Kelly, I’m so glad you started this Substack. I’ve been with you since the Rabbit Hole, through Cosmosis, now to Substack. You are a brilliant and nuanced thinker and presenter. But…I get lost sometimes. I’ll just own it and say I’m not good at hints. Sometimes I just need to hear things in plain language. AWWSAP vs AATIP? Please, just tell me why this is significant. I worked in government and swam in acronyms all the time. They changed constantly. They were often interchangeable. I’m not saying your distinction isn’t important - I just don’t fully understand what you’re driving at. And please know, I’m on board with your belief the military/IC angle in “disclosure” is being curated and we need to be incredibly discerning what we choose to entertain. Many of your X posts also have a vague, non-specific, ominous flavor too. I want to understand but I often don’t. Maybe I’m reading them too deeply? I just need a little more context. With great respect and admiration for all you do.
It's a great question. The reason it matters is because AATIP didn't exist. It was used occasionally in memos to refer to AAWSAP. This is standard practice when talking about classified programs, and not cause for concern in and of itself.
The issue is how the idea of AATIP has been used to tell a version of the truth that just, frankly, isn't true. It's been presented, not as a nickname for the 2008 program, but as a subsequent program that picked up where AAWSAP left off, running more-or-less uninterrupted until 2017 when Lue Elizondo resigned in protest.
This was the core story of the 2017 New York Times article. The funding it cites in the article, the infamous $22 million, was earmarked for AAWSAP back in 2008. Even if AATIP was real, that money did not go to AATIP. At best, these are blatant, sloppy errors in reporting.
So how—and perhaps more importantly, WHY—did Leslie Kean (a UFO insider with access to and relationships with the original members of AAWSAP) and Ralph Blumenthal (a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist) get that wrong? And why have they never corrected it? And why are we still talk about it as thought it's true?
There's the further issue that the story relies on the idea that Lue was the director of AATIP. The evidence for that is virtually non-existent and what does exist only raises further questions. And other alleged members of both AAWSAP and AATIP (notably Jay Stratton) have said publicly and repeatedly that Lue was never the director of the program. In Lue's own book, he says on the cover that he was the director of the program, but in the actual text he reports that he was originally recruited into AAWSAP by James Lacatski to run counter-intelligence for the program—which makes all the sense in the world considering that was his entire career.
But then 7 years after the program ends, he comes forward to say that he was the director of a non-existent, unfunded program that allegedly came after AAWSAP. And his resignation from a position that never existed becomes the catalyst for the disclosure movement. And we're supposed to believe that the counter-intel guy who was brought in to do counter-intel is telling the truth about all of this—despite the fact that the story itself is absurd and indefensible—and he really is just a patriot and whistleblower and not someone engaged in elaborate counter-intelligence efforts.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.
The bottom line is that I don't really know why they keep telling this lie. If they actually care about disclosure and transparency, it seems entirely counterproductive to keep doing this. And I think the community should be asking more questions about why it is that 8 years later we're still being told the same story.
We know it's not true. They know it's not true. We know that they know that we know that it's not true.
My god, thank you. I read Lue’s book and was having some kind of mental dissonance arise that I couldn’t put my finger on. But this is it! Thank you for pointing out what the emperor is wearing.
Exactly. I think that this is at the root of the cognitive dissonance that causes so many people to continue to support the disclosure narrative long past the point where it ceases to make sense. It's easier to think you can outsource your sense of reality to credentialed, authoritative others then to realize that you're ultimately on your own with the mystery. We can seek together, but at the end of the day there's no way to get around doing the work yourself.
(To anyone wondering, Kelly is being facetious in her photo caption. We were gifted tickets to the premiere by a good-hearted, well-intentioned person. Randy also had a ticket. I appreciate her humor about it though, especially given the proximity to the holidays)
Perhaps there was a need to start an intelligence operation that could credibly help cover weird experimental things flying around our skies. If you google “AAWSAP’ there is a lot of paranormal baggage there that would hurt the credibility. So what if you created a new name that’s about arial anomalous threats and you cherry pick the people and work of AAWSAP that fits the narrative you want to sell while creating distance from the paranormal stuff? Then you get the NYTimes and the History Channel to launch that rebrand for you to give it a stamp of authority. Then you can peddle the AATIP brand out whenever you’re wanting to get a mainstream audience to listen to the narrative, like a Dan Farrah movie, or a segment on NewsNation etc
I think this is a rational line of thinking, and I think this is entirely possible. If this is what's going on, I could understand to some extent.
What concerns me about it is that the "paranormal baggage" of AAWSAP isn't just a weird footnote in the inquiry into what the UFO phenomenon is. The paranormal baggage, in a very real and literal sense, IS the phenomenon. Physical craft represent a very small percentage of overall UFO sightings, and as a rule, these sightings overlap with a vast spectrum of psi and high strangeness phenomena.
So what is the point of disclosure if we're not trying to disclose what's actually going on? I can understand easing people into it—maybe. But we're 8 years in. At what point does the NatSec-sponsored version of what this phenomenon is actually start to resemble the realities of what real people are experiencing? If we're not disclosing the truth, then what is the point of all this? We're just replacing one set of lies for another.
Looking at the history it seems pretty clear the only verifiable interest the USG has in the UFO topic is using it as cover for other experimental programs and classified operations. We know they’ve done this, we know it’s been highly effective and we know they’ve never been held accountable. It’s a cheap and effective way to obscure all kinds of activities, maybe some that aren’t ethical or legal. So based on that I’m assuming they would scale this type of strategy up, not down.
I believe the more intriguing question is what is the full scope of experiments and operations they are using UFOs and the broader phenomenon to cover? I suspect it’s not limited to physical craft (drones).
I love this whole dissection. Both in the original piece and in the comments/discussion. The willingness to challenge and listen and respond, all with respect and straightforwardness. Really appreciate the topic and the people. Have a great day everyone.
My perspective, as a casual UFO fan, is to celebrate such a pronounced use of credentialism. It impresses a subset of skeptics, or at least make them ask good questions instead of merely dismissing the topic (the real zealots, God bless them, are not swayed). Transparency would certainly be nice! I hope, some day, we get it. But in the meantime, AOD seems like a nice addition to the wacky corpus of disclosure... I'm guessing that for you it's a more serious issue, as someone who's been to the front, unlike us civilians. Maybe it SHOULD give me longer pause, if in the long run, this doc hurts society. We'll see.
Kelly, thanks for this perspective and continuing to hold figureheads to account. I have two (long, run-on) questions for you:
1) In your opinion, from a successful comms approach: How do those of us who view this field as immensely critical to reframing a deceptive version of reality that humanity has been systemically fed strategically communicate everything you’ve brought up in this post and in your comments/replies (which as some have suggested, is likely “indigestible” to the masses) to the broader human collective victimized by this, rather than just our slowly growing echo chambers, at a time when the Earth and the Cosmos seem to be telling us a major collective evolution of consciousness is increasingly urgent?
I view these phenomena as catalyzing agents, but they are not separate from us, and I personally feel like they want us to take the mantle as subsequent catalyzing agents. Would you agree? Or do we leave the true, more collective Disclosure (not to say we even comprehend the totality of that) to these phenomena alone?
I don't know the answer. But I'm a student of the history of the field, and as such, I try very hard to not fall into the trap of thinking that I need to be personally responsible for bringing the truth to the masses. That mindset, though inherently noble, is fraught. It tends to get people into trouble and make them very malleable to both human and non-human agents. Pride goeth before a fall.
I control what I can control. I say what I can say. I do what I can to help and care for the people that I am able to help and care for. If it's a major evolutionary leap that we're about to go through, that is going to unfold with or without me. The only person I can control is myself, and so I just focus on doing that as authentically and ethically as possible.
Thanks! I didn’t mean that we need to be personally responsible for bringing “the truth” to the masses, but more so what is our role and who are we speaking to when we make these posts, these podcasts, and these shows (as a creator myself, for others reading this)? When we make certain arguments or raise certain contentions after gaining an audience and setting up our own “stage,” if you will? There are some who just do it for clout or clicks, but others who do it out of deep conviction that they obviously want to share with the public, not always out of pride or ego, but out of empathy—otherwise, they would be doing it in front of a mirror or in deep meditations.
I also don’t mean to suggest “controlling” other people, but being a positive, ethical, and authentic force in the world to affect changes around us that align with our convictions, whether they are defensive/cautionary or proactive/empowering. After all, we hold capacities and connections that are beyond our physical containers—and this entire cautionary message about disinformation or controlled narratives is precisely because there ARE indeed forces who DO affect and influence others besides themselves inauthentically and unethically.
We are also pushing our own narratives—often with a specific intention to reach those we care about (the boundaries of that caring differ in range for different people depending on their energetic configurations). Our consensus reality is, after all, a dance composed of story, as are these phenomena.
I’m just thinking out loud here about all the things you have brought to mind for me. I blame you, and I thank you 😅.
Welcome indeed. I'm a follower of your work. And just wanted to point not that the "disclosure movement" is not 8 years-old. It started a long time before that spurious NYT article, as I am sure you are aware. I enjoy your podcasts and I look forward to enjoying your substacks.
it was the first red flag that popped up while watching...
the only explanation I could think of is that a lot of the documentary was filmed years ago, perhaps before the release of Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, which if I remember correctly was the first time we learned of the real differences between AAWSAP and AATIP.
I'm not trying to dismiss it away, it was just the only thing I could think of.
I would definitely be interested to know how those dates line up.
Either way, it's interesting that there seems to be an internal civil war with the AAWSAP/AATIP crowd for control of the narrative about what exactly they did and who exactly was involved.
There's some serious misinderstanding around aawsap vs aatip, and I'd like to help clear up.
Both are 100% legit parts of a congressionally directed Trojan horse program to penetrate and access the legacy program...via back door, threat based, need to know.
In other words, to get need to know from a black project they had to label uaps a THREAT...to get that access and handshake from legacy. As in, if legacy had capabilities or knowledge, this new threat program had need to know about what legacy was working on or had knowledge of.
AAWSAP (2008–10): was the big DIA study that created the data, the contractor network, and the “threat” framing that justifies need-to-know across compartments. The principals like Lacatski have called AAWSAP the origin point of everything that followed: “AAWSAP is ground zero… Without AAWSAP, there would have been no AATIP…”
AATIP (post-2010): the lean continuation with a heavy counter-intel/Hill-education spine (the “war plan” Elizondo describes elsewhere) that kept the lights on and pushed Congress. AATIP sold the threat to Congress and the public to unlock access and oversight.
KONA BLUE (2011): was the bridge move to stand up a prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) at DHS explicitly to get the legal read-ins and cross-compartment access the team believed existed in a legacy vault.
The film uses “AATIP” because it’s the cleared, threat-centric banner the public already recognizes, while the deeper AAWSAP stack including Kona blue (which remember lacatski aptly said "you can't kill") remains only partly discussable in public—and was never meant to be the public-facing brand. These are the peoples program, which essentially stood up a new program adjacent to legacy...and HAS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. Kona blue said: "this is a congressional interest item".
AAWSAP was a big, funded program that looked at both craft performance and human effects, contracted through BAASS, and it produced the 38 DIA technical papers (DIRDs). These extracted the non HUMINT intel. But the managers were explicit: AAWSAP was not the same as AATIP and the $22M went to AAWSAP, not AATIP. I know most people get that, but it doesn't mean aatip is bs.
Again AATIP was (after AAWSAP ended): a small, lean follow-on...more like a tight ci network...focused on military encounters and threat characterization, run by a counterintelligence pro (Elizondo) who built a Hill strategy. He flat-out calls it a “multiyear… war plan… to educate Congress.”
Elizondo is a counter Intel expert, and that should give everyone pause, but certainly not obscure the fact that this was ALL a legit trojan horse operation...and it kinda worked! We just can't say it out loud...because it says there was a constitutional crisis of epic proportions.
Disclosure is about distraction. We all know there is a presence which is ancient, has vast numbers present on Earth in the now, and has the power to act freely as it wishes regardless of any human factors. What's to disclose? Nothing! What to do? Listen to the people who are everyday nobodies with amazing stories that reveal the truth...
Great article. Well-thought out and important questions that should be asked by anyone given the opportunity to speak with the individuals mentioned. The stripper doesn't love you, and you shouldn't try to cultivate that love.
I wonder if AATIP (if anything like it ever actually existed in some form) was meant to identify threats to the secrecy; in other words Lue needed to leave his official post in order to take the helm of AATIP, and this is what he's been doing ever since: identifying individuals that pose a threat to the true nature/existence of whatever SAP/USAP they want kept in the dark, establish a relationship, pique their curiousity, offer inside info and then make them sign an NDA that very clearly communicates what legally authorized actions can be taken against them if they start coloring outside the lines. It's a stretch, but who knows...
It's also interesting that Curt Jaimungal no longer has either of the long form interviews he did with Elizondo on his Theories of Everything channel. There are a couple short snippets, but the full interviews are gone.
Kelly, I’m so glad you started this Substack. I’ve been with you since the Rabbit Hole, through Cosmosis, now to Substack. You are a brilliant and nuanced thinker and presenter. But…I get lost sometimes. I’ll just own it and say I’m not good at hints. Sometimes I just need to hear things in plain language. AWWSAP vs AATIP? Please, just tell me why this is significant. I worked in government and swam in acronyms all the time. They changed constantly. They were often interchangeable. I’m not saying your distinction isn’t important - I just don’t fully understand what you’re driving at. And please know, I’m on board with your belief the military/IC angle in “disclosure” is being curated and we need to be incredibly discerning what we choose to entertain. Many of your X posts also have a vague, non-specific, ominous flavor too. I want to understand but I often don’t. Maybe I’m reading them too deeply? I just need a little more context. With great respect and admiration for all you do.
It's a great question. The reason it matters is because AATIP didn't exist. It was used occasionally in memos to refer to AAWSAP. This is standard practice when talking about classified programs, and not cause for concern in and of itself.
The issue is how the idea of AATIP has been used to tell a version of the truth that just, frankly, isn't true. It's been presented, not as a nickname for the 2008 program, but as a subsequent program that picked up where AAWSAP left off, running more-or-less uninterrupted until 2017 when Lue Elizondo resigned in protest.
This was the core story of the 2017 New York Times article. The funding it cites in the article, the infamous $22 million, was earmarked for AAWSAP back in 2008. Even if AATIP was real, that money did not go to AATIP. At best, these are blatant, sloppy errors in reporting.
So how—and perhaps more importantly, WHY—did Leslie Kean (a UFO insider with access to and relationships with the original members of AAWSAP) and Ralph Blumenthal (a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist) get that wrong? And why have they never corrected it? And why are we still talk about it as thought it's true?
There's the further issue that the story relies on the idea that Lue was the director of AATIP. The evidence for that is virtually non-existent and what does exist only raises further questions. And other alleged members of both AAWSAP and AATIP (notably Jay Stratton) have said publicly and repeatedly that Lue was never the director of the program. In Lue's own book, he says on the cover that he was the director of the program, but in the actual text he reports that he was originally recruited into AAWSAP by James Lacatski to run counter-intelligence for the program—which makes all the sense in the world considering that was his entire career.
But then 7 years after the program ends, he comes forward to say that he was the director of a non-existent, unfunded program that allegedly came after AAWSAP. And his resignation from a position that never existed becomes the catalyst for the disclosure movement. And we're supposed to believe that the counter-intel guy who was brought in to do counter-intel is telling the truth about all of this—despite the fact that the story itself is absurd and indefensible—and he really is just a patriot and whistleblower and not someone engaged in elaborate counter-intelligence efforts.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.
The bottom line is that I don't really know why they keep telling this lie. If they actually care about disclosure and transparency, it seems entirely counterproductive to keep doing this. And I think the community should be asking more questions about why it is that 8 years later we're still being told the same story.
We know it's not true. They know it's not true. We know that they know that we know that it's not true.
And yet...
My god, thank you. I read Lue’s book and was having some kind of mental dissonance arise that I couldn’t put my finger on. But this is it! Thank you for pointing out what the emperor is wearing.
My takeaway from Lue’s book was “holy hell, everything this guy claims to know about UAP came from Hal Putoff, James Lacatski and Jay Stratton”
Which begs the question, “Will we believe what they say when they, ‘disclose’ something?
Why are we still expecting them to tell us the honest truth?
Do we need the government to validate our reality?
Exactly. I think that this is at the root of the cognitive dissonance that causes so many people to continue to support the disclosure narrative long past the point where it ceases to make sense. It's easier to think you can outsource your sense of reality to credentialed, authoritative others then to realize that you're ultimately on your own with the mystery. We can seek together, but at the end of the day there's no way to get around doing the work yourself.
(To anyone wondering, Kelly is being facetious in her photo caption. We were gifted tickets to the premiere by a good-hearted, well-intentioned person. Randy also had a ticket. I appreciate her humor about it though, especially given the proximity to the holidays)
Sean Beam: One does not simply walk into the Age of Disclosure premiere.
Perhaps there was a need to start an intelligence operation that could credibly help cover weird experimental things flying around our skies. If you google “AAWSAP’ there is a lot of paranormal baggage there that would hurt the credibility. So what if you created a new name that’s about arial anomalous threats and you cherry pick the people and work of AAWSAP that fits the narrative you want to sell while creating distance from the paranormal stuff? Then you get the NYTimes and the History Channel to launch that rebrand for you to give it a stamp of authority. Then you can peddle the AATIP brand out whenever you’re wanting to get a mainstream audience to listen to the narrative, like a Dan Farrah movie, or a segment on NewsNation etc
I think this is a rational line of thinking, and I think this is entirely possible. If this is what's going on, I could understand to some extent.
What concerns me about it is that the "paranormal baggage" of AAWSAP isn't just a weird footnote in the inquiry into what the UFO phenomenon is. The paranormal baggage, in a very real and literal sense, IS the phenomenon. Physical craft represent a very small percentage of overall UFO sightings, and as a rule, these sightings overlap with a vast spectrum of psi and high strangeness phenomena.
So what is the point of disclosure if we're not trying to disclose what's actually going on? I can understand easing people into it—maybe. But we're 8 years in. At what point does the NatSec-sponsored version of what this phenomenon is actually start to resemble the realities of what real people are experiencing? If we're not disclosing the truth, then what is the point of all this? We're just replacing one set of lies for another.
Looking at the history it seems pretty clear the only verifiable interest the USG has in the UFO topic is using it as cover for other experimental programs and classified operations. We know they’ve done this, we know it’s been highly effective and we know they’ve never been held accountable. It’s a cheap and effective way to obscure all kinds of activities, maybe some that aren’t ethical or legal. So based on that I’m assuming they would scale this type of strategy up, not down.
I believe the more intriguing question is what is the full scope of experiments and operations they are using UFOs and the broader phenomenon to cover? I suspect it’s not limited to physical craft (drones).
I agree.
This is why the notion of "amnesty" as part of "disclosure" is terrifying to me.
totally agree - this amnesty part of the conversation - RED FLAG.
Totally Agree💯🎬‼️
I love this whole dissection. Both in the original piece and in the comments/discussion. The willingness to challenge and listen and respond, all with respect and straightforwardness. Really appreciate the topic and the people. Have a great day everyone.
Thanks for joining us!
My perspective, as a casual UFO fan, is to celebrate such a pronounced use of credentialism. It impresses a subset of skeptics, or at least make them ask good questions instead of merely dismissing the topic (the real zealots, God bless them, are not swayed). Transparency would certainly be nice! I hope, some day, we get it. But in the meantime, AOD seems like a nice addition to the wacky corpus of disclosure... I'm guessing that for you it's a more serious issue, as someone who's been to the front, unlike us civilians. Maybe it SHOULD give me longer pause, if in the long run, this doc hurts society. We'll see.
Kelly, thanks for this perspective and continuing to hold figureheads to account. I have two (long, run-on) questions for you:
1) In your opinion, from a successful comms approach: How do those of us who view this field as immensely critical to reframing a deceptive version of reality that humanity has been systemically fed strategically communicate everything you’ve brought up in this post and in your comments/replies (which as some have suggested, is likely “indigestible” to the masses) to the broader human collective victimized by this, rather than just our slowly growing echo chambers, at a time when the Earth and the Cosmos seem to be telling us a major collective evolution of consciousness is increasingly urgent?
I view these phenomena as catalyzing agents, but they are not separate from us, and I personally feel like they want us to take the mantle as subsequent catalyzing agents. Would you agree? Or do we leave the true, more collective Disclosure (not to say we even comprehend the totality of that) to these phenomena alone?
I don't know the answer. But I'm a student of the history of the field, and as such, I try very hard to not fall into the trap of thinking that I need to be personally responsible for bringing the truth to the masses. That mindset, though inherently noble, is fraught. It tends to get people into trouble and make them very malleable to both human and non-human agents. Pride goeth before a fall.
I control what I can control. I say what I can say. I do what I can to help and care for the people that I am able to help and care for. If it's a major evolutionary leap that we're about to go through, that is going to unfold with or without me. The only person I can control is myself, and so I just focus on doing that as authentically and ethically as possible.
Thanks! I didn’t mean that we need to be personally responsible for bringing “the truth” to the masses, but more so what is our role and who are we speaking to when we make these posts, these podcasts, and these shows (as a creator myself, for others reading this)? When we make certain arguments or raise certain contentions after gaining an audience and setting up our own “stage,” if you will? There are some who just do it for clout or clicks, but others who do it out of deep conviction that they obviously want to share with the public, not always out of pride or ego, but out of empathy—otherwise, they would be doing it in front of a mirror or in deep meditations.
I also don’t mean to suggest “controlling” other people, but being a positive, ethical, and authentic force in the world to affect changes around us that align with our convictions, whether they are defensive/cautionary or proactive/empowering. After all, we hold capacities and connections that are beyond our physical containers—and this entire cautionary message about disinformation or controlled narratives is precisely because there ARE indeed forces who DO affect and influence others besides themselves inauthentically and unethically.
We are also pushing our own narratives—often with a specific intention to reach those we care about (the boundaries of that caring differ in range for different people depending on their energetic configurations). Our consensus reality is, after all, a dance composed of story, as are these phenomena.
I’m just thinking out loud here about all the things you have brought to mind for me. I blame you, and I thank you 😅.
Nice to see you here. Nice to see someone asking smart questions.
Thanks, Robert!
Welcome indeed. I'm a follower of your work. And just wanted to point not that the "disclosure movement" is not 8 years-old. It started a long time before that spurious NYT article, as I am sure you are aware. I enjoy your podcasts and I look forward to enjoying your substacks.
Kelly with the mic drop 🎤🙌
She’s baa-aack…. ✊
it was the first red flag that popped up while watching...
the only explanation I could think of is that a lot of the documentary was filmed years ago, perhaps before the release of Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, which if I remember correctly was the first time we learned of the real differences between AAWSAP and AATIP.
I'm not trying to dismiss it away, it was just the only thing I could think of.
I would definitely be interested to know how those dates line up.
Either way, it's interesting that there seems to be an internal civil war with the AAWSAP/AATIP crowd for control of the narrative about what exactly they did and who exactly was involved.
There's some serious misinderstanding around aawsap vs aatip, and I'd like to help clear up.
Both are 100% legit parts of a congressionally directed Trojan horse program to penetrate and access the legacy program...via back door, threat based, need to know.
In other words, to get need to know from a black project they had to label uaps a THREAT...to get that access and handshake from legacy. As in, if legacy had capabilities or knowledge, this new threat program had need to know about what legacy was working on or had knowledge of.
AAWSAP (2008–10): was the big DIA study that created the data, the contractor network, and the “threat” framing that justifies need-to-know across compartments. The principals like Lacatski have called AAWSAP the origin point of everything that followed: “AAWSAP is ground zero… Without AAWSAP, there would have been no AATIP…”
AATIP (post-2010): the lean continuation with a heavy counter-intel/Hill-education spine (the “war plan” Elizondo describes elsewhere) that kept the lights on and pushed Congress. AATIP sold the threat to Congress and the public to unlock access and oversight.
KONA BLUE (2011): was the bridge move to stand up a prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) at DHS explicitly to get the legal read-ins and cross-compartment access the team believed existed in a legacy vault.
The film uses “AATIP” because it’s the cleared, threat-centric banner the public already recognizes, while the deeper AAWSAP stack including Kona blue (which remember lacatski aptly said "you can't kill") remains only partly discussable in public—and was never meant to be the public-facing brand. These are the peoples program, which essentially stood up a new program adjacent to legacy...and HAS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. Kona blue said: "this is a congressional interest item".
AAWSAP was a big, funded program that looked at both craft performance and human effects, contracted through BAASS, and it produced the 38 DIA technical papers (DIRDs). These extracted the non HUMINT intel. But the managers were explicit: AAWSAP was not the same as AATIP and the $22M went to AAWSAP, not AATIP. I know most people get that, but it doesn't mean aatip is bs.
Again AATIP was (after AAWSAP ended): a small, lean follow-on...more like a tight ci network...focused on military encounters and threat characterization, run by a counterintelligence pro (Elizondo) who built a Hill strategy. He flat-out calls it a “multiyear… war plan… to educate Congress.”
Elizondo is a counter Intel expert, and that should give everyone pause, but certainly not obscure the fact that this was ALL a legit trojan horse operation...and it kinda worked! We just can't say it out loud...because it says there was a constitutional crisis of epic proportions.
Disclosure is about distraction. We all know there is a presence which is ancient, has vast numbers present on Earth in the now, and has the power to act freely as it wishes regardless of any human factors. What's to disclose? Nothing! What to do? Listen to the people who are everyday nobodies with amazing stories that reveal the truth...
Great article. Well-thought out and important questions that should be asked by anyone given the opportunity to speak with the individuals mentioned. The stripper doesn't love you, and you shouldn't try to cultivate that love.
I wonder if AATIP (if anything like it ever actually existed in some form) was meant to identify threats to the secrecy; in other words Lue needed to leave his official post in order to take the helm of AATIP, and this is what he's been doing ever since: identifying individuals that pose a threat to the true nature/existence of whatever SAP/USAP they want kept in the dark, establish a relationship, pique their curiousity, offer inside info and then make them sign an NDA that very clearly communicates what legally authorized actions can be taken against them if they start coloring outside the lines. It's a stretch, but who knows...
It's also interesting that Curt Jaimungal no longer has either of the long form interviews he did with Elizondo on his Theories of Everything channel. There are a couple short snippets, but the full interviews are gone.