Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Is the US Office of Naval Intelligence now part of the AATIP effort?

Danny Silva

In a blog post dated 6 July 2019, US researcher Danny Silva noted, that in episode 6 of the "Unidentified" TV series, former Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) manager, Luis Elizondo stated:

"AATIP is no longer run by a single office. There's now several offices that are engaged in this effort...and it is being run with official blessing."

When Elizondo resigned from  the Department of Defense, in October 2017 he signed his resignation letter "Luis D Elizondo, Director, National Program Special Management Staff, OUSD(I)." So, we know that AATIP then lay within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. What other offices might now be involved in the AATIP? Do we have any clues? I think we do.

POLITICO article

Back on the 23 April 2019, journalist Bryan bender wrote a POLITICO article titled "US Navy drafts new guidelines for reporting UFOs." The US Navy, stated to POLITICO:

"In response to requests for information from Congressional members and staff, Navy officials have provided a series of briefings by senior Naval Intelligence officials..."

So, in my opinion, one of the offices, other than OUSDI, could well lie within the US Navy. After all, it has been naval aviators who have been reporting incidents since 2004, and more recently in 2014/2015. Elizondo himself, has said that after AATIP was officially defunded in 2012, that the effort carried on with the assistance of other agencies. One which, he specifically mentioned, was the US Navy.

John Greenewald

Could the "guidelines" mentioned above, provide us with a lead? US researcher John Greenewald sought copies of both the 2015 "guidelines" and the re-issued (not new) 2019 "guidelines;" issued by the US Navy, to its fleet.

Initially, Greenewald tried the US Navy's public affairs office. Their response on the 26 April 2019 was:

"We are unable to share the message with you. Due to the operational and aircraft specific nature of these guidelines, security considerations preclude their disclosure."

Greenewald then used the FOIA. A letter, dated 28 June 2019, from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, set out the Navy's response:


"OPNAV N2/N6 has identified 1 classified record that is responsive to your request...all portions are exempt from release under the FOIA..."

In short, there is no lead here at the moment. 

The Office of Naval Intelligence

According to Jeffrey T Richelson's definitive work "The US Intelligence Community" (2016, 7th edition, Westview press):

"In February 2013 joint testimony before  the House Committee on Armed Services, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD[I],) and Director of the DIA identified naval intelligence as consisting of three organizations; ONI, the Fleet Intelligence Office, and the Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS.)" (Page 134.)

Richelson went on to say (page 135):

"ONI's two main intelligence analysis units are the Nimitz Operational Intelligence Center (NOIC) and the Farragut Technical Analysis Center (FTAC.)"


I went through Richelson's book, looking for the most likely locations within the ONI which might have an interest in emerging technologies; future capabilities, and unmanned aerial vehicles. I found that:

"The technical analysis center is responsible for providing analyses of foreign navies, platforms and weapons, strategic assessment of foreign future capabilities..." (page 137) and:

"The Office of Strategic Assessments is responsible for "projecting the future environment...and characterize foreign efforts that could put U.S. Naval forces at risk..." (pp137-138) and:

"The Naval Platforms Department is responsible for the study of all surface ships...unmanned aerial vehicles..." (p139.)

Earlier editions of "The US Intelligence Community" contained similar statements.


Without additional information, it is not possible to take this line of inquiry any further. Are any blog readers able to add to this?


Thank you to Australian researcher Paul Dean, for his assistance with sourcing material relating to the US Office of Naval Intelligence.

Update 1: 10 July 2019

I had a recollection that I had seen a reference where Elizondo mentions two other agencies he worked with while with AATIP. I finally found one such reference:

"...Elizondo disputed the official story that the program ended when the funding ceased in 2012. He told the New York Times that only the funding ended, but he continued to work with Navy and CIA officials out of his Pentagon office until he resigned on October 4..."

Update 2: 10 July 2019

In response to the above post, @red_pill_junkie on Twitter wrote:

"In the final episode of Unidentified they show 3 men (from afar) who were said to be Elizondo's successors. I don't know if it means anything but one was wearing green military fatigues."

I had, in fact noted the same thing, that one of the three men wore military camouflage clothing, while the other two seemed to be in suits.

Below are screen shots from Episode 6 of "Unidentified."

Can any blog readers identify which branch of the US military wears such a uniform?


  1. When Elizondo resigned from the Department of Defense, in October 2017 he signed his resignation letter "Luis D Elizondo, Director, National Program Special Management Staff, OUSD(I)."

    The copy of the letter I've seen (on the History Channel's website, simply said "Director." I assumed the rest of the title had been erased. I would still point out, though, it didn't read "Director of AATIP," though.

    1. Hi Red Pill Junkie, I agree it doesn't mention the AATIP.

    2. And based on such, I don't think we can say such program was ran under his old department until he resigned in October 2017. Particularly considering the pentagon has stated multiple times now that he was never part of the AATIP program and he certainly didnt run it. It is clear he KNEW about it, and was listed on some 'alleged' paperwork as people being kept in the loop about the program. But that doesnt mean he was involved, or ran AATIP. Neither do any of the statements by people like Hal Puthoff. Since everything they have said can really only confirm he was kept in the loop about the program, nothing more. No one has confirmed he was director or ran the program from what I have seen. I see no reason for the pentagon to lie (that may seem funny to some) about him running the program.. Not now that the program is already out of the bag and public knowledge. Confirming his 'job' does not seem to be anything they would need to lie about multiple times. I have a strong feeling that Elizondo is more hustler, then Director Of AATIP and used his knowledge of the program to parlay himself into another career with TTSA. Its disgusting to see him continuously called a hero for claiming to continue to run a cancelled program because he wasnt bright enough to realize the program was cancelled. Even if he was Director, which doesnt seem likely. The guy comes off as extremely distrustworthy. And given his lack of knowledge about the ufo phenomenon, if he truly was director, extremely incompetent. Neither gives us any reason to believe anything he says.

  2. Not an expert: The uniform looks like the multicam worn by US Army and US Air Force personnel. It's not the multicam worn by Marines or Navy

  3. I don't much care what Elizondo says or what his DOD position really was. He is a neophyte when it comes to UFO history. His reason for not learning UFO history seems to me completely spurious, i.e., he does not want to bias himself. Even though he served at "levels above reality" he still requires to behave as a staff officer. That is once you receive the duty you must quickly become knowledgeable with the history, and responsibilities of the position. I find many things he says about the way AATIP operated within DOD unlikely. Especially, that once they were defunded that they continued because they weren't ordered to stand down. Perhaps if another entity took responsibility for their mission(s) they would continue with funding from that agency. Was the mission as Elizondo said in answer to a question at SCU "100% UFOs"? If so, how does this square with Chris Mellon's earlier interview with Leslie Kean that he knew of no UFO projects within DOD. I find it interesting that one knowledgeable colleague said that Elizondo as senior office in an office with many diverse programs that he and his fellow officers would have a portfolio of programs and could insinuate themselves into the management these programs. I don't know if I buy such an explanation. My problem continues to be if you had proof that these object studied had the properties claimed, why would you target UFO conferences and UFO people who have little influence, money or credibility and not various aerospace firms and universities and colleges?


Some things I learnt, by reading the 30 April 2021 article in the "New Yorker."

The article A lengthy piece by journalist Gideon Lewis-Kraus appeared in the 30 April 2021 digital version, and then on 10 May 2021, in the ...