Government Grants FOIA Appeal Amid Ongoing AATIP and AAWSAP Controversy

In a long-standing battle for transparency, The Black Vault has finally seen progress in a FOIA case dating back to March 2019. The original request, case 19-F-0877, sought records related to a 2009 review of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), as conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in conjunction with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

The review was confirmed by James M. Kudla, a former Public Affairs Officer at the DIA, who stated on March 11, 2019, that “After an OSD/DIA review in late 2009, it was determined the reports were of limited value to DIA and there was a recommendation that upon completion of the contract, the project could be transitioned to an agency or component better suited to oversee it.”

Continue scrolling for more...

Despite this confirmation, the FOIA request hit a roadblock. In March 2024, The Black Vault received a “no records” response from the FOIA office, sparking an appeal. The appeal highlighted the apparent contradiction between the government’s response and Kudla’s statement, arguing that the confirmation of the review strongly suggested the existence of documents.

Original FOIA “no records” response letter dated March 1, 2024

The appeal further argued that OSD and DIA have often used the terms AATIP and the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) interchangeably, complicating the search for records.

This confusion between program acronyms has been a longstanding issue, with many key figures involved in the programs offering conflicting narratives. Dr. James Lacatski, former director of AAWSAP at DIA, Dr. Hal Puthoff, former AAWSAP contractor at Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), and Luis Elizondo, the man who claims to have run the AATIP, have all provided differing accounts of the relationship between AATIP and AAWSAP, contributing to an environment of confusion about how both programs, or the one program with a nickname, ultimately played out.

The appeal cited legal precedent, referencing McGehee v. CIA, which requires agencies to conduct searches reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. Given the interchangeable use of program names and the confirmation from the DIA, The Black Vault argued that a more thorough search was necessary. The appeal stated, “Rejecting the request based on a difference in acronym would be unfair, especially considering the significant time that has elapsed since the initial request.”

Appeal letter dated September 26, 2024, granting a new search and remand back to the FOIA action officer

On September 27, 2024, the appeal was granted. The response from the FOIA office stated, “After carefully considering your appeal, and as a result of discussions between FOID personnel and this office, I am remanding your request to FOID for a further search for responsive records. If FOID locates releasable records, it will send them to you directly, subject to any applicable fees. You may appeal any future adverse determination made by FOID.”

The decision to remand the request acknowledges that the initial search may not have been thorough, reflecting broader issues within the government’s handling of FOIA requests, including those specifically for AATIP and AAWSAP records.

However, the confusion surrounding these programs extends beyond the government. Luis Elizondo, often cited in media reports about AATIP, has repeatedly contradicted himself regarding the nature of AATIP and AAWSAP and his role in both. Meanwhile, Dr. Hal Puthoff has stated that AATIP was merely a nickname for AAWSAP, further muddying the waters by displaying that those who directly worked within these programs do not agree with each other on many of the details.

These conflicting statements from former government officials have fueled controversy and speculation about the true nature of AATIP and AAWSAP. While some, like Elizondo, assert clear distinctions between the programs, others blur the lines, leaving researchers and journalists struggling to piece together an accurate account. This has inadvertently played into the hands of the FOIA offices, allowing them to deny requests on technical grounds which further complicates public understanding.

The confusion between AATIP and AAWSAP—whether intentional or inadvertent—has become a tool for denial and obfuscation, with both the government and former insiders contributing to an apparent mess of a narrative.

###

 

 

Follow The Black Vault on Social Media:

This post was published on September 27, 2024 3:36 pm

John Greenewald

Recent Posts

NOAA Releases UAP-Related Correspondence

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has released a set of documents related to…

September 26, 2024

FBI Releases Files on O.J. Simpson

Note: The below article was originally written on May 30, 2024. Since that publication, additional…

September 26, 2024

Boeing X-20 “Dyna-Soar”

The Dyna-Soar, or "Dynamic Soarer," officially known as the X-20 Dyna-Soar, was an ambitious spaceplane…

September 26, 2024

FAA Cites National Security to Withhold UAP Communications Despite Unclassified Report

In June 2021, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed by The Black…

September 23, 2024

DoD/IG Emails on Luis Elizondo – A Small Puzzle Piece Revealed

Article originally published June 28, 2022. Updated on April 2, 2024 https://youtu.be/8Iz5m1LkSGA On June 28,…

September 20, 2024

FBI Files: American Military

Welcome to the FBI Files on American Military Personnel archive at The Black Vault. This…

September 18, 2024