John Greenewald's assessment of the "Luis Elizondo emails"

"Newly Released Luis Elizondo Emails: A Breakdown Analysis." Live-streamed on the YouTube channel The Black Vault Originals, August 22, 2019. Duration: 1:56:47. 

Support this channel so more presentations like this are possible: https://www.patreon.com/theblackvault

Join me, John Greenewald, Jr., as I breakdown the new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release of e-mails to/from Mr. Luis Elizondo. (Source for documents: https://www.theblackvault.com/casefil...) 

Find out about the process Mr. Elizondo utilized to have the three "UAP videos" reviewed by the Pentagon, and, what the e-mails reveal about the videos themselves. I'll even go through what the e-mails DON'T reveal, despite what some may want you to think. 

In addition to the documented facts, I'll break down a statement on this very issue by Luis Elizondo himself, made through George Knapp and Coast to Coast AM (not KLAS-TV/Las Vegas). Why would Mr. Elizondo respond this way, and not through their own PR department/firm working with To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science? What important details did Mr. Elizondo omit from his statement to justify his actions? I'll use his own words to prove these discrepancies and possible outright fabrications to protect his story. 

Lastly, I will break down the downright fabricated (yes, I'll prove it) "reporting" by some bloggers/"journalists" that are twisting the facts, and even making up their own, to fit TTSA's agenda and protect their image. Don't take my word for it -- I'll show you the proof and let you decide by showing you their own words, not mine, and verifiable evidence to disprove their claims to you, all while parading as "unbiased journalists." 

Who do you believe when it is all said and done? You decide... join me for a fun and informative analysis of what these documents really are... and aren't.

My point in commenting on the presentation by Mr John Greenewald Jr. is because I think it is important that different assessments of the "Luis Elizondo emails" are taken into consideration. Or, more precisely from Greenewald's point of view, the assessment of the public narrative of "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (AATIP), and Mr Luis Elizondo's role in AATIP.

For a big picture thinker like myself, and who is not in any way a researcher, I think Greenewald's presentation exemplifies how anyone who wants to call themselves a "researcher" should conduct fact-checking in a thorough way (in this case, FOIA documents).

With that said, I want to clarify that - at this moment -  I do not agree with all (but some) of  Greenewald's conclusions regarding the "Luis Elizondo emails." Or, more accurately, what I interpret his conclusions, or points, to be. 

At the end of this post, I am listing what I believe to be Greenewald's main conclusions, and I summarise my own thoughts on his conclusions. 

Greenewald's presentation is a two-hour long presentation packed with information. I have done my best to pay attention to and understand the entire presentation because I want to represent the content factually and fairly. But I want the reader to know that I am not an expert on FOIA documents, neither do I have Greenewald's experience of looking into the UFO subject.

Therefore, what follows below reflects my current understanding of the situation with the "Luis Elizondo emails." Or more accurately, the segments I have picked out of the two-hour-long presentation are the segments that I feel relatively confident that I can present fairly, and that I can make a sensible comment on, or question. 

To understand Greenewald's assessment and form your own opinion, watch the entire presentation. So, let us go to the segments I have selected from the presentation.

My comments on Mr John Greenewald's presentation "Luis Elizondo emails. A Breakdown Analysis."

In the first 30 minutes of the presentation, Mr Greenewald goes through the entire lineage of what this whole issue with the recently released emails is about. It is Greenewald giving the background to his primary objectives with the presentation, namely, 1) fact-checking the public narrative about AATIP and Luis Elizondo's role in ATTIP, and, 2) fact-checking himself.

That is, the latter objective is to present to us viewers the "what" and "how" he is basing his claims, assessment, and conclusion on. So, in my opinion, it is quite a courageous thing to do . If he is right or not is another matter, and up to each individual to judge. But, you only have the right to publicly judge if you took the time and made an honest effort to examine what is presented. 

Even if the first 30 minutes of the presentation are about the well-known story of what has transpired since October 2017, there are several important points that Greenewald brings up, which some of those points will become important further into the presentation. So, those points are another reason to watch the entire presentation. In the following, I am only going to comment on a couple of those points.

Starting around the 9:15 minute mark into the presentation, Mr Greenewald brings up his "first red flag" related to AATIP, TTSA, and Mr Luis Elizondo´s role in AATIP. Greenewald's first red flag refers to what is written on TTSA's website about the UFO videos. The text on TTSA's website says that the videos come with "essential chain-of-custody documentation" and "validating that this is received in its original and unaltered form and is authentic." Around the 34 minute mark, Greenewald presents documentation, that according to him, proves that, at least, the "FLIR1" video is edited (mp4 file instead of mpg file) That is, TTSA is lying to the public about the video, according to Greenewald. Back at the 9:15 minute mark, Greenewald points out that there was no chain-of-custody documentation for the "FLIR1" and "Gimble" videos when they were published on TTSA's website back in December 2017. And if I have understood Greenewald accurately, there still has not. 

I am not prepared to say that TTSA is lying about the original, unaltered and authentic form of one or all of the three UFO videos (FLIR1, Gimble, and GoFast). But I agree with Greenewald that it is strange that no public documentation has been presented of the chain-of-custody or that validates the three videos' original, unaltered, etc., form. Does Greenewald think that the three videos are fake? No. Do I think the three videos are fake? No. Greenewald questions "who" and "how" the videos were released, and for what purpose, which he details further as the presentation continues (the essential parts come after the 30-minute mark).Greenewald is asking for more context surrounding the three UFO videos, which do not sound unreasonable to me. On the other hand, it is publicly known that the UFO videos in question are, at least, edited, because of national security reasons. 

Starting around the 19:00 minute mark. Here, Greenewald talks about the redacted DD1910-form that Elizondo seemingly used in the procedure of declassifying the three UFO videos (the DD1910 goes to "The Defence Office of Prepublication and Security Review", or short, DOPSR). Journalist Mr George Knapp got a copy of the redacted DD1910 - from whom? - and did a news piece of it on KLAS in April 2019. Greenewald points out two things with the redacted DD1910, but I am going to comment only on the one I think is most relevant.

And that is the somewhat odd redaction of Elizondo's name on the DD1910-form in question. Why is it odd? Because one year earlier, Elizondo had already given the rundown of the procedure of declassifying the three videos; DD1910 goes to DOPSR, and so on. The assumption was that Elizondo was the one who filled the DD1910 form with the Pentagon, so why the need for a redacted version? Greenewald also points out that the I-Team soon after they have obtained the redacted copy of DD1910, asked Elizondo if it was him who filled the DD1910 with the Pentagon, and his answer was that he was not authorised to comment. Furthermore, Greenewald claims the redactions on the DD1910 are not official ones, and that someone leaked the copy of the DD1910 to George Knapp.

Again, I have to agree with Greenwald on this strange issue with Elizondo's name redacted when most people during a year up to April 2019 had assumed that it was Elizondo who filled the DD1910 to the Pentagon / DOPSR. Why this secrecy surrounding something that had been discussed in an interview a year earlier? I guess this rundown of how the declassification procedure works happened in an interview with Mr Knapp on either Coast2Coast or on KLAS. Where ever the interview took place, I would like to go back to that interview and listen to what Elizondo actually says or not. Maybe he talked in general terms, and never said that he himself did the filling with the Pentagon / DOPSR? Or, Elizondo have a non-disclosure agreement that specifically prohibits him making any connections between him and any other component related to the three UFO videos? But how does that fit in with the newly released emails with his name on them?

At this point, I would like to remind the reader that we are "dissecting" a small part of the whole AATIP-TTSA-"narrative." We are isolating a part of the bigger context. So, let us not forget the evidence in favour of Elizondo operating as the director of AATIP. Let us also remind ourselves that what is at stake is the truth. If we want to get to the unbiased truth, then we have to accept that the journey is not always going to be easy, pretty, or fun. Back to the presentation.

The presentation has now progressed closer to the 30-minute mark. I have only brought up a couple of the points, or issues that Greenewald has presented thus far in the presentation. I have not omitted anything on purpose. I repeat, watch and listen to the entire presentation to get a fair perception of it. 

The points, or segments, I have commented on so far, are the ones I find as relevant and impartial objections from the part of Greenewald. Of the other objections he has had thus far, I either consider resolved or quite easy to explain. One example would be the contradictory statements made by different spokespersons for the Pentagon / DoD. I believe that issue is resolved. I haven't responded to all of Greenewald's points at the start because I haven't grasped the questions or arguments.

So, moving on with the presentation. I'll only talk about the parts of the presentation that I think are important, fair, or that I understand well enough to comment on. Remember that the rest of the presentation (after the 30-minute mark) is the essential one, so do not rely on my comments for a comprehensive picture of Greenewald's remaining assessment and analysis of the "Luis Elizondo emails."

Around the 41:00 minute mark. Here, Greenewald breaks down an email from Luis Elizondo to a Mr Michael Russo at DOPSR, sent on August 9, 2017. Now, if you are interested in seeing the whole content and the exact wording of that email, I suggest you look at the presentation or download the FOIA released documents. 

But I should, of course, mention that Greenewald's presentation breaks down the email in question headline to headline. He starts with the headline "STRATEGIC ISSUE." Here I disagree with Greenewald's issue with the terminology of "unmanned aerial vehicles" (UAS´). According to Greenewald, UAS cannot refer to "unidentified aerial phenomena" (UAP). (Or as most people still call them, UFOs). Personally, I buy the statement that Elizondo provided and delivered via Mr Knapp. That statement is shown around the 1:14:00 mark in the presentation and is marked "A)". 

To continue with the headline "Strategic issue", Elizondo writes something that in my mind sounds like one of TTSA missions: to create an "UNCLASSIFIED repository" to share information about UAS across all stakeholders (again, go to the presentation at the 41-minute mark to see the verbatim formulations). That is then repeated under the "PURPOSE" headline in Elizondo´s email: "Our collective purpose is to eventually establish an UNCLASSIFIED database or `Community of Interest´ of related signature data to be accessible by stakeholders such as DIA, the Navy, Defense industry partners, and perhaps even State, Local & Tribal authorities..."

In the above segment, I think Greenewald has the wrong focus. Instead of asking other questions and widening his perspective, Greenewald claims that the content in the just described email shows that UAS´has nothing to do with UAP, or UFOs, as Elizondo and TTSA have made everyone believe, including the mainstream media. 

As I have already said, I disagree with Greenewald on that point, and I do it mainly because of the aforementioned statement ("A)") by Elizondo via George Knapp. 

But there is, perhaps, a more pertinent reason to why I disagree with Greenewald on that point: What about the similarities in the "strategic issue" and "purpose" of the AATIP described by Mr Elizondo in the email from August 9, 2017, and the private corporation that in October the same year had an official announcement of its start? Whose "collective purpose" is Elizondo referring to; AATIP's or TTSA's? Or both? Other stakeholders?

I wish that Mr Greenewald had explored and examined those similarities more closely in his presentation. He may have done it before and in another context; in that case, I have not seen or heard it. Are the similarities a coincidence or not? If there are not, what could that mean?

 For example, is it possible that a faction in the U.S. government is working with, collaborating with a science and entertainment corporation? That the TTSA has the USG's blessing to do what it does, but under certain, and likely, strict conditions? What is this "collective purpose"?
Please take note that Greenewald is not questioning the motive in the email from Elizondo to Russo. What he is questioning is if the term UAS has anything to do with UAP, or UFOs. That is, he is questioning what the FLIR1, Gimble, and GoFast videos actually show.

Around the 43:45 minute mark: Here Greenewald goes into the "mysterious person" who Elizondo has cc´d the email in question (sent on August 9, 2017) to Mr Michael Russo at DOPSR. That mysterious person's name is redacted in the email. This point will be very important as the presentation progresses. 

I can already now say that I agree with Greenewald that this point, or question, is important. However, I think it is a key question for a different reason than Greenewald. 

Moving on with Greenewald's presentation starting at 43:45 minutes. About 30 minutes after Elizondo has sent his email to Mr Russo, the "mysterious" person sent an email/a reply to Elizondo's email to Mr Russo. The email from the mysterious person has the classification "SECRET // NOFORN", and according to  Greenewald, the emails (in this case, two emails, please see below) from the mysterious person are the only emails with the classification "SECRET // NOFORN" in the "Luis Elizondo emails" (the 16 pages released under FOIA). 

The classified email from the mysterious person to Mr Russo at DOPSR is a reply to Elizondo's DOPSR request (the email in question from August 9, 2017) for the "GoFast"-video, says:

Michael,

 I am checking with NAVAIR to ensure these files are UNCLASS and will relay the response.

Thank you for your time and assistance. 

On the same day, August 9, 2017, and some time after the above email, the same mysterious person (that is the assumption) sent a second email to Russo at DOPSR. Again, the email has the classification "SECRET // NOFORN" ("No Foreign Nationals"), and says:

Michael,
Just to be clear...we should consider these files to be SECRET // NOFORN until I am able to establish that they are to be considered U //FOUO. 

Thanks again, 

"FOUO", means "For Official Use Only." What these emails from the mysterious person are stating, according to Greenwald, is - if I have understood Greenewald accurately- 1) the mysterious person is not a member of AATIP, and 2) seems to have the authority to question the supposed director of AATIP, Mr Elizondo. That is, Greenewald is asking how a member (the mysterious person) of AATIP can overrule his/her director, Elizondo? 

All of this becomes important as the presentation moves on, and I highly recommend people to watch the segment that starts around the 1:11:00 mark, where Greenwald further examines Elizondo's title/rank, and the "National Programs Special Management Staff, OUSD (I)."

According to Greenewald, what I have just described above, together with the content he covers with the beginning at 1 h, 11 min., is "proof positive" (Greenewald's wording) that Elizondo did not work in AATIP, but in the "National Programs Special Management Staff, OUSD (I)."

First, I think there is a misconception of what the AATIP was at the time Elizondo became involved with, and then later, supposedly headed AATIP. I am certain that I have heard Elizondo say (I am sorry I cannot remember and give a source for this) that AATIP started as a more or less formal "project" composed of individuals from different offices and departments within, but not exclusively, the Department of Defence / the Pentagon. 

From what I know, the "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" wasn't really a formal "program" when it first started. 

My point being, even if the humble beginnings of AATIP later developed into something that resembles a program, it does not rule out the possibility that Elizondo had two positions, or worked both as a director in the National Programs Special Management Staff, OUSD (I) (NPSMS) and headed AATIP. In fact, Elizondo's formal and official position as a director in NSPSMS  made him a natural choice as a more or less formal/official director of the AATIP. 

So, that is my counterargument against Greenewald's statement that Elizondo was not the director of AATIP, or that he did not work in AATIP at all. Also, I want to remind people to consider other evidence in favour that Elizondo headed the AATIP. For example, there is at least one spokesperson for the Pentagon /the DoD who has confirmed that Mr Elizondo worked in (I am not sure about the director part) AATIP and that AATIP studied UAP or UFOs.

Also, let us assume Elizondo was not the director, or the "top dog", of AATIP, but was involved with AATIP in some shape or form. What would that mean to what has happened since October 2017 (the official launch of TTSA)? Would it mean that the AATIP did not study UAP or UFOs? Not necessarily. From that follows that the three UFO videos (FLIR1, Gimbal, GoFast) still can show what TTSA is claiming that the videos are showing.

To be fair, I think what Greenewald is pointing out at the 43:45 minute mark, and then at the 1:11:00 mark, is important. Now, there might be a perfectly understandable reason for the mysterious person sending classified emails, which overrules the email from the supposed director of AATIP. It does not necessarily imply foul play or intentional deception on the part of  Elizondo, or from anyone else mentioned or not in the emails.

Instead, that reason might actually be a good one, from the perspective of those who believe in the narrative that we are experiencing a disclosure process of the truth of the UFO phenomena. I leave it up to you to figure that one out by yourself. But I leave you with a hint from Greenewald's presentation: "50X1-HUM," which he explains around the 49:20 minute mark into the presentation.

What is the purpose of Greenewald's presentation? 

Besides Greenewald's obvious purpose to assess and analyse the "Luis Elizondo email," I think he is wittingly, or unwittingly, trying to show an example of how one should conduct UFO research. In my opinion, Greenewald's presentation is an excellent example of how to examine, question and assess information, that an "armchair commentator" like myself should learn something from.

What other purpose or goal does he have with his presentation? I will call the following Greenewald's conclusions, or at least, what I interpret to be his main conclusions.

I will first, for clarity, describe what I believe is Greenewald's fundamental assumption throughout his presentation: That someone spun the public narrative of the AATIP studying UFOs, Luis Elizondo's role in AATIP, and the nature and mission of TTSA. 

That assumption is what he is trying to strengthen with his presentation. However, I am not so sure what "the spin" is, and more importantly, who and why is putting a spin on the narrative, according to Greenewald. To be clear; based on what Greenewald is saying in his presentation, I do not think that Greenewald is alluding to, or implying, some kind of conspiracy theory behind the inconsistencies in the "Luis Elizondo emails", or why Elizondo today is working with TTSA.

So, how is Greenewald trying to strengthen his fundamental assumption? Or what are his conclusions about "the Luis Elizondo emails" in his presentation? As I understand and interpret Greenewald's presentation, his conclusions are:

1. The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) did not study unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), or in more common language, UFOs. 
2. Therefore, the three videos presented as showing UAP/ UFOs in the mainstream media and by To The Stars Academy (TTSA) are in question. 
3. Luis Elizondo was neither a director nor a member of the AATIP. Again, this puts the three UFO videos in question, and also, Mr Elizondo's and TTSA's claims of him being a former director of a Pentagon UFO program.
4. Therefore, the public narrative about TTSA being a mechanism to bring about disclosure of the UFO phenomena comes into doubt. 

Of course, Greenewald arrives at those conclusions because nowhere in the discussed emails in his presentation is there any mention of UAP (UFOs), AATIP, or that Elizondo was the director of or a member of the AATIP.

Summing up my thoughts and comments on Greenwald's presentation

I will start with what I think is the most common-sense argument against not only some (not all) of  Greenewald's points and conclusions in his presentation, but also against the opinions that this entire narrative about TTSA bringing about a disclosure is spun towards some shadowy agenda. That common-sense argument is:

Look at what has happened with the UFO subject since TTSA entered the scene, both literally and figuratively, in October 2017. Look at the impact on the mainstream media, on the Navy and on senators that TTSA's work has had. Now, we have to ask ourselves; for what other reasons other than the ones TTSA are claiming it is working to realise, could there be that are more likely and more reasonable? 

Furthermore, look at the individuals involved in TTSA. Some of them have come out of the shadows. Not only that, some of them have disclosed their personal experiences with the "Phenomenon." Most of them are walking a thin line in not breaking their non-disclosure agreements and putting themselves in the position of being scrutinised by the public and the media. 

Now, we have to ask ourselves; if this whole disclosure process, or narrative, turns out to be lies and deception, where will the individuals involved in TTSA hide from the public and the world? Would those individuals risk the well being, safety and lives of their loved ones?

So, taken together, what does common sense say? That TTSA's "strategic issue" and "purpose" actually has been what the results are showing (more interest in the mainstream media and among senators about the UFO phenomena, US Navy issuing new reporting guidelines, fighting the social stigma, etc.), or that the individuals involved are risking their own and the safety and lives of their loved ones, for fortune and fame? Here, we should focus on the content = results, rather than the form = the background of most of the individuals involved in TTSA.

Sometimes it is effective to catch one's own line of reasoning by asking basic questions to oneself and reflect upon the questions out loud, so one can actually hear how far from reality one's reasoning is. I am serious; it is very effective. 

With that said, I still think Mr Greenewald points out a couple of important issues concerning the "Luis Elizondo emails." Those issues are:

1) Public and essential documentation of the three UFO videos (FLIR1, Gimble, and GoFast) on TTSA's website. That is, chain-of-custody, validation of their authenticity, etc. This is the point I am writing about under the headline "Around the 9:15 minute mark."

2) The issue with the "mysterious person", who is the only one with classified emails, and who overrules the decision made by Mr Luis Elizondo in his email to Mr Michael Russo, DOPSR, on August 9, 2017. This is the point I am writing about under the headline "Around the 43:45 minute mark."

The first issue I would like to see resolved of the simple reason that if you claim to have this or that documentation to prove something, then you deliver the documentation. Otherwise, you do not say or write such a thing. 

The second issue is not an issue for me, but a very fascinating thing that Greenewald has found. I wish several of the FOIA experts out there, including Greenewald, would research that "mysterious person", and the "National Programs Special Management Staff" further, but without risking putting themselves in some legal or other kinds of trouble.

What about the fact that nowhere in the discussed emails is there any mention of UAP (UFO), AATIP, or that Mr Elizondo was the director of or a member of AATIP? I do not have a sensible answer. My guess is that individuals directly and indirectly involved with AATIP (and some individuals still are) felt that the only way to get the three videos out in the public was to circumvent some traditional public release procedures in the DoD. Why? Again, I am guessing, but perhaps because of a faction in the Pentagon/the DoD who did not want those videos to be released to the public. 

Last, I have tried my best to represent the segments I have chosen from Greenewald's presentation fairly. That is important to me.

For the fifth or sixth time, do not take my selected segments as an exhaustive or detailed representation of  Greenewald's presentation. Because it is not. The only way to understand what the presentation is about, and earn the right to publicly voice your opinion about the presentation, is to watch and listen to the presentation from start to end, and, perhaps, several times. 

Take care!