR process or DD1910s, I will coordinate. Any media queries about the AATIP program, successors to it, UFOs, or Luis Elizondo will be coordinated by (b)(6) For DOPSR: FYSA, in addition to the queries you're already aware of, we also have a series of questions from NY Post; none of those have to do with DOPSR, though. 1 For Mr. Tipton: We've received several queries about the validity of a specific DD1910 and accompanying questions about the DOPSR process. These queries were a result of the following news articles: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/us-navy-guidelines-reporting-ufos-1375290 https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team-confirms-pentagon-did-release-ufo- videos/1963912703 Also for Mr. Tipton: Do you know whether the AFOSI investigation has been completed? (b)(6) & I need to know, to ensure we don't say anything that would impact an ongoing investigation. (b)(5) NEED A RESPONSE TODAY, PLEASE, as some of the reporters are continuing to write on this. Regards, b)(6) Irs Operations, OSD(PA) (b)(6) 2 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:18 PM To: 1(76) Cc: b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: Questions from (b)(6) Attachments: Swedish Magazine UFO-aktuellt Follow-up RTQ responses 16 September 2019.docx (b)(6) Our answers to your follow-up questions are attached. Regards, (b)(6) r (6) Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements (b)(6) From: (b)(6) Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:49 PM To: 1(b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: RE: Questions from (b)(6) ;b)(6) Received. Working responses and will respond as quick as I can. (b)(6) Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements (b)(6) From: :13)(6) tb)(6) Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 3:53 AM To: (b)(6) 1 Cc: (b)(6) (USA) b)(6) (W(6) (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Questions from (b)(6) Dear (b)(6) Thank you kindly for your reply. I have six follow-up questions that I hope you can answer any and all of. 5)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? 6) Has any of the unidentified objects in the three videos released now been explained by the Navy or any other component in the U.S. Defense Department? 7)Was the new reporting guidelines updated due to pilots fear of ridicule for reporting sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and UFOs? 8) Has the Navy, or any other component, come to the conclusion that some of the unidentified sightings reported is due to an aerial phenomena with technological features not currently known to mankind? 9) In the Navy's effort to study reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, was former DOD/OUSDI employee (b)(6) (b)(6) involved in such effort? 10)What is the definition of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena used by the Navy and the U.S. Defense Department? (b)(6) Sincerely, UFO-Aktuellt. 9 sep. 2019 kl. 22:01 skrev (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) I've attached our answers to the questions you submitted. Standing by if you have further questions. Regards, (b)(6) Captain, U.S. Navy (ret) N2N6 Strategic Engagements (b)(6) From: b)(b) (b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 3:25 PM 2 To.,,o)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Questions from (b)(6) Dear (b)(6) My name is (b)(6) and I am a skeptical writer for the swedish quarterly magazine UFO-aktuellt. I have a question about the recent reportings by several news agencies regarding the UFO phenomenon that involve statements from your office. In a statement from your office to the news agency Politico you explained that; "There have been a number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled ranges and designated air space in recent years. For safety and security concerns, the Navy and the USAF take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. As part of this effort, the Navy is updating and formalizing the process by which reports of any such suspected incursions can be made to the cognizant authorities. A new message to the fleet that will detail the steps for reporting is in draft. In response to requests for information from Congressional members and staff, Navy officials have provided a series of briefings by senior Naval Intelligence officials as well as aviators who reported hazards to aviation safety." News agencies has interpreted this as being in relation to the UFO phenomenon, and that the changes in reporting procedures and the briefings to congressional members are connected with UFOs, or Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP), as it also called within Ufology. I have seen that similar statements, as the one your office gave to Politico, has been made in relations to the unauthorized UAS problem. In a hearing in the Senate on March 8, 2017, General John Hyten stated the following. "Of recent concern have been the unauthorized flights of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) over Navy and Air Force installations. These intrusions represent a growing threat to the safety and security of nuclear weapons and personnel. Both the Navy and Air Force are working to field counter-UAS capabilities that can effectively detect, track, and, if necessary, engage small UAS vehicles." My questions to your office is; 1)Are the updated reporting procedures and congressional briefings being done in relations to the UFO phenomenon or the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) problem? 2) Is the term Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (in relation to either unidentified aircrafts, or in relations to the UFO phenomenon) used by the Navy or any other component in the U.S. Defense Department? 3)Are the Navy involved - or has been involved in the recent decades - in studying the UFO phenomenon? 4) Do you think that the quotes by you was depicted in its right context, as presented in the articles? Sincerely, (b)(6) <Swedish Magazine UFO-aktuellt RTQ 9 September 2019.docx> 3 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: (USA) Sent: Tuesday. May 7, 2019 2:02 PM (b)(6) To: Subject: RE: Questions from Roger Glassel reference DOPSR Form 1910 Signed By: b)(6) 11 Thanks, (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:25 PM To: (b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) Subject: RE: Questions from Roger Glasse' reference DOPSR Form 1910 Attached. r/ (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:21 PM To: (b)(6) Subject: RE: Questions from Roger Glassel reference DOPSR Form 1910 Yes, please, if it's not too much trouble, just so we have it on hand here. Original Message From: (b)(6) Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:20 PM To: (b)(6) (USA) < ( b)(6) Subject: RE: Questions from Roger Glasse' reference DOPSR Form 1910 Do you still want a scanned copy? r/ (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) (USA) < (b)(6) Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:51 AM To: (b)(6) Subject: RE: Questions from (b)(6) reference DOPSR Form 1910 Thanks, (b)(6) Original Message From: b)(6) Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:37 AM To (b)(6) (USA) < (b)(6) Subject: RE: Questions from Roger Glassel reference DOPSR Form 1910 (b)(6) I'm trying to get a copy scanned to send. However, in the interim... I have provided answers to your below questions. (b)(6) r/ Original Message From 030) (USA) J ) Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 10:54 AM To. Subject: RE: Questions from Roger Glassel reference DOPSR Form 1910 (b)(6) The only copy of this DD1910 that I have is the one you sent me, with some of the blocks blacked out (by Roger Glassel, I believe). Can you tell me: (1)The name & title in Blocks 2.a. and 2.c.: Elizondo, Luis D., Director, National Programs Special Management Staff, OUSD(I) (2)The name in Block 4.a. (or is it the same name as 2.a.?): Same as 2a (3)Whether the National Programs team chief you reference below is the same person as in 2.a. or 4.a.: YES (4) Is the Action Officer you refer to below DOPSR's Action Officer or an OUSD(I) Action Officer; if the latter, is it the same person in 2.a. or 4.a.?: The AO is assigned to DOPSR. Or, is the answer to all these questions Luis Elizondo? We've got a couple reporters continuing to dig on the old AATIP program that the videos were part of and Elizondo's duties/responsibilities related to it. No new questions on the DD1910 or DOPSR process. Regards, (b)(6) Original Message From t )(6) Sent: uesday, April 30, 2019 4:00 PM TO (b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) Cc: b)(6) Subject: FW: Questions from Roger Glassel reference DOPSR Form 1910 (b)(6) Greetings I shared this with ESD Leadership, now sending your way for pending discussion. Please scan through the traffic and let's discuss when you get an opportunity. Thanks in advance. r/ (b)(6) 2 (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Original Message From: (b)(6) Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 11:50 AM To: Meyers, Karen F SES WHS ESD (USA) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) Cc 43)(6) (b)(6) Subject: Questions from (b)(6) reference DOPSR Form 1910 (b)(6) Karen FYSA, A question from Mr. Roger Glassel came in today (email string below) reference the attached Form 1910 which apparently was made public by the news agency "Las Vegas Now" approximately a year ago (give or take) - subject matter was Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). An AFOSI investigation prompted from this public release and DOPSR was contacted. Status of the investigation is unknown, nor do we know why Mr. Glassel is now asking questions. Background: This Form 1910 was part of an AFOSI investigation which DOPSR responded to questions about the public release of information by a former OUSD(I) National Programs team chief who was working detainee issues, in-turn, submitted a request to release videos in FOUO format to a government contractor building a database for the purposes of counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). At the time of the initial request, discussions were clear that the requester would maintain positive control of the videos and it was not a public release request, but merely a release to the subject contractor (assuming a cleared contractor). Despite the DOPSR stamp on the Form 1910 (attached), the Action Officer has e-mail traffic to confirm such discussions. Unfortunately, separating email discussions from the actual form could conclude an actual public release to all. The National Programs team Chief abruptly left his Government position. Surprisingly, the information in question was posted on a public domain. Hence, made the news and prompted an AFOSI investigation. To our knowledge, the folks form National Programs and USD(I) were made aware and were part of the investigation. NOTE: Mr. Roger Glassel is in our database as a requester on a FOIA reference DOPSR's review of the UAS videos. I've asked the team NOT to respond back directly. Way-forward: DOPSR will hand this off to PA and advise them (PA) to contact the folks at National Programs and USD(I). Additionally, DOPSR is already engaged in discussions of acquiring new stamps to avoid any reoccurrence of misleading public release statements. One size does not fit all... r/ (b)(6) r Original Message From: Roger Glassel )(6) Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 5:21 AM (b)(6) To: WHS Pentagon ESD Mailbox SECREV Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Questions from (b)(6) (UNCLASSIFIED) Hi Mr. Samuel Gotti, This is not an FOIA request, nor a DOPSR review request. I was in contact with you in regards to the videos allegedly connected with the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). The videos was said they went through the DOPSR process. You redirected me to do an FOIA request to find out if they went through the pre-publication review process. Which I did. This is however not a request for information, but a request for your expertise in looking into the authenticity of a DD 1910 form that is said was used in the request for review of the three AATIP videos. I'll attach the request form (image) in this email. If the attachment did not reach you, please let me know. What strike me as odd is that the 'Result of Review' is added as a stamp in the remark area of the request form itself, and that not all fields are filled in, nor signed. The form was made public by the news agency Las Vegas Now, who are the ones who redacted some of the fields in the form. I hope you can help me in determine if this is legit. Thanks in advance, Sincerely, Roger Glassel 4 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: (USA) Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 10:08 AM (b)(6) To: -(b)(6) Cc: Subject: -ITE7R-EFFairEnquiry :b)(6) Signed By: .1 Hi John, The videos were never officially released to the general public by DoD and should still be withheld. Regards, Pentagon Spokesperson Defense Public Affairs Operations DOD website: https://www.defense.gov/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/deptofdefense Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense Linkedln: https://www.linkedin.com/company/united-states-department-of-defense From: Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 9:39 AM (b)(6) (b)(6) To: Cc 6) (USA) .(b)(6) Subject: LNon-UoD Sourcej Kb: Media Enquiry All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. (b)(6) Dear I hope you had a wonderful weekend. I wanted to circle back on my email below. I saw a story published this weekend, you had issued some statements to The Intercept / Keith Kloor about AATIP and Mr. Elizondo. In regards to my message below, it appears that most of the questions may be answered with the full talking points. Could I just ask — may I have the complete statement talkin oints that were released this past week regarding Mr. Luis Elizondo and AATIP? It is much appreciated. As (b)(6) can attest, I write extensively on these issues, and am very interested in accuracy, vs. much of the sensational stuff I see on television about all this. One outstanding question would be the below (unless your full statement addresses this). Do you have any comment here? 1) With (ID" ) confirming the DD Form 1910 does not approve the three named videos (in relation to this story: Caution-https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team-confirms-pentagon-did- release-ufo-videos/1963912703 < Caution-https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team- confirms-pentagon-did-release-ufo-videos/1963912703 > ) it calls into question the original video published by the NY Times in this story: Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo- harry-reid.html < Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html > and then Mr. Elizondo, who is connected with a corporation called To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, published a total of three videos here: Caution-https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ < Caution- https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/> It was reported the DD Form 1910 was the "authorization" that got these videos out — but we know now by b)(6) statement that is not true. Can you comment about these three videos? Can you confirm that the ree vi eos are the ones connected to the DD Form 1910? Are they, or should they be, classified or just still withheld? Lastly, no doubt, The Intercept's article caused quite a conversation, including a message by one of the original December 2017 journalists who covered the story. I pasted it below. He's insinuating (late on a Sunday night) that a new Pentagon statement is coming. Is there any truth to this and that what was told to The Intercept is going to change? I appreciate any insight you can give me. Thank you! Bryan Bender* BryanDBender • 9h I'd stay tuned for a much more definitive statement from the Pentagon this 01.••," week. The Intercept's assertions and innuendo (it never definitively reported anything) were wrong. And the issue should be settled once and for all. Though with this crowd I won't count on it. Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com < Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com/ > (b)(6) (b)(6) From: (b)(6) <4( b)(6) Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 9:42 PM To: (b)(6) b)(6) Subject: Media Enquiry Dear (b)(6) I hope this email finds you well. I understand you have taken over the portfolio for and I had corresponded with her last year about some stories I worked on, in relation to the AATIP Program." To explain my background, in addition to writing and producing for many television networks (I can get you a full list of credits, if needed), I frequently appear on radio and television speaking about government topics, documents, declassification etc. So, my intent with reaching out to you, is to be as accurate as possible when speaking or writing about these topics. This week, I worked with ())(6) to ensure accuracy on a different story, relating to DD Form 1910s. Without being long winded, as I mentioned, I do frequently do television and radio interviews talking about various topics, AATIP is one of them. Through my contact with (3)(6) I learned that recent media attention to a "leaked" (now confirmed by as legitimate) DD Form 1910 was not what the public was led to believe by a news story that offered an "exc usive. o ed ma be I could reach out to you with some overall questions about the AATIP program since I spoke with last time — but if someone else is more appropriate, let me know. If possible, the below is a bit time sensitive, due to some articles being written now, but also some up-coming television series that I will be working on. My intent with the below, again, is to be as accurate as possible. 1) There has been mass confusion on whether or not the AATIP program dealt with UFOs. Can you confirm (or deny) there was any UFO or "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon" (UAP) aspect to the program? If there was — can you comment on if that was a major part of the AATIP? Minor? 2) There has been some confusion behind the name for AATIP. Originally OSD had said "Advanced AVIATION Threat Identification Program" and DIA said "Advanced AEROSPACE Threat Identification Program." Can you clarify what name is correct, or was it one version at DIA and another at OSD? 3) A man by the name of Mr. Luis Elizondo has been giving lectures and interviews, along with appearing on a new up-coming series for The History Channel called Unidentified. He is being advertised on that network as having run the AATIP program, and has done various media appearances also stating he ran the program. Is there any official statement on his claims? 4) With (3)(6) confirming the DD Form 1910 does not approve the three named videos (in relation to this story: Caution-https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team-confirms-pentagon-did- release-ufo-videos/1963912703 < Caution-https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/exclusive-i-team- confirms-pentagon-did-release-ufo-videos/1963912703 > ) it calls into question the original video published by the NY Times in this story: Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo- harry-reid.html < Caution-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry- reid.html > and then Mr. Elizondo, who is connected with a corporation called To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, published a total of three videos here: Caution-https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ < Caution- https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/> It was resorted the DD Form 1910 was the "authorization" that got these videos out — but we know now by statement that is not true. Can you comment about these three videos? Can you confirm that the three videos are the ones connected to the DD Form 1910? Are they, or should they be, classified or just still withheld? I really appreciate your time in responding. I look forward to your response, as time permits. Sincerely, 3 Owner/Founder The Black Vault Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com < Caution-http://www.theblackvault.com/ > (b)(6) I I (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: onday September 9 2019 12-43 PM I 6) 1(b)(6) To: (b)(6) b)(6) ,b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA); Tipton, Neill r SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA); (b)(6) Subject: RE: Ready for Release: Responses to Query from (b)(6) Attachments: 1(3)(6) ti Responses to uery v4.docx Signed By: b)(6) All, Appreciate the updates received. V4, attached, reflects a couple recommended changes... including the fact that the 3 videos have not been publicly released (through the FOIA process). (b)(6) My intent, then, is to provide these to before COB today. Regards, (b)(6) (b)(6) 1 • :b)(6) From: Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 12:25 PM To: (b)(6) b)(6) (USA) <(b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) _ (b)(6) 1(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) II(b)(6) USA b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) < uillermo.r.carranza.civ mail.mil>• Ti ton Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL USA b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: Ready for Release: Responses to Query from Greenwald (b)(6) I do not have changes. Thank you, (b)(6) I From: (b)(6) Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 11:05 AM To: (b)(6) (USA) <4130) b)(6) b)(6) 1(b)(6) Cc: b)(6) (b)(6) 2 b)(6) (b)(6) 7(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) b)(6) USA) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) USA) (b)(6) (USA) (b)(6) >, (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: RE: Ready for Release: Responses to Query from ib)(6) (b)(6) To: (D" ) )(b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) t(b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) t-(b)(6) (USA) b)(6) Carranza Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) <[email protected] Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) " 6) (b)(6) b)(6) 4(b)(6) 3 (b)(6) Subject: RE: Ready for Release: Responses to Query from Greenwald 03x1 one small recommended edit to Al. b)(6) From: Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 10:36 AM AbX6) To: (b)(6) (b)(6) Imb) I (USA1 •(b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) CC: ( 3)(6) jb)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) 1(b)(6) USA (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) lb)(6) (b)(6) Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL USA (b)(6) 1(b)(6) j(b)(6) Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA) (6) Tipton Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) b)(6) >; (b)(6) _1 Subject: Ready for Release: Responses to Query from (b)(6) All, Unless otherwise directed, I will provide the attached responses to of the Black Vault (sent to you last Thursday for your look) later today so I can close this one out. Thanks! 4 (b)(6) From: Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 10:31 AM t b)(6) (b)(6) (USA)' (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) Cci(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) 'Cummins Matthew C b)(6) b)(6) (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (US/0)' (b)(6) 'Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (LiSilqb)(6) Tipton, Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA)' (b)(6) (b)( (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) b)(6) Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Sourcej Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA All, As referenced earlier (below), I've been working the answers to a set of questions from I from The Black Vault, concerning the 3 UAP videos that are out there and how they may have been released, etc. Based on input from a great many of you, I've drafted a response to each of his questions, as contained in the attachment. Request your review of these proposed answers... and a reply stating either that you are good with them or If you have recommended changes. If you do have proposed revisions, please input them using tracked changes and send them back to me, cc all. I wish I could say that this will put the issue to rest... but I fully expect he (and others) will continue to send in questions. For example, one set of questions that we are working is from Aerospace America Magazine... and a couple of their questions mirror closely'l questions. 5 I appreciate your help/patience/responses as we work each of these requests. Warm Regards, 1:1 (b)(6) From, Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:39 AM To: (b)(6) b)(6) (b)(6) (USA)' (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Carranza, Guillermo R SES OSD OGC (USA' (1;:)(6 Tipton Neill T SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA)(b)(6) ,p)(6) . 77‘ (b)(6) —17(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) (b (b)(6) I (USA) b)(6) )( (b)(6) b)(6) 6' b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Cummings, Matthew C (Matt) SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA) (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA (b)(6) (b)(6) b)(6) and All). Got another query from the guy from Black Vault who has filed a number of FOlAs for UAP info. Below, in a follow-up to your response to him, he has specific questions pertaining to Navy's response(s) to DOPSR. In the info he attached (the Russo response), the Navy POC was omitted... so I have no clue who the dialogue was with. This looks a lot like the queries you (and all) have been working recently. Any guidance/suggestions as to how I should respond to him? Regards, 6 (b)(6) (b)(6) 103)(6) From: Sent: unday, August 18, 201 3:06 PM To: (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Request for comment - Videos release via DD Form 1910 - Navy was OCA Dear (b)(6) I hope you recall our pleasant conversation a couple months ago. I appreciated your time on the phone. As a reminder, I work as a television producer and writer in Los Angeles, and have reported quite a bit on the claims of "To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science", along with the U.S. Navy videos they released claiming they are UF0s/UAPs etc. There is much controversy about what they label the FLIR1, Gimble and GoFast videos. In short, it has been determined that (b)(6) requested their release via a DD Form 1910, but only for USG use only, and not for publication. Now, through a recent FOIA release, a string of emails show 10)(6) communication with DOPSR. What I am seeking comment on, is the most chronologically recent email in the chain. I put a screen shot below for reference. (b)(6) (GS-15, civilian) worded the DD Form 1910 request for USG use only and the videos were not to be published in any form to the public. However, through emai1,(3)(6) said to broaden the request for usage to "unrestricted." Please look at DOPSR'sp3)(6) message •e ow, in which he asked for the OCA (in this case, the Navy) to offer up their stance that if metadata was removed, the videos would be unclassified. If they did, unrestricted access would be granted by DOPSR. So, it relied on the Navy. It appears by this FOIA request, that the Navy never communicated any verification. If they did, it was not released in this FOIA response. So, instead of operating off the assumption, I am seeking comment to the below questions, if possible. This is for a story this week, so I would appreciate any response you could give me as time permits. 1) Did the Navy respond to DOPSR's request to approve a "unrestricted" release authority to IMO) in regards to these three videos? If so, does that email grant an unrestricted, PUBLIC, release for these videos? 2) j(b)(6) described the videos on the DD Form 1910 as "UAV, Balloons and other UAS." In addition, b)(6) emails describe the videos in generality, as "balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc). Does the Navy agree these are the proper identifiers to describe the referenced Flir1, Gimble and GoFast videos? 3) (b)(6) and To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science describe these three videos as UFOs or UAPs, and not with the same description as (b)(6) on official paperwork. Can the Navy comment on the claims made by USA, that these videos represented as UF0s/UAPs by them, and the fact that they were described in a much different way on official documents? 4) I have a statement from OSD regarding the videos (which I will also put below for reference). I'd like to ask, since the Navy was the OCA for them, if you could comment as well. In question form, according to the U.S. Navy, were the videos labeled as FURL Gimble and GoFast ever released to the public, or was the approval only for internal use? 7 5) If the answer to #4 is that the videos were not meant for public release, can you tell me the security classification of the videos at the time they were requested, and the security classification as it stands right now, if it has changed. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. As I mentioned, time is of the essence, so anything you can provide me would be greatly appreciated. Reference Email from (b)(6) . . 8 (b)(6) From: (b)(6) Sent Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:20 PM To: b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) (b)(6) ravymii Subject RE: (UHFOU0) (U) ATTN: Russo - DOPSR Request-Part 3 Attachments: (b)(6) DOPSR Request 20170809.pdf CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED//KIR-Q14444A4,644444.1i— (b)(6) 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: GoFast.wmv FLIRl.mp4 Ginble Vid.wmv Thanks, (b)(6) (b)(6) Defense Office of Prepublication & Security Review Pentagon Room 2A534 (b)(6) CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIEDHFOR-Aff4C4illit- hf5E-ef,te( —Orr inal Message-- From: b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:39 AM To:I(b)(6) Subject: RE: (U) ATTN: (b)(6) DOPSR Request-Part 3 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 donut! Thanks againl Pentagon Statement about video release: @You replied to this message on 6/3/2019 8:13 AM. H 0)(6)N1 The videos were never officially released to the general public by DoD and should still be withheld. Pentagon Spokesperson Defense Public Affairs Operations DOD website: https://www.defense.gov/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense Instagram: https://mvw.instagram.comideptofdefense Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.comicompanyiunited-states-department-of-defense Sincerely, (b)(6) Owner/Founder The Black Vault http://www.thebtackvauit.com (b)(6) (b)(6) 10 (b)(6) (b)(6) From: Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 2:15 PM To: (b)(6) (USA) Subject: TL Card on ATTIP 8t Elizondo Attachments: 20190606 TL ATTIP.docx Signed By: (b)(6) Please take a look at the attached TL card and provide any edits you would like. Its broad, perhaps we can neck it down? Thanks, (b)(6) (b)(6) Office of the Secretary of Defense (b)(6) Public Affairs Operations-Pentagon (b)(6) ww.v.defense.gov