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.
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.