With so many stories being written about AATIP and AAWSAP a lot of confusion and claims have been presented. Usually these are honest mistakes or admissions, but every once in a while they are nefariously presented to further ideas and agendas. The bottom line is that some of these topics are highly debated. UFO Joe and I brought this up to a writer recently and they simply edited their article – a classy move and no harm was done. The researchers seeking confirmation through FOIAs or statements directly from government entities play an important role, although sometimes the FOIAs are returned with little information gained and the statements given contradict each other – maybe because the government itself is misinformed or maybe because different factions within the government are legitimately trying to muddy the waters. We know that not everyone in the government agrees and some are very unhappy that AATIP was revealed. Lue Elizondo himself stated that he received threats from within the Pentagon after he publicly came forward. Something that speaks to the levels of secrecy and dysfunctionality within the government was a story recounted by George Knapp. Mr. Knapp said Secretary Mattis was unaware Elizondo was going to come forward until the day before it happened, when Secretary Mattis was pulled aside at a social event and given the lowdown. Was Mattis too busy to be bothered with this important information or was he unjustly insulated from information by those around him? There hasn’t been any official government confirmation that AATIP is ongoing and I applaud those seeking it. There is obviously a lot we don’t know and understand about AATIP/AAWSAP. As of now, I go by the statements of people I trust. There are many instances of Elizondo saying AATIP did not end. I will only mention a few.
From the New York Times article itself, we get a seemingly uninformed comment from the Pentagon:
“In response to questions from The Times, Pentagon officials this month acknowledged the existence of the program, which began as part of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Officials insisted that the effort had ended after five years, in 2012.
‘It was determined that there were other, higher priority issues that merited funding, and it was in the best interest of the DoD to make a change,’ a Pentagon spokesman, Thomas Crosson, said in an email, referring to the Department of Defense.”
Then, rightly so, The Times article immediately gives Elizondo’s stance:
“But Mr. Elizondo said the only thing that had ended was the effort’s government funding, which dried up in 2012. From then on, Mr. Elizondo said in an interview, he worked with officials from the Navy and the C.I.A. He continued to work out of his Pentagon office until this past October, when he resigned to protest what he characterized as excessive secrecy and internal opposition.”
When speaking to Chase Kloetzke in 2018, Mr. Elizondo stated:
” …and I happened to be, for the last 10 years, also part of the AATIP program.”
This time frame doesn’t mesh with anyone saying AATIP ended in 2012.
Maybe part of the confusion is the difference between AATIP and AAWSAP. How exactly they were linked is very confusing and technical. (All of the information regarding the two programs is not publicly available.) George Knapp has said AAWSAP ended. That the officials who were against it won. Mr. Knapp implied that the story regarding AAWSAP’s cancelation will one day come out. To me, the behind the scenes battle over these programs seems like a blockbuster drama movie in itself. I’d like to see Jeremy Corbel make a documentary about it. Speaking of Corbell, he has commented on the ongoing existence of AATIP many times. Most recently he said:
“To the best of my knowledge AATIP existed before AAWSAP and most certainly exists now.”
So what happened in 2012 when the AATIP funding ran out and more funding was procured? And how does AAWSAP fit in with AATIP? Lue Elizondo showed amazing slides at the Mufon conference that specifically addressed this. Thanks to Giuliano Marinkovic for reposting these recently and getting me thinking:
During the presentation, Mr. Elizondo again spoke about whether the program ended:
“And so when they said the program ended in 2012, well the funding was actually to 2013. After 2013, there were some other funding vehicles that were done to get it through 2013 and 2014. Now, I won’t go into detail what happened with those fundings. The funding actually came through. It actually wound up getting rerouted to another organization because the language was vague and so therefore, we were forced to continue the program on minimal funds.
Now, people say, “Well the funding dries up, so does the organization and the program.” That’s not true. How many of you have ever served in the military or are serving in the military? Show of hands real quick. Have ever served, fantastic. You know as a good soldier, when you were given a mission you were given an order to guard your post, you guard your posts until you are relieved of that responsibility. Well, that order never came for us and in the Department of Defense there’s always a paper trail.
When you establish an organization, there’s a paper trail. When you disestablish an organization, there’s a paper trail. You won’t find one for this program. I think that’s very important that people understand, that the program never really went away. Sure funding for the 2013 went away, but the program never went away. We were never told, “You no longer have to guard your post.” 2017, some guy makes a decision to I guess leave the Department of Defense and have some conversations on October 4th 2017, the rest is history.”