AAWSAP Documents - A Deep Dive
John Greenewald: So the advanced aerospace Weapon System Applications Program, or all SAP. Some believe it was a secret study into the paranormal centered around a mysterious place in Utah known as Skinwalker Ranch. The government denies that allegation and labels it simply an aerospace research program that where applicable, Drew research from UAP material, but they maintain that the examination of unidentified objects was not at all the purpose of the program.
Now, the government has released more than 1500 pages of material on all SAP. Prepare yourself for a deep dive into everything that just got released, and how the media added to that Saga by royally messing it all up. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault. That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and taking this journey inside the black vault with me. I'm your host, John Greenwald, Jr, founder and creator of the black vault.com. And when I say journey inside
the black vault, at least tonight anyway, I truly mean it. This is another deep dive I don't do these often. This is I think maybe my second what I would consider Deep Dive. And let me just say up front, a couple things. I know these aren't for everybody. Number one, they're long, right? I get it, I don't know how long this is going to turn out to be.
If you're watching the live version, and you're unsure, I put it into the show description below. If it's not live, then obviously you can see the length of the video. But diving into these types of document dumps sometimes deserves the time to do it. And that's what these videos are all about. But I will go ahead and give you guys at least a little bit of a summary here up top. So if you don't watch the full breakdown, that's okay, you'll be able to at least get the summary. So I wanted to
say that up front because this will kind of get detailed this will go through all of the documents for the most part that were released. About the advanced let me pull up the visuals here. The advanced aerospace weapon system applications program, they'll say that a few times FAST acronym, or SAP, I was going to actually nickname this video all snap, but I figured that would pretty much upset a few of my biggest haters out there and they would somehow make it into a declaration of war. But all SAP is that acronym that we have pretty much heard about here since the beginning of 2018. Connected to the A tip program. That's the advanced aerospace threat Identification Program. That was referred to by Harry
Reid, Senator Harry Reid is the advanced aerospace threat and identification program, slight differences. And you'll see here in a couple of minutes, how confusing all of that really becomes. But anyway, this is a deep dive into some material that came out in the last couple of weeks and got picked up by the mainstream media. Now when I say mainstream media, the sun if you're not familiar with that publication, sometimes questionable recording, reporting, I should say not recording, but questionable reporting, and although I don't like really trashing media outlets, although I do harp on them often for coverage on UFOs. I will say that this coverage was not strong. And the reason I say that is it was not accurate about what was going on and what we were essentially all seeing.
This was the article that kind of led the way Pentagon releases 1500 pages of secret documents about shadowy UFO program after four year battle. Well other than a wait, I'm not sure what battle they're referring to. There were no appeals needed for this yet, although I'll get into it later that I ended up filing some appeals. The battle I'm a guest guessing is again that wait time that that the journalist had waited Mr. Perry
waited for the documents to come 1500 pages of secret documents is a little misleading. Sure they weren't revealed before. But they were all unclassified which is always a key when look Hang up this type of information, because it really does, I would say outline the, the magnitude of the information they're in. So all of these records being unclassified with the exception of one report, which we'll get into in a few moments as well. Yeah, the secret is a little bit pushing it. But hey, look, I'm not going to harp on the writing itself. I wanted to show you all the headline, and what then created what I call the copy and paste journalism effect. And that
snowballed from there. A lot of places picked it up. I saw Luis Elizondo on Fox News times a couple times. I don't know if he appeared on any other networks. I didn't see him on social media
by the time I had recorded this. But I did see again, a lot of media coverage on this, a lot of media appearances by various UFO experts, even experiencers. I saw Tom Reed that was that was on, I believe, Fox News as well, I saw a video posted on Facebook, so a lot of coverage to this particular report. And when you dissect the sun article, which again avalanched into so much other coverage, it essentially surfaced around one single report. Not all 1500 pages were about UFOs. In fact, none of them were this report, which was the only one to mention. UFOs was the one that was kind of highlighted and most news agencies erroneously reported quite a few different angles. But one was it was a 1500 page report. That was
untrue. 1500 pages of UFO related documents, that was untrue, and it just kind of again, snowballed from there and a lot of inaccurate reporting. But it was all based on this. It was authored by Dr. Christopher Kitt green, most people refer to him just as Dr. Kitt green, and I won't go into his whole background and, and so on, because this video is going to be long enough. So I'm gonna have to kick myself to not just dissect every little thing. So I invite you all to research Dr.
Kitt. Green, he has been around the UFO field for many years, he has connect strong connections to Dr. Howell put off and has yet again, very questionable things that surround him as well. Now, I don't want to make that as an insult to the doctor. I don't mean it. But I know that a couple years back there was quite a few headlines as well that Dr. Kitt Green was duped by the hoaxed Roswell alien video that he believed it to be real, when it was not. And that actually kind of surprised me,
but gained mainstream coverage. So there's, there's a backstory here. And again, I invite you all to look into it. That's not meant to put him in a bad light, I'm sure people will attack me for bringing it up. But rather, I wanted to bring up that history to show that this wasn't a for those who aren't aware, this wasn't a doctor who just appeared as part of this this program and was somebody who was unknown, but rather quite the opposite, that he was known to the UFO field, and was brought in as one of many subcontractors to author some of these reports under the SAP contract. And so what we'll get into the other
reports in a moment, but that's essentially what the news reporting was about was, was on this one report, I believe it only totaled like either 28 or 38 pages. Sorry, I didn't write it down in my in my presentation here. But regardless, it was well under 50 pages out of the 1500. And that was kind of the only record that that talked about UFOs or UAP. The part that was true about the reporting was the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Now this was the part of the intelligence community that was the home for Ossip. Now, we do know that that through reporting, some of which was accurate, some of which was not, the DIA was the one that held the contract for us up and then sent it out awarded it to the contractor, Bigelow Aerospace and his subsidiary bass. And that that part has kind of resonated resonated in much of the reporting over the last few years. So the DIA, which has been sorely backlogged, when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act, was just behind on file on processing the requests filed for any OS app documents. Os app came out in the beginning of 2018. And that's when the majority of us started filing OS app specific requests. So the son who framed the the story as an exclusive, I'm not really sure where that came from, and nor nor am I taking credit. There were a lot of people that were getting
these documents myself included in the last two weeks. Why? Well, we all kind of filed at somewhat around the same timeframe. And this is how long it has taken for the DIA to get to those requests, processed the documents and start releasing them. For the most part, most people got shy of 1600 pages, I think the exact page count was 15 174. And most people got that other people that that narrowed their requests a little bit more got a lesser page count. But the most broad, we got 1574 pages of
material. That was all about us AP. According to them, it was everything. Or at least that's what through the FOIA letters led us to believe. I disagree with that I have already filed an appeal actually multiple appeals. Based on quite a bit of evidence, we'll see if we get into it during this during this presentation. But regardless, just know I have filed appeals based on this. But they took those 1500 Plus pages, and
dumped them on their reading room after some of us had had already had them for about two weeks. What happened next was, of course, a big conspiracy. And I'll just go ahead and throw this out there guys don't kill the messenger here. But I truly
believe based on conversations on the telephone, not not just through email. But on the telephone with the Defense Intelligence Agency, I could tell that the processing of these requests was a mess. And what they were doing was potentially cultivating a brewing conspiracy extravaganza, about all SAP. Now for those fans of this channel that have seen some of my interviews, one of which was with Tony Blair Galia, you'll see where that misunderstanding to someone who really didn't have experience with the FOIA or dissecting what he received, but just kind of assumed quite a bit. And he felt
that he got the DIA to admit to alien material, which was wrong. And I believe through evidence, not even experience where I'm trying to say, hey, he just was inexperienced No, with with actual evidence to refute his claim. It threw it out, you know, blew it out of the water. But but that is a prime example of what happens when there is, I would say, a slight carelessness when filing or excuse me, when when processing the filed FOIA requests, because they took those 1500 Plus pages, dumped them on their reading room, put them all under the title unidentified aerial phenomena. Now, why is this kind of surprising? Why does this even matter? Well, for the last few years, the Department of Defense and the DIA has stood by that, although eventually they admitted some of the material utilized UAP information in their report, likely that Kitt Green report I just showed you, the scope of the program had nothing to do with UFOs and UAP. Now, again, don't kill the messenger. But based on the
evidence, I actually feel that's true. But regardless, like take my opinion out of it, that's the DoD stance, you can take that as as as you want. But that is the Department of Defense's stance, it's been a messy message, I will not defend their messaging.
I don't endorse what they say. But rather, that is what they say. So when they put this on their reading room under unidentified aerial phenomena, I thought, okay, their messaging has been really messy. And with me, they have changed that message in the past. And I've reported on that and written articles about it done videos, about how they will say one thing, and then amend it later on, and they'll change it. One time, they said, correct the record, I think, is they the way that they refer to it as and and that became kind of a mess in itself. While this was kind of no different. I reached out the
let me see, I think the day after, or maybe the day of that this popped up that the unidentified aerial phenomena tab popped up in their reading room and had not existed before. And I asked the DIA is Public Affairs Office, and also the Pentagon who generally speaks on UAP issues? Hey, what's going on? Are you guys now changing your tune? Can you please give me an amended statement? If so, if not, what is going on? Because out of the 15 174 ish pages, you only had less than 40 that that dealt with UAP and UFOs. So and again, don't kill the messenger. You guys can download all those documents. See for yourself. There's a lot of stuff about advanced aerospace, but nothing about UAP UFOs. So what gifts Why would
you put it in that category? And I wasn't accusatory or trying to say change it, but rather seeking clarification if they were maybe going to post something pretty soon that we didn't get everything, but they were going to post something that would force them to essentially alter their message and change some statements. Well, I didn't hear back that day. The next day, something strange happened, it disappeared. And you can see here on the right side of the
screen, the tab disappeared. I then got a response from the Pentagon. No surprise there, the DIA did not speak on their own behalf when it came to the UAP issue, Susan golf a name that some of you very well know and love is the one that speaks on UAP issues. She said the following dia mistakenly
selected UAP as the tab label for those documents, we're working with them to change it to a more accurate name. As we have said before, while the offset contract allowed for research drawn from a wide variety of sources, including reports of UAP. The examination of UAP observations was not the purpose of a tip, nor the offset contract, Susan golf Pentagon spokesperson. So when she called as a mistake, essentially a mistake, it was changed. Now, by the recording of this video, which is roughly about five or six days or so since since that happened. They have not changed it. Now I've programmed websites
for over 25 years. And I know that although coding can get complicated, all they had to do were very few changes to essentially put this into another folder or rename the current folder since that was all that was in it meaning OS app material. Now, this is a pure display of government logic. Why wouldn't you just name it all set up? There's no confusion with that whatsoever. You don't got to do UFO UAP
unidentified aerial phenomena, you don't have to do any of that. And if you made a mistake, fine. You owned up to it. You made a mistake. Let's rename it. Why wouldn't you just rename it ASA boom, done. Instead, here we are
looking at our watches gone? Where's where's the beef? Where's the data? Where did it go? Well, it's all gone. Now, don't worry, because I went ahead and had already received it through FOIA and put it online. But on top of that, and I'll highlight the document later on, there was actually one document that showed up in the reading room, that as far as I know. And I checked with a few people, not everybody, obviously, because I don't know the full list. But the few people that I know, got it through FOIA did not actually get this document why I'm not sure. But I'll go ahead and
highlight that to you guys as well. But all that data on the DIA as I'm recording this as gone, but the link in the below description. If you haven't seen it yet, go ahead and click on that and be able to download everything. It's still there. So while we go through this deep dive and go deeper into the documents that were released, now that you have a bit of the backstory about how this all kind of unfolded and the controversy that came along with it. Not that there wasn't enough already. The OS app name itself has been kind of an Enigma in
this conversation. Now the gentleman that you see on your screen here, Robert Bigelow, up here, Luis Elizondo here, doctor how put off here Senator Harry Reid, the late Senator Harry Reid here, and kind of the newcomer in the conversation somewhat newcomer Dr. James McCaskey, a name we've known for many years, never saw never heard from until late last year, when he came out with the skinwalkers at the Pentagon book authored by himself, Dr. Colum Kelleher and George Knapp. So
these are the gentlemen that really have spearheaded defining what or SAP was, Robert Bigelow was the head of Bigelow Aerospace and the subsidiary bass, he was given the contract of asset by the DIA, Luis Elizondo didn't talk about OS app until OS app became known. Then he said he didn't want to talk about it, because he didn't have any part of it. I can respect that. But there's been some controversy since then. And some question marks about exactly did he have a role in it? Did he not? So on and so forth? And yes, I do believe that there are question marks depending on those quotes, because I can see the social media bashing, as I say that, that there's no confusion he has been open. It's not about the
fact that he has or has not been opened, but rather, the contradictions are palpable when it comes to his connection or lack thereof to OS app. But regardless, he has spoken of and about it periodically, but says he played no role in it and generally doesn't like to speak to it. Dr. Hal put off was one of the main contractors behind it. He worked for bass and and according to him was the one that created the topics for the reports the technical reports created under Ossip. Senator
Harry Reid, he was the one that got the money. He was along with Daniel anyway and Ted Stevens. Those three senators were the ones that essentially got the money over to the DIA to fund ASAF. The rest was history. And Dr. Lane. James McCaskey was the DIA front he was the one that was The Director of OS app on the DIA side, Dr. Colum Kelleher, who I did not picture here, because I won't talk about a much, but I know he's kind of gotten on the scene a little bit with the publishing of this book. And then prior, he was well known for his NIDS research and so on. But Dr. Column Keller, her was kind of known
as, essentially the director on the on the on the private sector side, the bass side for OS app. We'll go ahead and dissect all of what those gentlemen did with OS app. And we'll see kind of who's the closest with the definition now, why am I laughing? Because the definitions for all sap from these gentlemen differ. They actually don't align. They contradict each other a lot. This book here, not saying it's right or wrong, but really threw a monkey wrench into the wheel of the story that I was actually becoming more and more comfortable with Mr. Luis Elizondo, kind of put a monkey
wrench if you really read it, and you really match up the claims. It kind of, I will say messed it up. Now, I'm not saying it's right, not saying it's wrong, but rather it messed it up. Nobody can. Nobody can hide from that fact that the contradictions, again, are incredibly palpable when you match up everything in this. Now I'm going to start with some of your favorite. The nevermind, I'll start with, I'll start with the DOD. First, I was going to make a joke I decided not too.
But this is the stance on offset from the Pentagon from the DOD. It's a little bit long, but for the audio version, I think it's worthwhile reading again, this is a culmination of numerous statements that the DoD then combined for a kind of kind of a massive statement about the program massive is kind of an overstatement. But this is kind of a very lengthy expose a of what a tip slash OS app was, according to the DOD. The purpose of the advanced aerospace threat identification program or a tip was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace weapon system applications with future technology projections over the next 40 years and to create a center of expertise for advanced aerospace technologies. The goal is to help understand the threat posed by unconventional or leap ahead aerospace vehicles and technologies that could have national security implications for the United States. The program commenced in fiscal year
2008, with $10 million appropriated in the defense supplemental appropriation act, dia awarded a contract to a sole bidder, Bigelow Aerospace, advanced space studies or bass. The contract was known as the advanced aerospace weapon system applications program. Now, how do I read this as somebody who's researched government programs, it's kind of straightforward.
I'm not saying it's accurate, I'm saying it's straightforward. They are differentiating between a tip and OS app, how I how I dissect this is through the defense supplemental appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2008. A tip was created out of that as a DIA program, obviously, oversight, which will be at OSD. And part of that program created a contracts that was sent out awarded to bass, that part was known as the advanced aerospace weapon system application program. Now, why I dissect it like that, just so you guys are aware, and anybody can verify this. There are various programs or essentially, titles that are given to efforts in this example, a tip, and in a budget, you have that on a line item. But underneath that, you
can have multiple contracts sent out under that portfolio, that header that headline, that program name, whatever you want to call it. But But essentially, there could be multiple, how I dissect this is it's kind of no different, except there's just one contract that was known as OS app. And other ones where there's multiple, they would have multiple potential program names. And again, that's not true. In every instance, I'm just saying, if you look at budgets, you can see that kind of stuff where things are contracted out. And you'll have
different contractors doing different parts of a portfolio or whatever you want to, again, call it but that is slated to have X amount of millions or 10s of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, and they contract out certain things. As a result, that agency will get the deliverables from each of those contracted agencies and outlets. They'll send the reports back or research back or whatever that contract is. And there you go. Then you have all this research done that's
collected by the agency. And this particular one a tip I feel based on their outline here is just kind of that dia Lead program and initiative. And under that all SAP was created to get these technical reports. And they farmed that out to bass, and the rest was history. Going back to the statement, this is from again the Pentagon on offset. The contract goal was
to study 12 technical areas lift, propulsion control, armament signatures, reduction, materials configuration, power generation temporal translation, human effects human interface and technology integration. The contract door identified and worked with academics and scientists to produce technical reports, and developing the reports and exploring how to create a center of expertise. The contract allowed for research drawn from a wide variety of sources, including reports of UAPs however, the examination of UAP observations was not the purpose of a tip. The first 26 reports were completed by late 2009. The defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Act for Fiscal Year 2010, included an additional $12 million for the program, and 12 additional reports were produced. A total of 38 technical reports were delivered, the list is below. All of the reports are either
classified or marked for official use only only a few have been released to the public. Now we know that last part obviously isn't true. But this was this was probably about eight months or so ago when this when this was set out to the general public. But we know now the reports have with the exception of one been released. After review in late 2009, it was
determined that the reports were of limited value to dia the department terminated a tip when funding for the program ended in 2012. Again, Susan golf Pentagon spokesperson that is the DoD stance. One very quick note before I move on these citations to the Defense Appropriations Act and a supplemental appropriations bill and so on. I have driven myself nuts trying to figure out what line item they would come from. I can't find any I've asked the Pentagon going all the way back to 2018.
When that statement was first sent out by then Pentagon spokesperson major Adria Harris, could not be successful that either pretty much fell on deaf ears, I've stopped trying. Probably after about a year and a half to two years of trying and look through the bills. There's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages, couldn't find anything. So I invite you all to look to try and deduce it. It's not as easy as just trying to find references to a tip or OS app or both. Rather, it's hidden in some other line item. Who knows. Now that was
the DoD stance and going back to the to the screen of gentleman that I showed you and kind of how everything differs. This is Dr. Hal put off. And when he was lecturing in Las Vegas in June of 2018, he addressed the difference between a tip and offset. Let me quote him, people have had trouble trying to get documents out of the Pentagon by saying they want all documents on a tip. And they have a hard time because that wasn't the
actual name of the program. advanced aerospace weapon system application program is the actual name of the program. But a tip was the nickname it went by. And again, that was Dr. Hal put off. So to him, it was simply a nickname. This is also reflected in Senator Harry Reid's 2009 letter. But I didn't get that from the DoD statement. Again, it seemed like the A tip
was kind of that umbrella program with us that being the contracted out portion. Doctor how put off says he didn't essentially exist. It was just a nickname for our effort known as OS app. Fine, not saying it's right or wrong. But that's his
stance. Luis Elizondo address this in July of 2018. And he explained the difference between a tip and OS app in his words, it would be disingenuous for me to simply say, well, a tip is really OS app. Well, it evolved from OS app, but it is not OS app. And I think the documentation that is beginning to come out into the public forum, people are beginning to realize that no idea what documentation is referring to other than some leaked documents and reports. And that's fine, but it really didn't make, in my opinion, anything more clear, but rather much more messy. But the point here is that he's saying ASA, Ossip, and a tip are not the same, they are different, and he draws a distinct and firm line in between the two During one of my interviews and conversations with him, I asked Mr Elizondo about the contradiction with Dr.
Put off, and his labeling that it was a nickname. He said that that was not accurate, didn't expand on it. Beyond that said it wasn't accurate. So here we have people that were intimately
involved, according to them, but they don't even agree on what the relationship between OS app and a tip really was. So that forces us, the researchers, a curious minds, to essentially seek other ways to try and figure that out. For me, it's the FOIA, because when you're dealing with a primarily unclassified program, and that's not just through evidence, which evidence supports this, but for those who like to take Senator Harry Reid at his word, he says, over 80% of it was unclassified, and open. And he said that to New York Magazine, I never understood that nobody has ever asked him to clarify. But
regardless if that is true, 80 plus percent is unclassified. Why is there that much confusion, and through FOIA, it shouldn't be all that difficult, other than the extraordinarily long wait times by the DIA, but it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out. So that's what we did. And I say we just because again, I know I'm not alone in this, nor am I trying to take credit. So I want to make sure that others out there to name a few, Alejandro Rojas, Jack Brewer, Mark security, the those are a couple names that are sticking out off the top of my head, that are posting documents, there's there's quite a few others. So there's nothing unique about one person getting this but rather, this was sent to a lot of people in response to their requests that were that were filed in various ways. So what I did, when I received those more than 1500 pages, I started dissecting them. And by doing that, for me, the most
appropriate way to do it is how I'm going to dive even deeper into this story with you all, and that is doing them and going through them and going through them in chronological order. And that's what I did first when I published them online, and so what we'll do is we'll break them down in chronological order. That's not how they were released. It was a pile of PDFs, sent throughout numerous emails. And in my case, were actually
sent through different FOIA cases. So I had to bring them all together and make sense of it. And so I published them all online. So that's what we're going to do, we're going to break down all of that material right now. And I want to start
with the the research documents, there were 38 total. Now the titles are what you're looking at on the screen. Now, it may be a little too small to read. But don't worry, it's more of a
visual where this breaks down the 38 technical research reports, or the d'oeuvres, often referred to as the dirts, the Defense Intelligence reference documents, these are the product of all SAP. And this was revealed to me in a FOIA request in January of 2019. Not the reports themselves, but rather the titles. A lot of the titles had leaked before, but that there was actually a difference in the leaked version. So so there were there was a little bit of confusion there that was never really addressed. So what leaked? I'm not sure it was for
the most part, the same. But there were differences and it wasn't 100% accurate. This obviously was because this came from the agency outlining to where this came from outlining to Senator John McCain at the time it was written, what were the products of all SAP and that's what you see here. 37 of the 38 of what you're looking at have been released in this 1500 Plus pages. This one here, if you can read it number 37, I believe is the missing one. I have filed an appeal for this, this a state of the art evolution of high energy laser weapons. That was the
title of that there were there was a public version and unclassified version, excuse me, not public, but an unclassified version and a secret version. So likely, there weren't many, many differences other than maybe a few more details in there with classified information at the level of secret Other than that, the 37 other ones were released. Now I'm not going to go through all of them simply because that's a full video in itself, but I invite you to download them. There's some highly highly
scientific material in there. And way over my head It ain't gonna lie. So I'm not even going to try. But regardless, they're there for you to download, all of which are at an unclassified level now officially released, I'm gonna come back to that slide, actually, that's a little bit out of place. So what I did on that page, again, linked below, if you're watching on YouTube, if you're listening on the podcast, find the show notes, you'll be able to go ahead and download all of the dirt papers, all 37 of them in a zip file, or one by one, whichever you prefer. On the screen. If you're watching this, it will look like this. So you'll be able to download everything. The one dirt that I will talk about, however, is
that Dr. Kitt green one, I want to go back to it. I've already touched on it already. But what I did not mention was that it had already leaked before. And this was published by Popular Mechanics, and had already kind of circulated a little bit. It
wasn't the exact derd Because there were differences, which I'm going to show you right now. minor ones, but one of which I think was of note. But regardless, the title was different. You can see here, the official version anomalous acute
and sub acute field effects on human biological tissues, versus the leaked version, clinical, medical, acute and sub acute field effects on human dermal and neurological tissues, obviously, much more of a handful here. So my guess is, this was a draft. That's what I'm guessing that may be what leaked was was one of those first drafts or maybe this is what they sent to DIA and dia maybe edited it down a little bit changed the title, I don't know. And Dr. James McCaskey, I
can't get a hold of him doesn't return messages. So sadly, I'm just kind of left to speculate a little bit, but regardless wanted to at least make note that this had been around before as being published by the Popular Mechanics. So what I did was I started comparing the two just out of curiosity, the formatting was different, which created a pretty drastic page count difference. But it appears that there weren't major
structural differences. except a few that I noted here, the advanced aerospace weapon system applications program or all SAP, those references were actually all taken out. And I don't know why this will obviously, if you look at the list of 38 reports, definitely stuck out. Number one, it was the only one that dealt with UAP. It's the only one that mentions it at all. And
UFOs as well, deals with all sorts of crazy stuff like radiation burns, and brain damage, and all sorts of things that happen to the human body after coming into contact with UFOs. Well, in the leaked version, os app was referenced, I believe, four times, and the official version, all the OS app references were stripped out. Now the cover page remained. I'll show you the cover in a second. But why why was that you
can see here, the first one here that I showed you, this is 23 of the leaked version 10 of the official, the footnote strips out the SAP reference. Here's another one. Inside what is not addressed in this review, again, this was from the leaked version. We are aware of claims that some new and emergent systems may be intended to cause harm, and thus even be an intended weapon system. We make no attempt here and to validate any claims. That is certainly the overarching goal of the
advanced aerospace weapon system applications program, but not of the study. You didn't attempt to verify any claims in this study. That's how I took that I don't I've read it 100 times trying to figure out is he talking about claims of this being weapon systems? But no, I think that regardless, even if he was maybe referring to trying to validate claims being weapon systems or not, it's clear he didn't validate any of the claims. And as someone on social media have pointed out, namely Stephen Green Street, video journalist from the New York Post, host of the basement office, I know he's coming out with a new season.
credit to him on on this level of digging, he went to the sources that Dr. Kitt green used, and saw that a lot of them I won't say all of them, but a lot of them were using National Enquirer and like an Australian Penthouse magazine, very questionable sources to create such an extraordinary claimed document about effects of UAP and UFOs on the human body. Would you jump to the National Enquirer and and and essentially smart magazines to get your sources well That's what this report does. It cites reports that he's using as evidence. And that is their sourcing. So when you trace back where the stories are coming from, again, you have a lot of National Enquirer and Penthouse magazine and Australia and so on references. And Steven
Greenstreet made I think it's like a two minute video. And I was contemplating getting permission to show it in this video I decided not to because I think there may be like some copyright issues that I didn't want to deal with using it. But he uses different clips, and and visuals and so on, and clearly shows how the Syria quote unquote, serious news coverage of this is missing a major piece of the story, which is the sourcing. So he says it right here that he's not verifying anything, any of the claims. And then when you go back even further, you realize the claims likely can't be verified. So does that give it scientific merit? I'm not a scientist. So
I'll let you guys decide. Going back to that report, though. No attempt to validate these claims. That is certainly the overarching goal of the OS app, but not of the study. You can see here in the official version that was stripped up, so he just validate, no attempt here. And to validate any claims, see that here, and then a period, no reference to Asa. I don't know
why. It's an unclassified document. And that's an unclassified program. So there's really kind of no reason. Here's another one, the material does not rise to the quality of the initiative of this advanced aerospace weapon system application program, in which this paper serves as one of several dozen analytical examples, official version is stripped out. Now, why do I point that out? Why do I think it's important? Well, for the same reason, the Popular Mechanics felt it was important to point out those references. And so for the fact that they felt the need to in I believe, yeah, 2020 Popular Mechanics felt the need to point out the references and numbered them on four different occasions off SAP was mentioned, essentially drawing the line between UFO and UAP research to all SAP. How is it that Popular Mechanics felt
that it was important, but on the official version, all of those were stripped to me there, there seems to be a reason why I don't think that that's just editing. And if it is, well, that's, that's great. I'm looking forward to somebody saying that. But regardless, though, what happened to the references? Was there an intended separation between that report and OS app? I don't know. But clearly, something was going
on for them to strip out all of the references. The only other dirt I will point out is the one on the Drake Equation. Very interesting to put in there with advanced aerospace technology. I
don't have an explanation on why doesn't mention UFOs or UAP. But obviously, calculating intelligent life in the universe was the the aim of this. Why was it in here? I don't know. It's interesting nonetheless. But none of the other reports dealt
with UFOs or UAP. As I mentioned, they are on advanced aerospace technology, and it very much matches up to the DoD is explanation of what the scope was. So the majority will call it 35. of the 37. Were exactly in the scope of what the DoD said OSAP was all about two other ones. Absolutely intriguing. When you dig deeper, the Drake Equation still a question mark for me, I don't know. But the Kitt green one really makes you
wonder, why our National Inquiry, National Enquirer, and penthouse sourced stories, finding their way into government research. I don't know. And if you I was going to do a segment on this, and I decided that, number one, it's beating a dead horse. But number two, there's so much to it, to sit down and yet again, show how the story has changed over the last three plus years. And when the New York Times and politico led the charge on telling us all about a tip, and $22 million, and bass and metamaterials this and UFOs that now that the evidence is starting to surface, it's a completely different picture. And I don't want to name names because I'm not trying to make enemies here. But when you look at some of the interviews that are done about this and people with authority speaking on it, and and essentially talking about how this was a UFO research program three plus years ago, they were saying that, but now it's no they couldn't say UFOs but it's the technology around UFOs that also Sounds great. But that
hasn't been the story. And in fact that a tip $22 million thing? Well, according to Dr. James McCaskey, the director of the SAP program, it was all wrong. That money never went to a tip. He said that there was some a tip that was in the Pentagon. That's Luis Elizondo is connection. But it was his
program that got the $22 million. And if you read skinwalkers, at the Pentagon, which I have right here, it's been been been around my desk for a while now, because I keep looking looking for things. When you read that book, you realize that there are huge contradictions. And so what people are doing, I think, in this conversation is simply moving the goalposts, those that are intimately involved in the programs, moving the goalposts and changing their explanations, essentially, changing the narrative to fit the evidence, but also those that have followed the story, which is not helpful. Now, I opted not to do a breakdown of all of that, because the believers that hate me, are simply still going to hate me. Nothing I produce, nothing I put out there will
change their mind and those that are interested in the evidence. This is why I'm giving a short blurb about it is that I invite you now that once we go through this evidence, and you guys have a better understanding, as we go through this deep dive of the documents, then you will be able to juxtapose that evidence, and what people are saying, and if you feel that the government and the intelligence community has created a massive conspiracy and fraudulently created these documents as a cover to hide and shield, what they wanted, which was UFO research, then that's great. I would be very interested in that. And the evidence to support that conclusion? Or is it potentially that sweetheart deal thing that I've talked about now for years, where money was allocated for something aerospace research, to essentially take money from that program, and do what certain individuals in the DIA and in the private sector wanted to do? That is a huge possibility. It happens all the time, I have a video on this very channel where I really dug in. So in lieu of
just doing that all over again, and adding another hour to this video. I invite you guys to now really, once we're done here, really digest the evidence, the unclassified level across the board of what this all is, and see what people are saying and see if it matches up. Because still, I don't think it does, as I mentioned, and I'm going to go back a few to a slide, forgive me clicking through this a couple times. But before we get into the documents, I want to show you one redaction that you're going to see a lot. So in lieu of me going over it every time. You're going to see redactions that are cited to 10, United States Code section 424. That's disclosure of
organizational and personal information exemption for specified intelligence agencies, namely, be one of that section for the DIA. In plain English, what this is, is covering up connections, names, personal information, anything that identifies things to the DIA, this particular statute exempts the information, and it allows them to omit it. To my surprise, the dirt authors are an example of that in these documents, but the dirt authors have been released before not via a leak, but rather my FOIA requests. So why they felt the need to redact them. I don't know. That's one of the silliness is of the FOIA. But regardless, that is what you're going to primarily see. So I wanted to go over that in the FOIA, which is five United States Code section 552. That is exemption B, six, and B. Six is
that personal information, essentially, it's the same thing. But this gives them a little bit more leeway to, to redact information to protect dia assets, and people and so on. So as I mentioned, the website that is linked below is all in chronological order really helps make these documents make sense, but also help you understand the picture. That's how we're going to, we're going to go through this. One of the first things that is on there, the first thing was from August 22 2008. This was the original contract solicitation
or the bid solicitation that was put out there on the the Federal Business Opportunities website or fbo.gov. Since then, it's been rebranded to Sam I believe it is sam.gov. But that is one of the first documents that you can download. It's been publicly
available for some time, nothing new to report here. You're, but rather it just was in the material the DIA released. I was just talking about the silliness of the FOIA and some of the redactions, you can still on the get through the Wayback Machine, the FBO site, but also on Sam, you can actually find this to sam.gov. The point of contact, who was the DIA person, Jennifer Silvestri, she's still listed on there, you can see all this information. Yet on the foyer release, they exempted all under that, that US Code that I had referred to you guys over why they do that I have no idea. It's publicly available
information. I'm not hacking anything doing anything sinister. It's open and public to everyone. Yet they felt a need to redact it. Who knows why. Next document in the dump
was September 22 2008. This was essentially the solicitation and contract order. For the bass awarded contract you see here. This was the one who got the bid. And they got $10 million.
You can see that here. And what this document does is break down what they had to do. And here's another page of that particular form. Some of those redactions are silly, we know who some of these people are just by publicly available information.
However, skipping down here, this is what the contractor or in this case bass was supposed to deliver. So what they do is, you can see here, please see continuation page for line item details. Because there were a lot they broke it down into a attached schedule. And this was going to outline what bass for the $10 million. And yes, 10 million,
don't worry, put a pin in that, I'll get you to 22 million, but what they were supposed to deliver for that. So the $10 million bought the DIA, all of this that you see on your screen here that included Bigelow Aerospace advanced Space Studies. Let me see here monthly status reports from 22, September 2008, to 29, September 2009, Project Manager management plan for tasks. And then it refers back to two other line items, research report for tasks, so on comprehensive integrated threat assessment, travel accounting, appropriation, other direct costs, which some of these line items, again, you can see our our redacted before is essentially protecting corporate information. So that's his
competitors can't go in and see how they broke down the money. Option near. Yeah, so this, this breaks down the monthly status reports. And that this first contract was was going to go you can see here from 2008 to 2009, then the option year, the option was after the first year, they can take an option to do one other one. And I believe by the paperwork, they can do five
total years. So it wasn't supposed to be kept after the second year. But rather, they just didn't see value in it. But it outlines that the first option year would begin in 2009 and go to 2010, and so on and so forth. So it goes on from there. What I want to outline for excuse me profile on this particular document is down here you see this page two of 51, page three of 51. There were only these these essentially three pages in this contract, the 51 page number, I'm not sure I appealed this as well. Because if we're missing those 48 other pages or so where are they and what did they say? So we have somewhat of an idea? Is it a mistake? Did they use a template and this is an indicator of a rushed process? Quite possibly, there's no way around that. But and the reason why I say that is
it ends halfway on the page here and ends with other which most outlines like this do when it's at the end. But pages four through 51 likely may be something else entirely. So not a breakdown of their schedule and reports and essentially the deliverables but something else. I found some some examples of it. It's kind of unfair to try and think that this would be
exactly the same. So regardless, I appealed saying, hey, it looks like you guys ignored these pages and did not give them to me. So we'll see what what comes out of that appeal. December 16 2008. This file comes up. It's a PowerPoint presentation, advanced aerospace weapon system applications contract status.
The contract number you see there H H M 402 Dash 08 Dash c dash 0072. That was known as the identifier for aos app it's on the contract You look at it, and again dated 16, December of 2008, all unclassified. And this, if you follow along in the chronology was not too long after just a couple of months after the OS app started, it was awarded and started advanced, unconventional aerospace weapon system, technical studies, threat projections through 2050 timeframe, not extrapolations of current technology, in the following areas lift propulsion control, all of this is very much the same as what we've already gone over. So all SAP was supposed to be forward
looking at at the technology of the future. Another page in that same slide presentation in December, initial contract status brief was given to and then a name redacted on 10 November, subject was raised by Senator Reid in a meeting with redacted on 13th November. So just a couple of months in Senator Reid is already showing interest in what is going on with this program that he funded. I will say, but I'm not saying that it just never happens. It's not really common from what I've seen to have sitting senators like follow that closely what's going on with a program on that level.
Now, let me stress on that level. Of course, they follow developments, they get briefed themselves, sometimes they held hearings, and so on. But in meetings like this four, out of all of the classified and unclassified things that dia are doing, he just happens to show interest in the one contract that he helped fund that God awarded to the corporation that was in his great State of Nevada. Coincidence? Again, it
leads into that sweetheart deal thing, why was he so interested? Maybe it was just a curiosity, and that's fine before you sent me hate mail. That that's fine. If it was just curiosity. All I'm saying is there's not a whole lot of examples where senators are doing just that, in these types of situations. Bigelow Aerospace advanced space study submitted complete program management plans in the 12 technical areas on 21 November for dia comment and approval. So obviously the contract was playing out. They were figuring out what those dirt reports essentially what would become the dirt what they were going to be. technical approaches being implemented by contractor are
established traditional techniques within intended scope of contract. Technical Report deliverables will be under sub contract within two months and completed within seven months. equal amount monthly payments to Contractor have commenced and allowed for research sub contracts to be put into place quickly, obviously, referring to the dirt authors, difficulties and establishing a research effort from the ground up. staff management consultants, clearances facilities, is noted in this PowerPoint presentation as a challenge. program management plans 12 PMPs are very good to excellent. I wonder
how they determine like what's very good and what's Excellent. But I don't know that multiple reports in each technical area within the contracted period. In general, each PMP has two to four feasibility of technical concept studies, suggested comparison of the aerospace vehicle concept with observable data review literature for recent concept proposed by academia and national labs, information exchange with government contractors in the aerospace and electronic sectors. So obviously, this PowerPoint, I didn't go over every slide. So those are just some mixed pages on some
highlights. But again, you can download the full presentation, but obviously at this stage of the game, still ramping up, still figuring things out, still moving forward. jumped to January 5 2009. This was a different type of document in the dump. You can see the highlighted section there, Senator revisit to redacted five January 2009. So Senator Reid coming back to likely somewhere in the DIA. If I were to venture
a guess, by the way, this is the defense warning office. One of those silly things that I don't know why they redact but we do know from the leaks that the defense warning office was the office within the DIA that that led this effort. The purpose of this particular memo to provide redacted with the current status of the advanced aerospace weapon system application contract.
Should Senator Reid raise the topic. This obviously establishes that read based on that previous document already has this interest. He's already raising it just a couple months in and obviously is showing a big interest So before his visit looks like about three days before their briefing, whomever is going to be involved in that meeting, or at least one of them about offset what they're doing. And just in case that Harry Reid shows an interest in any raises the topic, which I found interesting that they went to this level of planning, because he probably indicated he was very interested in it. Jumping
down to the talking points, I'm skipping stuff again that we've already kind of went over but I invite you to read it all. Talking Points, reviewed the PMPs and rated them as very good to excellent redacted granted bass approval to proceed with the technical reports may be likely McCaskey there, but obviously a name. Facility clearance the Defense Security Service conducted a site inspection on the bass facility on 17 December 2008. The inspection was completed satisfactorily, and the facility clearance process is expected to be completed shortly. Contract is on track. The contract is currently proceeding on schedule and within cost. The technical
reports will be under subcontract by February of 2009 and completed by the end of July 2009. So those were the the points that they wanted to prepare for January of 2009 for Reed's visit fast forward to May 4 2009. Here's another visit by Senator Harry Reid visits to the director of the DIA and the same thing to provide redacted with the current status of the advanced aerospace weapon system applications contract. Should Senator Reid raise the topic. So here months later, they remain prepared a lot of those things and points and everything are the same lot of the same background information in your way Senator Reid's sponsored language in the July 28, supplemental appropriation bill so on and so forth, and it breaks down everything. The same
memo and may 4 the establishment of a fiscal year 2010 University grant program for advanced aerospace research and experimentation, focusing on the best grad schools in the US has commenced. That's pretty cool. Now I don't pretend to say that I've listened to every single interview that those connected to OS app have given. But that seems new to me. I don't know that doesn't ring a bell. So I'm not entirely sure what that's
referring to or what they did at all. Again, back to the memo. This contract is providing a unique opportunity for dia to both understand very advanced aerospace related technology and to determine its threat potential to the United States. As the effort expands in the future with one worldwide calibrated data collection to world class expert analysis three, university and national lab collaboration for information exchange with major aerospace and electronic firms and five enhanced oni and Neysa cooperation. Dia will be the integrating force behind the development of a center of excellence in the area of advanced aerospace weapon system applications. The continued support and guidance of Senator
Reid and Senator in your way is crucial to the success of this endeavor. noting here that on May 8, these two documents Nabel labeled briefs, you can download I'm just going to go over one slight differences which explains the page count difference, but essentially they were advanced aerospace weapon system application contract status reports or rather PowerPoint presentations. You can see here again eighth may 2009. Overview support for contract was mentioned by Senator Harry Reid and a meeting with redacted on 13th November 2008. So clearly they are continuing that awareness that Senator Harry Reid is actively interested in this difficulty in establishing a research effort from the ground up staff management consultants, clearances facilities have been quickly and successfully resolved. So remember that challenge that I
mentioned to you just months prior. Now it is listed as a overcome challenge. The immediate way ahead, begin publishing the 24 technical report deliverables as soon as possible. Continue to build research database architecture, initiate University national lab research grant solicitation program, ensure that this special compartmentalized information personal security clearances, continue to be quickly and successfully process and that skift certification is granted Tabas begin processing of lower level clearances through disco as part of focused counter intelligence efforts. So
this was their plan for the future as of May of 2009. Now remember, we've set up such a interest by Harry Reid here the dirts haven't been delivered yet. But they're saying let's do this fast. Now we're here we're going from May of 2009. To the next month, June 24 2009. This is the infamous Harry Reid
letter requesting SAP status for essentially OS app which he nicknamed a tip or erroneously a ITP, which was essentially copied and pasted to numerous other documents. But how he broke it down advanced aerospace threat and identification program, and then incorrectly put a ITP instead of a tip. Regardless, though, that name kind of stuck. But this is when He submitted his request to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, namely William Lynn the third to give it SAP status. Now, on a
side note, I'm not going to go too deep into th
2022-04-17 10:59
