Tuesday, April 7, 2020

BAASS team visited Brazil

An investigation by Marc Cecotti  and Keith Basterfield


Thanks to the great investigative work of Roger Glassel and Curt Collins, we learned recently of more details of Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) financial agreement with the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON.) This partnership allowed BAASS to acquire data, field reports, witness interview transcripts and case files from MUFON, but also to identify the most important UFO cases across the United States, and then dispatch their own field investigators. But in recent weeks, we learned that the BAASS effort to collect information and physical evidence went far beyond the US borders. 

There have long been rumours that employees of Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies visited Brazil, during the time of the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) contract. The two of us decided it was time to try and track down more definitive information about this alleged claim.

In the course of our investigation we communicated with a number of former BAASS employees. For the purpose of this article, we have decided not to provide their names, unless they are already in the public realm. This is in the hope that this will encourage other former BAASS employees to talk with us.

The Investigator

One of us conducted an online communication, in March 2020, with a former BAASS employee, whom for the purposes of this article we will call, the Investigator.

The individual had been a BAASS Investigator/Security Officer until July 2010, when there was a mass layoff of BAASS employees.

Their role was described as performing physical and information security, but also included investigating unusual activity at Skinwalker Ranch. They originally applied for a position at Bigelow Aerospace, then worked for BAASS from early 2009. They had a couple of deployments to Skinwalker Ranch.

During the online communication, the Investigator stated:

"I remember the first major investigation they did, they put a team together to go to, I believe it was Brazil, to investigate some UFO activities that was at least four or five years old. It took them three months to put the team together and actually get moving."

In discussing other former BAASS employees, and upon being shown a photograph of several BAASS employees, which we had located; the Investigator identified one woman in the photograph as being, an individual, whom we will refer to as, the BAASS Portuguese translator. The Investigator stated "I believe she was only there on a short contract, went with the team to Brazil." Asked when the trip to Brazil occurred, the investigator responded "Not sure, mid summer or fall 2009."

Asked if the team was a large one, or just a couple of people, the Investigator replied "About six I think." Questioned as to whether he remembered which BAASS employees were on the team, with two names suggested, being Kelleher and one other; the reply was "I don't think either."

We were able to find the announcement of a job offer for a BAASS Portuguese translator, on Twitter, dated May 30th 2009.

These details then sent us off searching for further confirmation of this BAASS trip to Brazil.

The Analyst

Later in March 2020, an online interview was conducted with another former BAASS employee, who was engaged as an analyst. A check of available information, stated that they were employed as a research analyst beginning in 2009.

They confirmed that they looked at data from the official French government UAP study group, GEIPAN; and said "We were in contact with a lot of French-speaking countries, and other countries from South America..." Once again, this confirms information obtained by other researchers that BAASS was trying to collect UFO reports and data from several American and foreign databases.

The Senior Investigator

In late March 2020, one of us had a short conversation with a former BAASS Senior Investigator. This individual advised that they were, at one time, in charge of up to ten investigators, all BAASS employees. When asked if he was part of the trip to Brazil, he replied that he didn't go, because he had too many active investigations in the US at the time. Here then was a confirmation of the trip to Brazil.

Background information

This would be a good time to introduce some background information which has direct bearing on the subject of this article.

1. New York Times 2010.

The June 8th 2010, New York Times carried an article by Kenneth Chang titled "In New Space Race, Enter the Entrepreneurs." It featured an interview with Robert Bigelow who said, in part:

"I've been a researcher and student of U.F.O.'s for many, many years...People have been killed. People have been hurt. It's more than observational kind of data."

In looking to clarify this statement, we came across a 2015 book titled "Bigelow Aerospace: Colonizing Space One Module at a Time," by author Erik Seedhouse. On page seven of the book there is the following quote:

"Dr Franklin Ruehl, who claims Bigelow knows something the rest of us don't, quoting an interview with Bigelow from the New York Times in June 2010, in which Bigelow, when asked about UFOs, stated that "People have been killed. People have been hurt." When asked later about this quote, Bigelow claims he was referring to the Colares, Brazil incident from 1977, during which radiation beams fired by a UFO, injured or killed up to 35 people."

Note the timing of this comment. The Brazilian government released data on the 1977 incidents, in May 2009. BAASS sends a team to Brazil in mid summer or fall 2009. Bigelow comments in June 2010.

2. Argentina.

In December 2019, in response to a blog article by one of us, a communication was received from the Scientific Research of the UFO Phenomenon: Victoria UFO Museum, Entre Rios, Argentina. A Google translation of the message, rendered it as:

"I don't remember the year, but on behalf of BAASS was contacted our team [the name of the BAASS Portuguese translator]. She wanted that from Argentina, we would inform about objects falling from the sky, cases of UAPs and power plants, and nuclear power plants.

In return we were offered to train our researchers and finance the work. After that, she never communicated again and we received an email from BAASS that she no longer worked. I think it was in that year." The year referred to was 2009.

We were able to obtain a screenshot of our source's email account featuring the Portuguese Translator's BAASS contact information.

3. A talk at the Society for Scientific Exploration conference.

During his talk at the June 2018 SSE conference, Las Vegas, Hal Puthoff referred to Brazil when he said "We, as part of the program  looked at some cases that were really cool from Brazil." By program, he was referring to the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP.) He went on to say:

"In 1977, 78 was like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. A thousand pages of documents all done by the Brazilian Air Force investigation team, 500 photographs, 15 hours of motion film, a lot of medical injuries. This is a list of the different kinds of medical injuries that occurred when people encountered these craft at close range, and it has some overlap with cases that we've investigated during the program, of injuries occurring."

Further information sought

One of us reached out to Hal Puthoff by email and asked several short questions. Below are the questions, and Puthoff's responses:

Q1 Did a BAASS team go to Brazil?

A1 Yes.

Q2 If so, what was its role?

A2 Gather data from Brazilian investigators (but I don't know details.)

Q3 Can you provide any additional information as to the Team's findings?

A3 No. I was never briefed on the medical program results, just knew that it had occurred. Colm Kelleher would be your best contact for this.

Q4 Were you part of the team?

A4 No, I wasn't.

We also reached out to Christopher (Kit) Green and posed a few questions. Here are those questions and Green's answers:

Q1 To your knowledge did a BAASS team go to Brazil?

Q2 If so, what was its role?

Q3 Can you provide any additional information as to the team's findings?

A I did not hear about the trip at the time. Was not told about it until after - long after - as in well over 10 years after. I was told by a decent source no medical persons - certainly no MDs - were on the "team." I never saw a medical report. I have seen a non-professional, medical "stacked bar chart"of lay-terminolgy numbers of alleged cases - but not any underlying data. I have seen some summaries of cases over the years, widely published by Vallee and Pratt - but unrelated to BAASS. As I said in an earlier email, I never saw any medical data alleged from Brazil except from Vallee and Pratt - and there was no actual forensic medical data - but good, yet non-specific summaries."

We also checked with investigative reporter Tim McMillan as to his knowledge in this area. He kindly advised that:

"Now, I know BAASS investigators did travel to Brazil to investigate some more recent cases during AAWSAP. Where they went I'm not sure of yet. I was also told around 2010 some high-ranking officials from the Brazilian military were flown to Washington to brief AATIP personnel on some Brazilian UFO cases. Supposedly, these officials provided more documents and data to AATIP."

It begins to look, based on the comments by the former BAASS Investigator, and Tim McMillan, that the BAASS team was looking at some more recent Brazilian cases which occurred in the period 4-5 years before 2009, and not the 1977/78 incidents. Although, of course, they could have been undertaking both.

Further afield

Recognising that some of our former BAASS sources may well be still under Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA,) we reasoned that UAP researchers in South America would not be held to an NDA, so our search then widened beyond the US.

Brazil - Ademar Gevaerd

On 1 April 2020, an online conversation with famed Brazilian researcher Ademar Gevaerd revealed further details. Gevaerd was able to tell is that he had actually met two members of BAASS in his home town of Curitiba, Brazil "They were former USAF agents working for Bigelow. They wanted artifacts from UFOs, such as metamaterials."

Asked if he remembered their names, he responded "Douglas Kurth for sure." On being sent a picture of Kurth he reconfirmed this identification. On the question of what year this was, Gevaerd, said "By 2008 or 2009, don't remember. As far as I know they didn't take anything." Gevaerd then mentioned "They also went to Argentina."

Argentina - Andrea Simondini

An online conversation was held, with a key UAP researcher in Argentina. This was the same person, who in December 2019 had responded to a blog post by one of us. Andrea confirmed the name of the BAASS Portuguese translator for us. Andrea also mentioned that the emails from the translator, and some from Colm Kellher, were the only contact she personally had with BAASS. She also told us that the translator could have reached out to a UAP organisation in Chile. We have been trying to contact the former BAASS translator, who still lives in Las Vegas, for comment.


Online communication with a key UAP researcher in Chile, revealed that he was 100% sure, that BAASS did not reach out to his organization in 2009. He believes that because of past disagreements between his organization and Bigelow's now defunct paranormal research institute, the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS,) BAASS chose not to contact him. We are still investigating possible contacts in Chile.


Our Chilean contact mentioned that it was possible that BAASS had reached out to someone in Uruguay. A follow up with that individual in Uruguay failed to confirm that they had been contacted by BAASS. However, statements from some of our sources led us to believe that contact with BAASS may actually have happened. We are currently investigating those claims.

End note

At the time of posting this article we are still looking into the cooperation BAASS tried to establish with several organizations in South America, but also with other countries worldwide, to collect not only information, but also physical evidence.But as Collins and Glassel reported, evidence seems to suggest that BAASS was more interested in collecting data and reports, than sharing its own findings.

Friday, April 3, 2020

TTTSA - the 31 March 2020 report to the SEC


Recently, the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) filed updated documents with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. As well as providing financial information and an update on the activities of its entertainment division, there was news about other company divisions. I will provide my comments, as appropriate.

Items of interest to me included

1.  Metamaterials 

"In July 2019, the company acquired metamaterial assets to accelerate its material science program for the ADAM research project. The exotic materials that were purchased have a structure and composite unknown to any existing commercial or military application and through its scientific study, the Science and Technology Division will look to substantiate possible attributes and transition them to technology capabilities."

My comment: We have yet to hear of any samples with such properties, other than claims about the Linda Moulton Howe and Art Bell artifacts.

2. Under "Future goals"

a. "Continue to be a best-in-class research program that educates the public about scientific phenomena on a mass-media level."

b. "Contribute to advancing human intelligence through The VAULT using an artifcial intelligence-driven database to triage and partition data that enables collaboration among the public, academia, industry, government and law enforcement to find anomalies, trends, signatures and patterns."

c. "Launch the SCOUT mobile application."

d. "Significantly decrease the cost and environmental impact of orbit launches with our Beamed Energy Launch Systems; and

e. "Establish the company as the world leader in next-generation intelligence and laboratory for revolutionary physics and material science research that could have the possibility of positively changing the current understanding of propulsion, communication, transportation and everyday life."


"The SCOUT mobile application will enable data collection directly from the public that will contribute to The VAULT. SCOUT will enable users to access, track and view other users' data contributions as well as information published by the company. We plan to upgrade The VAULT to include data submissions from larger databases such as the US Government and foreign governments in the future. SCOUT will be made available to the public through the iTunes App Store and Google Play later in 2020."

My comments:

The initial date for release was said to be late Fall, 2019. It is known, through statements by Luis Elizondo, that TTSA acquired a large database of Italian UAP cases from a private Italian UAP research organisation. We also know that the Defense Intelligence Agency funded, Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) created large data bases of UAP data. It is a pity that this BAASS material is unable to be shared with TTSA, as it would save much time and expense.

4. Intellectual property.

"In 2020 the Science and Technology Division is looking to continue to expand its intellectual property portfolio by acquiring, enhancing or integrating new technology solutions that have innovative applications in both private industry and government."

5. Potential partners.

"We continue to have meetings with potential partners, and we anticipate that our efforts to expand the scope and number of collaborative relationships will gain significant momentum in 2020."

6. Projects planned.

a. "Launch the SCOUT mobile application to expand the reach and collection of data for The VAULT."

b. "Complete the evaluation stage and begin the development phase on the BELS and STME projects."

c. "Expand the scope of our efforts to collect and analyze materials under the A.D.A.M. Research project that could lead to discoveries and commercial applications."

My Comment: We know that in late 2019, Luis Elizondo was in Argentina looking to retrieve physical UAP samples.

Thursday, March 26, 2020

The US Navy - UAP FOIA requests - a summary

"If it was anything other than national security, the DoD would not be involved. The Air Force wouldn't be involved; Navy wouldn't be involved..."

A quote from Luis Elizondo, when he spoke at the March 2019, Symposium of the Scientific Coalition for Ufology. 


Many researchers have submitted US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) using keywords "UFO;" UAP;" AATIP;" and "AAWSAP." A backlog of FOIA requests has been cited by the DIA as the reason for their inability to respond to the majority of those requests. The United States Navy (USN) on the other hand, has been comparitively quick to respond to such requests directed at them.


Since 2016, a very small number of UAP researchers have submitted FOIA requests to the USN, using keywords such as "unidentified aircraft;" "UFO;" "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"(UAP;)
and "Anomalous Aerial Vehicle."

The purpose of this post is to take a look at the known requests and document the results, all in one place. There may well be other individuals, of whom I am not aware, who have submitted similar requests. If any reader knows of such requests, I would appreciat hearing from you.

The Scientific Coalition for Ufology

The Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU) published a report titled "A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven's Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle." In this report, the SCU advised that they filed 26 FOIA requests, which included a number to the USN, starting in December 2016. This was a year before the famous New York Times article revealed the existence of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) and discussed the November 2004 USS Nimitz encounters.

Negative responses to the USN FOIA requests, by SCU,  came from:

1. Commander Naval Surface Force US Pacific Fleet.

2. Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division.

3. Commander Naval Air Force Pacific.

4. Office of Naval Intelligence.

5. Commander United States Pacific Fleet.

6. Naval Inspector General.

FOIA DON-NAVY-2019-006272

On 26 April 2019 US researcher John Greenewald, of The Black Vault, submitted an FOIA request to the USN, for "All emails sent to/from (or cc'd or bcc'd) Joseph Gradisher, spokesperson for Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare, which included the following keyword "UFO" and/or "unidentified aircraft."

The response, dated 28 June 2019 from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, advised the finding of two records totaling sixty three pages, responsive to the request.

In a blog post dated 27 August 2019 I analyzed the contents of these emails. Many of them dealt with requests for information from various media orgaizations.

There were a number of US DoD individuals mentioned as addressees, including Admirals, Vice Admirals and one John F Stratton, a US NIMITZ OPINTELCEN senior analyst.

Information new to me which I found in the emails included:

1. It was the US Navy Office of Legislative Affairs which organised the Congressional briefings by Naval Intelligence officials.

2. Vice Admiral Kohler briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee's, Seapower subcommittee in December 2018.

3. There was an email from Stratton to B Lyn Wright SES USN DCNO N2N6:

"The US Navy is at the forefront of this effort but works across the Department of Defense to ensure other service partners maintain awareness for the safety of their aviators. The US Navy is not working with any entities outside of the US government."

FOIA DON-NAVY- 2019-008878

On 9 July 2019, John Greenewald also submitted another FOIA request, for a "copy of records, electronic or otherwise all emails to/from/cc'd/bcc'd Joseph Gradisher and Politico reporter Bryan Bender."

The response came from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, and identified two records, totaling two pages, responsive to the request.

Essentially, on 20 June 2019, Bender was provided with the following statement:

"Navy officials did indeed meet with interested congressional members and staffers on Wednesday to provide a classified brief on efforts to understand and identify these threats to the safety and security of our aviators. Follow up discussions with other interested staffers are scheduled for later today (Thursday, 20 June.) Navy officials will continue to keep interested congressional members and staff informed. Given the classified nature of these discussions, we will not comment on the specific information provided in these Hill briefings."


In addition, also dated 9 July 2019, John Greenewald submitted another FOIA request, which requested "Copy of records, electronic or otherwise all emails to/from/cc'd/bcc'd CAPT CHINFO Gregory Hicks and Politico reporter Bryan Bender."

On 20 August 2019 the Department of Navy's Office of the Chief of Naval Operations responded. In part this read:

"The CHINFO Office has identified nine records totaling 15 pages that are responsive to your request..."

Greenewald released the partially redacted 15 pages of records. They indicate discussions between Bender and Hicks, with a date range 19 February 2019 and 23 April 2019. In these emails, Bender mentions his knowledge of "a directive/instruction establishing a process by which pilots and other personnel can report sightings of unexplained craft. .." and "...more recent reports of so-called "unexplained aerial phenomena" from the Theodore Roosevelt battle group during a cruise in 2015-2016, as well as more recent reports of highly advanced craft near Pax River."

Hick's official response came dated 23 April 2019:

"Bryan - here is our official response. Let me know if there is something else you'd like to explore on this, although folks around here will not go much further.

"There have been a number of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military controlled ranges and designated air space in recent years. For safety and security reasons, the Navy and the USAF takes these reports very seriously and investigates each and every report. As part of this effort, the Navy is updating and formalizing the process by which reports of any such suspected intrusions can be made to the congnizant authorities. A new message to the fleet that will detail the steps for reporting is in draft.

In response to requests for information from Cogressional 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."


US researcher Christian Lambright submitted an FOIA request to the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) on 28 October 2019 and asked for:

"...all releasable portions of records and reports related to investigations of the detection of and encounter(s) with Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs) by personnel involved with the Nimitz Carrier strike group (CSG) operating off the western coast of the United States during the period of approximately 10-16 November 2004."

Part of the response, dated 9 December 2019, from ONI, was as follows:

"ONI has searched our records for responsive documents. We have discovered certain briefing slides that are classified TOP SECRET. A review of these materials indicates that are currently approriate Marked and Clasified TOP SECRET under Executive order 13526, and the Original Classification Authority has determned that the release of these materials would cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security of the United States...For this reason, the materials are exempt from release under the (b) (1) Exemption for Classified Matters of National Defense. As a result these records may not be released and are being witheld.

We have also determined that ONI possesses a video classified SECRET that ONI is not the original Classification for. ONI has forwarded your request to Naval Air Systems Command to make a determination on releasability."

I checked with Christian Lambright, and as at 23 March 2020 he was still awaiting a response from Naval Air Systems Command.

Three denials

In a The Black Vault post dated 29 January 2020, John Greenewald reported on three more FOIA requests:

1. On 26 April 2019 DON-NAVY-2019-006271 asked the USN for the Navy UAP reporting guidelines. The request was denied on 7 January 2020.

2. On 29 April 2019 a request was made for "all briefing  materials, which would include but not limited to, all written material, reports, documents, transcripts, minutes, briefng documents, list(s) of attendeees at the briefing(s) etc." The request was denied, on the grounds that all responsive material was classified.

3. A request dated 9 July 2019 for a "background paper" mentioned in the June 2019 release of internal Naval emails. This was also denied.

FOIA DON-NAVY-2020-003648

On 9 January 2020, I submitted an FOIA request to ONI asking for "all emails sent To/From (or cc'd or bcc'd) ONI senior military adviser John F Stratton SES USN NIMITZ OPINTELCEN DC (USA) between the dates of 16 December 2017 and the date of this request 9 January 2020, which include the keyword "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon;" "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena;" or the initials "UAP."

I received an interim response dated 7 February 2020 from ONI which advised that "Our review located over 1,500 responsive documents/pages."

ONI are now in the act of processing these documents to determine what may be releasable to me. 

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

"The end of the line"

We are all ageing, and time's arrow only points one way. However, for some of us who have researched UAP for years, the time is getting closer to think about "the end of the line" - death.

An increasing number of long-term researchers are reaching their 70's and 80's. What can they do to best preserve their files, accumulated over many years?

In the USA, the collections of many deceased researchers have found their way to Barry Greenwood of Boston. For a long time, Barry has toiled away converting paper documents into the digital realm, making them available to multiple individuals, and archives like the AFU, throughout the world. Thus, what was the collection of a single individual, becomes available for anyone to research.

Other researchers have packed up documents, whether their own,  or that of colleagues; and sent them off to the special collection area of a university; e.g. the James McDonald collection at the University of Arizona. Part of Jacques Vallee's collection has already gone to Rice University.

Yet others, like Michael Swords, have scanned their collection and made copies available on USB memory sticks to individuals all over the planet. On a personal level, over the last few years I have scanned most of my Australian material, and like Swords, have copied it to numerous international researchers.

What about online material? What do your family do with it, after you pass away, leaving perhaps a vast website of quite original material and research? Do you simply hope that others have already downloaded the contents of the entire site? It might be wiser to leave instructions in your will as to what you would like to have your family do with this material.

What of blogs? Many individuals have written hundreds of thousands of words on their blog, often providing much data and analysis unique to that blog. Consider an addition to your will which sets out what you would like to happen, following your death. Again, on a personal level I was pleased to be approached by the PANDORA project of the National Library of Australia. They asked if they could upload the ongoing content of my blog to their website, which would preserve it, even if Blogspot goes out of existence. If you are a blogger, do you make a PDF version of each blog post and save it somewhere?

So, if you are a researcher of senior years, why not take a few minutes now to think about this topic? Perhaps draft an action plan; but do not forget to actually start acting upon it. Scanning original material a bit at a time and distributing it around, will only take a few hours of your time.

Once you have put something in place to preserve your material, perhaps original investigation notes, and unpublished analyses of some famous cases, etc, comes a peace of mind that you are prepared. Too often in the past, I have heard that a researcher has passed away and then that their family have simply ordered a rubbish skip and sent material which took a life time to collect, off to the rubbish tip. Don't let this happen to you

Monday, March 9, 2020

"What can I do, to make a contribution to UFOlogy?"

I am often approached by individuals who have freshly entered the field of UFOlogy, who ask me, "What can I do, to make a contribution?"

My initial response is to suggest that they spend a few weeks simply browsing the Internet, using a variety of keywords I supply them with. In this way they will discover for themselves, the vastness of the volume of material which is currently online. They will of course, come across, the bizzare, and the incredible, but also websites which provide good, hard, factual data. Hopefully, this immersion will sort out those who are simply interested in being entertained. Their interest will not last.

For those who are left, I then suggest to them a list of interesting books worth tracking down and reading; and some websites to visit.This is intended to ground them in the long history of the subject, as well as introduce them to some of the key researchers of both the past, and the present.

It is at this point that I will recommend that they look to see if there is any particular subset of the UFO phenomenon, in which they are specifically interested, based on their skillset and their life experience, e.g.

* The effects of the phenomenon on humans

* Historical records of the 18th and 19th century

* Observations of UFOs over military bases

* IFOs versus UFOs.

If they do decide to tackle a specific subset of the phenomenon, then I will spend time with them discussing this area; and perhaps put them in touch with a researcher I know, who specializes in that area. At this point, I know that they are serious about studying and contributing to the subject.

I would then spend more time assisting them to study their subject area. I suggest that when they are ready, that they should consider researching further into that specific area, then write articles for an online magazine; start a speciality website devoted to that topic, or start a specialized blog.

I will make a comparison here, which is that of someone undertaking a PhD. They are expected to research a very specific and small part of current human knowledge, in their chosen field; write up a book length treatment of it; including making an original contribution to that topic, which adds to, and extends the body of knowledge.

It is in this way that they may contribute something new; perhaps a better analysis of a famous sighting; or an insight into something which has eluded the rest of us.

How long might it take, to get to this stage from their original fresh interest in the topic? I have seen some people do it in six months; while others took a year or even two.

For those of us who have been in this field for many years, in my opinion, it is imperative that we spend a little of our time cultivating newcomers in this way. Personally, I have taken the time to do so, with a small number of younger individuals, scattered all over the world. A word of warning; the ratio of those who ultimately become serious researchers, to those who fall by the wayside, is quite high. However, I feel that this ratio should not stop us. The field needs more high quality researchers and analysts.

Why not consider mentoring someone?

Friday, February 28, 2020

A negative DIA response to a FOIA request about AATIP

An FOIA request is filed and answered

On 14 March 2018, Swedish researcher Clas Svahn submitted a request under the US Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) [FOIA 0027-2018] to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) requesting "Films that have been published by other media outlets on Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program that is related to unknown aircraft flying over US and in the vicinity of US aircraft abroad."

In  a letter dated February 12, 2020 the DIA advised that:

"Based on the information contained in your request, the Defense Intelligence Agency searched its system of records for responsive documents. Despite a thorough search, no documents responsive to your request were found."

Source: Roger Glassel, "UFO Updates" FaceBook 28 February 2020

The 2018 DIA FOIA log

I took another look at the 2018 DIA FOIA request log. This runs from 1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018.

The relevant initial DIA FOIA requests for information about our topic, requested either documents generated by the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) or the 490 page document mentioned in the 16 December 2017 Washington Post story. Presumably, the same 494 page document which Tim McMillan refers to in his recent "Popular Mechanics" article. 

Other individuals asked for "...all contracts with Bigelow Aerospace between Jan 2006 through 2017;" copies of the videos mentioned in the New York Times 16 December 2017 story; material related to the 2004 USS Nimitz encounter; all Defense Intelligence Reference Documents from AATIP; and emails about Tom Delonge or Luis Elizondo.


Svahn's FOIA request was made around half way through the 2018 FOIA year, and as you will note above, mentioned AATIP. The resultant search, according to the DIA led to no responsive documents.

On 30 April 2018, Melbourne, Australia based researcher Paul Dean announced that AATIP was not, in fact, the official name for the program . It was actually named the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Appolication Program (AAWSAP.) His source was "...someone who claimed to be in a senior defence program leadership role."

After this announcement, Dean immediately submitted the first DIA FOIA request to use the term AAWSAP. [FOIA 00272-2018.] He asked for:

"Requesting any electronic or hardcopy records that include: mission statements, program overviews, program aims, fact sheets, program briefs for commanders or other senior leadership, program histories and other general information regarding the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP) or extremely similar programs (either still running or was running in the last 12 years) with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA.)

Todate, Paul has not received a final response to this FOIA request.

About a month after this FOIA request was submitted; other individuals commenced submitting their own FOIA requests to the DIA, and mentioned the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program. I was aware of the fact that this name was slightly incorrect, and that it was actually the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program and so I filed an FOIA request with the DIA using this more accurate name. Like Dean, I have yet to received a final response from the DIA. 

One wonders if the DIA will respond to all queries using the initials AATIP, that they have found no responsive documents. For if the DIA's program was AAWSAP and not AATIP, then they could argue that they do not indeed, have any documents relevant to AATIP. 

To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of anyone's FOIA request to the DIA, which asked for AAWSAP documentation, which has been responded to, either positively or negatively. I would appreciate hearing from blog readers if they are aware of any such responses.

However, having said that, there is an anomaly in this reasoning. DIA FOIA request 00239-2018, dated 15 August 2018,  was submitted by Steven Aftergood, of the Federation of American Scientists. He asked the DIA for a "copy of the list that was recently transmitted to Congress of all DIA products produced under the Advanced Aerospace Threat and Identification Program contract." 

Source: https://fas.org/irp/dia/aatip-list.pdf
Note that Aftergood's DIA FOIA, clearly referred to the AATIP. He received a response from the DIA dated January 16, 2019. This list, was a list of papers that the DIA had arranged to be produced under their contract with Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS.) However, these papers were a result of the AAWSAP not AATIP. Talk about confusion.

I will now await the DIA's responses to the other multitude of FOIA requests about both the AATIP and the AAWSAP. Only when more responses are received, will we be able to see whether or not, it really matters if we have asked for documentation about AATIP, or AAWSAP.

Thursday, February 27, 2020

A private company plans to collect data on UAP

A new event

Thanks to the eagle eyes of Twitter user Paul Scott Anderson, two interesting items have come to my attention in the last twenty-four hours. The first concerns a one day event where a private company Hypergiant, and SpaceCom are presenting an event "...to connect space technologies and business innovation." To be held in Austin, Texas, USA, the event agenda includes:

"What to Expect in Space by 2100."

"Off-Earth Economic Expansion."

"Houston, We have a Problem - Re-imaging Mission Control."

"Returning to the Moon for Exploration and profit."

"Building the Next Generation of Space Suits."

"Athletes x Astronauts - The Future of Human Performance."

The topics have a mix of individuals from private enterprise and NASA, leading the presentations.

However, the final topic is the one of relevance to us. "Unidentified - Using Advanced Technologies To Track UAPs." The session notes read "The Truth is out there. This session will explore the new down-to-Earth advanced technology approaches to help military, municipalities and others identify and track unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP.)"

This session has two presenters:

1. Joey Roulette, a reporter who covers the commercial, civil and military side of space, for Reuters.

2. Harold Puthoff, President and CEO of EarthTech International.

A new article

The second item of interest, is to be found on Vice Motherboard, titled "This Company Will Point Satellites at Earth and Use them to Look for UFOs," written by reporter Sarah Scoles, dated 27 February 2020.

The article concerns a company named Hypergiant Industries. Founded in 2018 by CEO  Ben Lamm, whose company "...has already worked with the likes of Booz Allen Hamilton, Shell, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office..." The company focus is on "...supply chains; defense; and space."

Ben Lamm
"...Lamm does talk about UFOs, though he calls them UAP...If you look at the intersections of Hypergiant's three main interests, says Lamm, "UAPs are the X at the cross center.""

Lamm is interested in finding out if UAP are earthly technology or something else. "Lamm accepts that the phenomena might just be earthly technology, and he wants Hypergiant to help find whatever truth is out there....Regardless of what the UAP is and whether it has a terrestrial origin or not."

How is Hypergiant going about this task? They plan to use data from earth-watching satellites; and analyze it with the assistance of artificial intelligence. They are still in the process of developing the required software, which they then hope to train to screen out IFOs; leaving UFOs. In future they plan to launch their own instruments in space, and collect their own data.

Am intriguing development, given that To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science's advisor Christopher Mellon has recently been speaking out about the potential use of high technology US government sensor systems to search for data on UAP.

On a side note, Ben Lamm is one of the scheduled speakers at "Contact in the Desert" which is to be held between May 29 and June 1, 2020.

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Notes on the recent interview between Tim McMillan and John Greenewald


For those of you who are time poor, but would like to know the content of the recent Episode 50 of The Black Vault Radio show interview between guest Tim McMillan (TM) and host John Greenewald (JG,) I offer the following notes.

The interview

JG - Can you give us the bullet points for last Friday's "Popular Mechanics" article?

TM - I am not a classicially trained journalist, but an investigator. There has been lots of confusion re AATIP. I wanted to get some clarity. There are two stories - that of the Pentagon, and that of people who worked in the program. My work draws on previous work by you; Keith Basterfield, and others. The Pentagon views AAWSAP/AATIP as not about UFOs. This is verifiably false. AAWSAP was about UFOs. AATIP was a bootstrapped program. Elizondo took on this  portfolio under OUSD. But it was approved by the Secretary of Defense. Elizondo was the point man.

JG - Did AAWSAP/AATIP deal with UFOs? There is nothing in the 38 DIRDs which talked about UFOs. Flip flop by the Pentagon. Why is the United States government reticient to say UAP?

TM - The key is that AAWSAP was different to AATIP. I don't know that there is a coverup by the USG. AAWSAP structured by design. 10 month report. Structured. BAASS established for the AAWSAP contract. Material generated belongs to BAASS. USG can receive it; and go through it; but USG cannot get it out, as it is proprietary information.

JG - The 38 DIRDs are owned by the USG. BAASS - behind the scenes can handle the UFO material.

TM - This is typical for a US intelligence operation. First clue is that it was run through the DIA not DARPA. It was an intelligence operation. Done under the assumption UFOs are real. It was a scientific intelligence investigation. DIRDs were the best we can think of for our technology over the next 50 years. To answer the question how close can our technology come to "them?"

JG - You got your hands on a 494 page report - the 10 month report. [JG then reads some of the contents of this report as listed in Tim's article.] Would you care to name your anonymous sources?

TM - [Bit of a silence, then laughs.]

JG - Did that document refer to AAWSAP/AATIP?

TM - No, it did not. It referred to "the sponsor" throughout the document. Who is the sponsor? Backstory- I asked the source - was it the DIA? How do I know? Open source - 28 August 2008 interview between Bigelow and Knapp. I think Keith Basterfield did a transcript of this interview. Bigelow described the AAWSAP objectives and referred to BAASS having a "sponsor." Later I saw this was the DIA. There are other anecdotal clues. I asked Hal Puthoff why would the material say "sponsor" not the DIA? Puthoff is not the source of the 494 page document. Puthoff said, this is typical. No other references to BAASS having another sponsor. Another clue is the date of the document - 30 July 2009. 10 months after September 2008 when the AAWSAP contract began. There is no DIA stamp on it.

JG - Your article is quoting from various people.You have quotes from people about government transparency. Its not just your interpretation. The report is all about UAPs. In the report was there a "conclusion" section?

TM - It was a big report that was handed over. Impressive. No one section provided information in depth. Each section presented broad views. There were a couple of photographs. Most impressive one was a fairly close up black and white shot from Brazilian or Peruvian government.

JG - Had you seen that photo before?

TM - I've never seen it before, but I'm not a UFOlogist. There were mentions of relationships between BAASS and foreign governments. These were detailed notes about they had a good collection process. Data coming from MUFON etc. I reached out to Mike West about data aspects. I assume that BAASS/Bigelow Aerospace still has the data.

JG - Did you learn who in the USG is responsible for saying, we can't be associated with UFOs? What entity within USG?

TM - In the instance of AAWSAP, it was the DIA. Green said about his study - he didn't know it was published. The other DIRDs were peer reviewed. His was too UFO. In the Senate letter about the products DIA got from AAWSAP, Kit Green's study and one other wasn't put into the Congressional  server system which allowed them to read the other DIRDs. Green was paid by EarthTech.

JG - With the secrecy capability of the USG - the DIA - why wouldn't they do that rather than give it to a company? Why not just classify it?

TM - [Sighs.] Can only speculate here. What stops Bigelow from publishing this stuff - perhaps contractual arrangements. I spoke to several government FOIA experts for comment. They said it was a common practice to use aerospace companies.

JG - Did the inclusion of Skinwalker ranch play a huge role in AAWSAP?

TM - Not huge. Potential lab for non-human intelligence. Former BAASS employees told me they went out to SWR, but it was not the focal point. Green's report was a review, not research using patients. Report included medical effects from UAP from South America.

JG - The full Kit Green report is linked in Tim's article. Was SWR the HQ for BAASS?

TM - No it wasn't the HQ.

JG - It is rumoured that AATIP was the UFO aspect and AAWSAP was the paranormal aspect?

TM - In terms of AAWSAP, more things in the report can be described as paranormal. The 10 month report mentioned this.

JG - Intelligence reasoning for this?

TM - Is there a way we could do this? Technological aspects. Reports looks at a lot of stuff, range of topics. The first page lists the names of BAASS employees. There are a lot of people there. John Schuessler was in the list -  don't think I mentioned his name in the article. I didn't write down all the names. There was a difference between how AAWSAP and AATIP were run. When Elizondo came in it was a much different program.

JG - Is there a second report?

TM - I was not told about a second one. Some of contractors told me, this was only phase one. Phase two was not carried out due to funding constraints. The report had strategic plans - one was to host a series of intellectual debates - California 2009. Did anyone attend such meetings?

JG - You posted a Tweet that the Pentagon and Bigelow Aersospace were trying to figure out the leak. Where did you hear this?

TM - Some of the people who provided me with information still work in certain places. Got a message that OUSD is going nuts. Susan Gough contacted me after the 21 days legal response limit, after not hearing from her for some time. I gave thePentagon information including names of people to talk to and more stuff than was in the article. Gough asked me to delay publication. I said you didn't meet the legal response time to my query. Some in the USG want this to come out. The article was already lined up. I will be interested to see what the USG response is.

JG - M J Banias -VICE, said that the Pentagon will release a statement.

TM - I met him.

JG - What do you think the statement is going to say?

TM - I don't know. In my last conversation with Gough she told me they had looked at the information I provided. Their statement will not be just for me but for everyone. Don't know what it will be. The next thing for me is what are we doing now? Have heard rumours - more forthcoming.

JG - You are receiving loud criticisms - about using sources that are anonymous.

TM - I am working with individuals whose portfolios include other things. They can't go on the record - due to these other roles. Are these people in positions to know what they told me? Everything passed a review by Popular Mechanics editors and legal. PM had to vett these people. I thumbed through the 494 page report for 1.5 to 2 hours - there was some sort of time restriction. Verification for document. In a q and a session, think it was at the SCU conference, Elizondo was asked when did you get involved, and he said roughly ten months after AAWSAP commenced. I spoke to a senior intelligence official who has nothing to do with UFOs - how does an intelligence operation go? Response was if you work in intel you don't talk.

I am open and willing to discuss things. I will shortly try and get out a blog with additional information to answer questions.

JG - The information about Luis Elizondo. Portion of an email you were given. Per Sec of Defense etc. Text is in the PM article. Help you assume your new responsibilities with AATIP. Can you explain what this means?

TM - Correspondence Elizondo produced on a server dated October 3rd 2017. There were a number of people cc'd into the message who are currently USG employees. One of four other docs that described someone else taking over the AATIP. Detailed other team members and facilities.

JG - There are contradictions within USG statements. Why spokespersons saying other things?

TM - I don't know all the inner workings yet. Now AATIP is being handled by  a significantly higher position that Elizondo held.

JG - Higher in the DoD? Did you hand this to spokesperson?

TM - I made some things available to the Pentagon. Specfic offices named to the Pentagon, but not specific names of individuals. There is the aspect that foreign governments are interested in this. Elizondo is a very respected person within DoD. Was at one time in the White House system. A person told me that Elizondo was doing such a good job, that when the left the person who took over from him was ranked five grades higher than Elizondo.

JG - I don't know what to believe any more. One thing in the article - Elizondo's performance review. You published part of that. When I (JG) communicated with Elizondo, I really kind of like the guy. His story never falters. Wouldn't say that I am 100% convinced. More evidence is coming out.
Last question, what is next for you?

TM - Elizondo was part of General Mattis' group. I spoke to a bi-partisan person who was around Lou daily. They believe in what he is saying.

JG - Are they going to alter their course?

TM - The government statement is PR. Tempered. From the amount of time they are taking - don't see them saying "aliens."Government definitely knows more than us. People would be shocked by some of the persons I've heard from since the article appeared. You'd know some of the names. They tell me of their own UFO encounters. A number of people have reached out to say that the subject is legitimate.

JG - Will you have a follow up article?

TM - The follow up will be what are we doing now? Have been talking to individuals about some information. The next article will perhaps, be more political.

JG - Thank you.

Saturday, February 15, 2020

AAWSAP was a "Commercial in confidence" agreement

"Commercial in confidence"

In a recent article by Tim McMillan, he argued, based on evidence which he has collected, that the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) was a "Commercial in confidence" agreement between the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS.)

We have known for some time that the DIA issued a solicitation in August 2008 for work to be undertaken on AAWSAP, and that BAASS was the successful bidder for the contract which ran between 2008-2012.

Upon reading McMillan's article, I firstly wondered if a "commercial in confidence" agreement would explain the lack of publicly available follow up documentation, stating that BAASS was the successful bidder? A check of the Federal Business Opportunities website which hosted the online DIA AAWSAP solicitation, showed that there was no public announcement that BAASS was the successful company. To my knowledge, no-one else has ever found such an announcement either.

Work by Jack Brewer

This sent me off to look at a Jack Brewer blog post, dated 1 August 2019, titled “DIA Withheld AASWAP contract awarded to BAASS in 2011 FOIA request.”

In the 2011 DIA online FOIA requests log, I had found that an individual named Quincy Wilkins had requested a copy of the AAWSAP contract from the DIA by FOIA request. Jack Brewer then cleverly submitted a 2019 FOIA request asking the DIA for a copy of what they gave Wilkins.

Three pages of the six pages found, in response to Brewer's 2019 FOIA request, were withheld entirely by the DIA, due to FOIA exemptions 3, 4 and 6. In their response to the FOIA, the DIA stated that “Exemption 4 applies to information such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person on a privileged or confidential basis.” Note that of the nine types of exemptions which could have been applied, 3 refers to information that is exempt under other laws and 6 refers to personnel and medical files. One might expect that exemption 1, which refers to classified information for national defense or foreign policy, would be relevant here, but this exemption was not cited. 

Image courtesy of Jack Brewer

Note the use of the word “commercial.”

One of the documents released to Wilkins was a letter from DIA to BAASS dated July 2011. It advised that successful bidders for DIA contracts, were advised when the DIA got a FOIA request relating to that contract.

Image courtesy of Jack Brewer

“Upon review of contract HHM402-08-C-0072 the DIA, determined that the highlighted portion should be withheld from the requester, under the provision of the Freedom of Information Act. Please advise this office of what, if any, additional portions of the enclosed contract should be withheld. Your reply must include a detailed explanation of any competitive harm to your company should the material be released.”

Note the use of the word “competitive.”

The above seems, to me, to support McMillan's suggestion that the DIA AAWSAP was a "Commercial in confidence" agreement.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Hathaway Research International Revisited


In a blog post dated 16 December 2018, titled "George D Hathaway - his work and research findings" I described some of the work undertaken by this Canadian engineer and his research company. Hathaway, amongst other things, authored two of the 38 Defense Intelligence Reference Documents (DIRDs) for the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP.)

Between 1992 and 2012 the company's website shows his involvement with "...field investigations of anomalous aerial phenomena" and "...analysis of material allegedly from anomalous aerial phenomena." In 2017, Hathaway co-authored a paper with physicist Michael Ibison titled "Quantum Entanglement and Alien, Extraterrestrial Life." In that paper, amongst other things, there is a discussion of the possibility of extraterrestrial communication through the means of telepathy.

Current research

The current company website lists a number of areas of scientific research projects, including:

1. Bio communications.

Exploring if a telepathic channel exists.

2. Anti-gravity by nuclear entropy.

Dr Daniel Alzofon is working on his father's theory that entropy changes may change gravitational attraction between masses."Initial tests showed anomalous motion of a test mass."

3. Repetative Trans Cranial Magnetic Stimulation.

"Claims have been made as to the possibility of using rtms techniques to enhance certain human cognitive faculties."

4. Energy Extraction from Casimir Cavities.

"Based on the theoretical work of Bernard Haisch and Garret Moddel (U. of Colorado) HRI has designed and is hosting an experiment to determine whether energy can be continuously extracted from the quantum vaccuum field by flowing gas through a Casimir cavity."

5. Puthoff - Metamaterials for TEM Impulse Radiator.

Following Dr. H. E. Puthoff's theory of the quantum vacuum, "HRI is currently designing such an experiment which involves hundred kilovolt picosecond pulses into special radiators (TEM horn antennas) utilising custom designed metamaterial lenses to determine if the property of spacetime can be altered."

6. HRI autonomous field-deployable multi-sensor anomalous event detector.

A system for "...autonomous detection, deciphering and transmitting details of events in its vicinity which rise above the ambient." Its onboard sensors cover Gamma/x-rays; microwaves; sound down to 2 Hz; mechanical vibrations down to 0.1Hz; VOC gases CO, ethanol, NH3,CH4; temperature; magnetometer; compass; barometer; humidity; accelerometer; gyroscope; GPS time clock; solar powered; three 8 megapixel color cameras with wide angle lenses.

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Updated post - Dr. Hal Puthoff's 8 February 2020 talk - some notes

Dr. Hal Puthoff

Source: https://earthtech.org/team/

Dr. Hal Puthoff gave a talk on 8 February 2020 at an event held in Berkley Springs, West Virgina, in the USA. The talk was titled "DOD Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: The Back Story, The Forward Story." Puthoff gave a similar titled talk, "The DoD's UAP Program: The Back Story, The Forward Story" at the Society for Scientific Exploration/International Remote Viewing Association joint conference, held in Las Vegas, Nevada, on 8 June 2018.

I have listened to an audio copy of his 2020 speech, supplied by an anonymous attendee to whom I extend my thanks, and compared it with a transcript of the 2018 talk. I wanted to see what new material had entered the 2020 speech. The following are the new points which I picked out (there may be more):

* Previously in the 2018 talk, Puthoff stated that the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) had commenced in June 2007. However, in the 2020 speech he stated that AATIP commenced in June 2008. This fits better with the known date for the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) of September 2008.

* He provided a date for the "Thread-3" document from the Soviet Union which discussed UAP in that country. The date Puthoff gave for this document was 1991.

*  Puthoff provided some details of the now revealed US Navy pilot ecnounters from 2014/2015.

* When discussing the broad area announcement which had been made, for bidders for the AAWSAP contract, Puthoff stated this announcement was made in 2008. In the 2018 talk he had given this date as 2007. Since I discovered a copy of this document on the Internet some time ago, we have known the date of the announcement was indeed 2008.

* The CRADA with the US Army was mentioned in passing.

* New books authored by members of TTSA were discussed.

* The History Channel documentary series "Unidentified" was mentioned.

* Puthoff discussed the fact that the US Navy had announced that the three released videos were of UAP.

* The new US Navy guidelines for reporting UAP was reported upon.

* The fact that there had been briefings of Congress on the subject of UAP was stated.


Following the talk, there was an opportunity for questions. I have made a few notes on each question and Puthoff's answers. Please note that the sound quality of the voices of individuals asking questions was not the best, and some errors in my hearing may have occurred. 

Q1 - How does TTSA consider the viewpoints held by others out there?

A1 - We are following the data. When I hear of the claims of others about e.g. the secret space program, I have no evidence. Put it into the gray basket. We don't even say that UAP are "spaceships."

Q2 - How soon will warp drive be available for civilian use?

A2 - There are people working on the theoretical physics. At the moment we can't see a path forward. Perhaps not for a century.

Q3 - Free energy technology, any access to it?

A3 - Our laboratory ran a maverick inventor program. Examined many devices. No positive evidence in the end.

Q4 - Richard Doty says he worked for you. Any comment?

A4 - He did. There was a period where we were investigating all aspects of the phenomenon. Richard Doty was a contractor for us, as were many other people. Some of his data could be verified, some could not. I happened to like him as an individual.

Q5 - Do you think human science is on a trajectory to understand the phenomenon?

A5 - Large amount of information in the 38 Defense Intelligence Reference Documents. Some is sensitive. It is reasonable to think that at some point there will be a fusion that will be useful. Predictions usually fall short. In 20 years we will have some new technologies.

Q6 - Can you comment on your work with Ingo Swann and remote viewing?

A6 - Puthoff provided a lengthy answer describing this work. 

Q7 - Can you comment on Dr. Eric Davis and Ultraterrestrials?

A7 - I wrote a paper about ultraterrestrials - following the data. I wrote down all the options. Wrote the paper and circulated it to my colleagues - it was a think piece.

Q8 - One of the characterstics of UAPs talked about by TTSA was transmedium travel. Air/space/water. What about traversing solid matter? Any comment?

A8 - One thing from our Space Time Metric discussions - it could be predicted from the theory that things may traverse solid matter.

Q9 - Remote viewing - answering questions?

A9- Implies interest in all areas. Got some answers to UAP through remote viewing, e.g. Pat Price located four UAP bases on Earth.

Q10 - Is TTSA pursuing consciousness esearch?

A10 - Right now, TTSA is not pursuing consciousness research, but is studying UAP.

Q11 - The data you are following - does it indicate more than one UAP type? Alien?

A11 - Scattering of options - all over the map. We have had a sphere with a cube inside; tic-tac shapes; triangles. Lots of different structures.

Q12 - Mg-Bi material. Have you determined where it came from? Its use?

A12 - It's complicated. Various theories out on the Internet. We don't yet really know anything from it. Ten years ago examined a piece from Linda Moulton Howe. Couldn't make anything of it. Still absolutely not known. No answers yet.

Q13 - Ingo Swann, EV dark side of the Moon. Any comment?

A13 - "Guys" came to us with coordinates. Asked for a remote viewing of these. Gave it to them. Dsecription matched things on the Moon. Seemed they already knew the answers. They were testing us.

Q14 - Your talk mentioned the problems of people working in silos. Thoughts on how the silo problem might be solved?

A14 - In AATIP tried through the 38 DIRDs to get range of views. Trying to get people to talk to each other.

Q15 - We hear Navy views but what about USAF?

A15 - Most previous public programs were conducted by the USAF.

Q16 - Did Project Blue Book continue?

A16 - PBB did not, other programs did.

Q17 - Re AATIP current status - the Pentagon statements vary. Can you clarify?

A17 - Conflicting messages are coming out of the Pentagon, e.g. that Luis Elizondo didn't work for AATIP. Not right. TTSA trying to help clarify things behind the scenes. Things will get clarified in time.

Q18 - The head of Skunk works at Lockheed Martin made some statements, e.g. "Now have technology to travel to the stars." Can you comment?

A18 - Ben Rich has been asked about this. We don't know precisely what he meant by those statements. Why he said those.

Q19 - Is the Soviet Union concerned about UAP?

A19 - UFOs have come over US nuclear silos and turned them off. Have come over Soviet Union and switched them on.

Q20 - Any insight into Internet discussions aboue Antarctica?

A20 - Don't have any opinion. Seen no evidence.

Q21- Any comment about the Wilson document?

A21 - Wilson was interviewed by my colleague Eric Davis. Discusses potentially ongoing programs.

Update: 20 February 2020.

I have been in communication with Hal Puthoff, and the following is a statement of clarification from him, about question and answer 21, as noted by myself:

"In your summary of my presentation at Petersen's Transition Talk forum in West Virginia, you re-posted a comment by someone from the audience.

Q21 - Any comment about the Wilson document?

A21 - Wilson was interviewed by my colleague Eric Davis. Discusses potentially ongoing programs.

It would appear from this statement that I confirmed the Wilson interview and notes as authentic, and I'm getting considerable email traffic asking me if this is the case.

ACTUALLY because of sound problems in the auditorium I had to repeat questions for the audience before I answered. So I repeated the question that it was about Eric interviewing Wilson, then gave my standard answer that since the claimed notes discussed potentially ongoing programs I would not comment. It was not intention to verify the interview and associated notes. In the restated shortened version online of what I actually said I can see how it could be so interpreted."

Continuing on with the original post:

Q22 - You were interviewed by George Knapp - mention of a document leaked about crash retrievals. Where do I look for that document?

A22 - It's out there somewhere on the Internet -  don't know exactly where.

Q23 - When Richard Doty was hired, was that for AATIP?

A23 - No, on another program before AATIP.

Q24 - Do you give any credence to [book titled mentioned] ET communications as part of secret programs?

A24 - I see no evidence.

Q25 - Do you think someone out there could have reverse engineered UFOs?

A25 - It's an option. It's possible. I brought up the idea in a paper.

Q26 - There was a story that Nixon left a letter in a time capsule about UFOs. A secret document?

A26 - I don't know if that story is legitimate. 

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Kit Green's Defense Intelligence Reference Document unveiled

Another Defense Intelligence Reference Document

A 53 page paper, dated 2009, authored by Dr. Christopher (Kit) Green, titled “Clinical Medical Acute & Subacute Field Effects On Human Dermal & Neurological Tissues” has just been revealed, in an article by researcher TimMcMillan. 

Front cover of the paper

It appears to be the document, which the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) listed as one of the 38 Defense Intelligence Reference Documents (DIRD), products of their 2008-2012 Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP.) It is not in the format of an AAWSAP DIA DIRD, several of which have been released previously. 

A DIA issued DIRD

However, the document appears to be the paper submitted by Green, which would later be issued as a DIA DIRD. Having said that, after acquiring a full copy of the Green DIRD, the purpose of this blog is to take a look at its contents and provide some commentary on what it contains. The quotes are from the paper, the notes are mine. 

The paper

Chapter one: “Definition of Topic and Domain of the study.”

“The objective of the overall program for which this paper has been prepared is to understand the physics and the engineering of advanced aerospace weapon system applications in the future, eg from now through to the year 2050. This study addresses the clinical medical signs and symptoms and biophysics of injury known and expected from near field (mostly ultra-high), NIEMR Microwave, Thermal, from unintentional exposure to anomalous systems.” (Page 6.)

Note 1: This clearly refers to the Defense Intelligence Agency’s AAWSAP put out for solicitation in August 2008.

First page of the DIA solicitation

Chapter two: “Background: What is thought to cause harm?”

“There is a relatively comprehensive literature on reported deleterious effects from exposure at close ranges to perceived anomalous aircraft of apparent advanced design.” (Page 9.)

Note 2: Here, Green refers to John Schuessler’s work; including the Cash-Landrum case; and his 1996 catalogue “UFO-Related HumanPhysiological Effects.” In addition, the work of Jim McCampbell, in this same area, is referenced.

“That is, it is of particular interest in a threat analysis program, regardless of whether anomalous-craft-induced physiological effects of humans are intended or not, to ascertain probable mechanisms…” (Page 10.)

Note 3: “A threat analysis program.” Nowhere in this paper, does Green refer to the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP.) References to the program are clearly to AAWSAP. 

Clear reference to AAWSAP

Another clear reference to AAWSAP appears on page 12:

"Yet, while directionally indicative of interest and intention to understand, the material does not rise to the quality of the initiative of this ADVANCED AEROSPACE WEAPON SYSTEM APPLICATIONS PROGRAM in which this paper serves as one of several dozen analytical examples."

Classified studies

Speaking of classified studies of the effects of RF radiation on humans, Green writes:

“Classified information exists that is highly pertinent to the study of this subject, and only a small part of the classified literature has been released.”

Green then goes on to review the large volume of existing open source literature about the effects of effects from exposure to certain known radiation sources. He concludes:

“In summary, the evidence is solid that the military and aerospace industries’ own classified, proprietary and unclassified literature, as well as the certain evidence of many aerospace RF-related microwave, antenna-related, High-Power (HP) microwave, infrasonic/sonic, and thermal (from any source) energy deposition accidents (vide infra) is congruent with the anomalous vehicle reports. This means that one cannot discount the claimed and often observed imagery of being real-world (although current and likely advanced beyond public information) technologies, and which are causes of these effects and injuries.” (Page 18.)

Note 4: In short, the effects from close range encounters with UAP match those effects from exposure to known radiation sources.

Chapter three: “How damage occurs.”

Here, Green examines how damage occurs from exposure to conventional source of RF energy. Examples of damage are heating, burning, headaches, dizziness, cardiac palpitations, severe anxiety, etc.

“There have been several studies (encompassing about 100 reported cases during acute accidental exposures in military aerospace and communications situations) that have collected data on human exposures to RF of fixed and broad bandwidths. Comparison of this medical literature presents striking overlaps to the claimed clinical injury patterns of several hundred near-field case of anomalous and hostile events being currently analysed for a companion study to this, as described in Appendices One, Two & Three.” (Page 23.)

Note 5: Appendix 1 is a short discussion of the Schuessler catalog of “UFO-Related Human Physiological Effects;" including the provision of a “Table of effects frequency.” In 1996, Schuessler produced a catalog of 365 selected cases from the time frame 1873-1994.

Appendix 2 is a partial listing of 96 cases from the UFO literature, prepared by “Green/Morris” with a time frame of 1952 - Sept 1971 of UAP cases which the authors have coded for ICD codes. [International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.] This is almost certainly related to the database of such events which Green, in a 2018 interview with author Annie Jacobsen, stated that he had been compiling. There are three Australian events in this list (pages 49 and 50), namely:

1. 1952/07/22 Australia, NSW, Sydney.

93. 70/8 or 9 Australia, Sydney, New South Wales

95. 1971/08/01 Australia, Gladstone, Australia
Event 1 was a widely seen green ball of light in the sky. I tracked down a newspaper report in the “Daily Telegraph” Sydney newspaper, Tuesday 22 July 1952 page 3. There appears: “In Sydney, Albert Thomas, 33 of Regent Street, Redfern a night watchman at the NSW railway’s tarpaulin factory, Enfield, said he believed that the light was a flying saucer. “As soon as I stepped out of the door my arms started to tingle. Then an electric shock ran through the whole of my body.” However, from reading the rest of the article, it would seem to me that the green ball of light was a fireball, and thus would not meet Green’s near-field of 10’s of meters distance.

Event 93 was an apparent abduction investigated by this author. It involved a man who experienced an apparent loss of time after seeing a red-orange light at an ill-defined distance. There were no apparent medical injuries involved.

Event 95 was an apparent abduction with effects to a motor vehicle, and “time distortion” to the witnesses. I could find no details of physical injuries being reported by the witnesses.

None of the three Australian cases should really be in such a catalogue.

Appendix 3 provides comment about ICD codes followed by a description of the Vallee classification system for anomalous phenomena.

“What cannot be overly emphasized, is that when one looks at the literature of anomaly cases, including UFO claims from the most reliable sources, the extent and degree of acute high but not necessarily chronic low-level injuries are consistent across patients who are injured, compared to witnesses in the far-field, who are not.” (Page 27.)

Note 6: By near-field Green, defines this on page 28 as “within 10’s of meters.”

“There are no significant differences in either the reported acute effects (symptoms) or the physician observed (signs) between the case of the three antenna engineers or the Cash-Landrum cases.” (Page 27.)

Note 7: For a comprehensive review of the Cash-Landrum case, see the extensive work of researcher Curt Collins at the Blue BlurryLines blog.

Chapter four: “Applicable subacute injury effects.”

Here, Green examines the established literature, taking an in depth look at what is known.

Chapter five: “Cognitive and neural injury mechanisms and effects.”

Green looks at the literature on the possible mechanisms by which RF can alter neuro chemical processes.

In summary

In this paper, Green explores what is medically known about the exposure to various known radio frequency energy sources; and its effects on humans, animals and tissue samples. He then compares these effects with those reported by individuals who have a close encounter with UAP.

Preface to the paper

Note 8: In the “Preface” to the document, Green provides the following quote, citing a November 2007 “Proposal to Analyse Probable ET Generated Specific Near-Field Electromagnetic Emissions.” The proposal was “to Puthoff/Hathaway.” I have not come across this proposal before. An Internet search failed to locate such a paper. 

“As an example of the breadth of the study, certain characteristics of the fields associated with exotic propulsion can with near certainty be gleaned from archival records of their effects on human physiology. Therefore, under consideration is the outsourcing of a medical analysis of the archival data to ascertain probable mechanisms, field strengths etc., involved in the generation of he reported physiological effects.

The intention is to explicate the coupling mechanisms for communicating to human tissue possible in the context of traditional physics from exogenous sources, with as yet unknown signal generation and focusing. The pilot project proposed does not require that the coupled physics be explained only modeled.”

George D.Hathaway, is a Canadian engineer, who operates Hathaway Research International. Hathaway authored two of the 38 DIA DIRDs, namely, “Superconductivity in Gravity Research” and “Maverick vs Corporate Research Cultures.

Overall comment

As this is a 2009 dated paper, it throws some additional light on the work which Green was engaged in between 2005 and 2009, specifically, examining the effects on humans due to close encounters with UAP.

It also demonstrates that the AAWSAP, did indeed concern the subject of UAP. Green, in his DIRD, uses seven different terms, namely:

* Anomalous aircraft
* Anomalous craft
* Anomalous vehicles
* Aerospace objects
* Anomalous aerospace objects
* Anomalous aerospace vehicles.

BAASS team visited Brazil

An investigation by Marc Cecotti  and Keith Basterfield Introduction Thanks to the great investigative work of Roger Glassel and Cur...