Navigating the Twisted Maze of the AATIP Timeline

EXACT Date Unknown

Source: Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program (Original NY Times Article) By Helene Cooper, Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean. Relevant excerpt:

“The shadowy program — parts of it remain classified — began in 2007, and initially it was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time and who has long had an interest in space phenomena.”

Problem: This contradicts the timeline that Mr. Luis Elizondo setup, that the AAWSAP contract/program was renamed AATIP in 2008, not 2007 (see below). Mr. Elizondo was at least one of the sources used by the NY Times for the facts, but it contradicts his later statements that AATIP started in 2008, and was quoted as saying, “… [AATIP] evolved from AAWSAP but it is not AAWSAP.” (See below for additional details on AAWSAP)

In addition, the NY Times said: “Contracts obtained by The Times show a congressional appropriation of just under $22 million beginning in late 2008 through 2011. The money was used for management of the program, research and assessments of the threat posed by the objects.”

Problem: This contradicts their own reporting. The original contracts awarded in late 2008 (see below) for what we later learn is AAWSAP, were not AATIP contracts. If they were, then this reporting contradicts the testimony of Mr. Luis Elizondo.  So, therefore, it must be asked why the NY Times would not stay accurate and offer a brief chronological overview of how AATIP came to be?  According to Mr. Elizondo, who headed the project, AATIP was a different program entirely from AAWSAP. So, if Mr. Elizondo was at least one of their sources, why would this not be addressed or detailed since Mr. Elizondo himself says AAWSAP and AATIP were not the same? (See also the contradiction between Dr. Hal Puthoff, a former contractor that worked within AAWSAP/AATIP, and who is now a board member of TTSA, working directly with Mr. Elizondo. He has direct knowledge of the program having worked on it, but his statement goes against Mr. Elizondo’s, who actually headed the program.)

June 2007

Source: Dr. Hal Puthoff speech to the SSE/IRVA Conference, Las Vegas, 8 June 2018. Full transcript available at Paradigm Research Group. The relevant portion:

“People have had trouble trying to get documents out of the Pentagon by saying they want all documents on AATIP, and they have a hard time because that wasn’t the actual name of the program. “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” is the actual name of the program. But AATIP was the nickname it went by. It began in June of 2007. The Defense Intelligence Agency was concerned about the fact that obvious observation had shown that Advanced Aerospace Vehicles – crafts, or drones of unknown origin, were flying all over the United States, over waters, in fact globally as was the case. So a Congressional budget was approved to address the issue behind the scenes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from Nevada was the one who was the initiator of the program, joined by Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. These are the people who generally approve programs that were in the black, under high security, behind the scenes, and so they set up this program.”

Problem: This contradicts the timeline that the AAWSAP contract/program solicited bids, as publicly archived, in August of 2008 (see below). It is not possible to award a contract a year prior to the bid solicitation being posted. He also references that AAWSAP was referred to as AATIP in 2007. This contradicts Mr. Elizondo that AAWSAP was renamed to AATIP a year later in 2008. See below for additional contradictions related to Dr. Puthoff’s statements.

Source: Dr. Hal Puthoff speech to the SSE/IRVA Conference, Las Vegas, 8 June 2018. Full transcript available at Paradigm Research Group. The relevant portion:

“People have had trouble trying to get documents out of the Pentagon by saying they want all documents on AATIP, and they have a hard time because that wasn’t the actual name of the program. ‘Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program’ is the actual name of the program. But AATIP was the nickname it went by.”

Problem: This contradicts the statement by Mr. Luis Elizondo that AATIP was not AAWSAP, but rather, evolved out of.  See below. 

January 29, 2008

Source: Nevada Secretary of State, Business ID NV20081214349, Entity Number E0056412008-7, filed on January 29, 2008.  Source Data via https://www.nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/.

Problem: This contradicts news reports by Mr. George Knapp, KLAS-TV, in the I-Team: Documents prove secret UFO study based in Nevada article.  The relevant quote is: “For the DIA contract, he created BAASS, a seperate (sic) entity housed within his aerospace plant. He hired a team of 46 scientists and investigators, along with dozens of other support personnel.” It was also reported in Newsweek by Andrew Whalen, wherein the relevant quote states: “BAASS, created specifically for the Pentagon contract, conducted research both from Bigelow Aerospace headquarters in North Las Vegas and an infamous Utah ranch, formerly owned by Robert Bigelow (ownership has since transferred to Adamantium Real Estate, who manages the property on behalf of an anonymous owner).” 

Since the bid for AAWSAP was not posted until August of 2008 by the DIA, there is no way for Mr. Bigelow to know. So, either this is an erroneous fact as published by multiple media outlets, or Mr. Bigelow had foreknowledge of the coming program that would be open for bidding 8 months later, and wanted to get the paperwork set for a Nevada LLC to take it. 

Source: Mr. George Knapp and Mr. Matt Adams, I-Team: Documents prove secret UFO study based in Nevada, published May 4, 2018. The exact quote:

“In Aug. 2008, DIA posted a solicitation for bids. Weeks later, the contract was awarded to Bigelow Aerospace, the initial amount was $10 million. It required Bigelow to provide a facility that qualified for top secret work. Harry Reid did not influence the selection process.”

Problem: This story contradicts previous reporting by the same authors months prior. See below.

Source: FBO Solicitation HHM40208R0211, posted August 18, 2008

According to versions 1, 2 and 3 (only ones known to exist, versions 1 and 2 posted on August 18, 2008 and version 3 August 22, 2018) of the contract bid solicitation notice for AAWSAP, the due date was September 5, 2008, by 4:00pm Eastern time. That is a total of 18 days to collect bids. It is assumed this date is the verifiable date, since no “version 4” of the notice was ever posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, changing the due date.

Problem: This contradicts reporting that this bid solicitation notice stayed up for “months” collecting bids. 

September 5, 2008 or later. Exact date unknown.

In numerous email exchanges with the DIA’s Office of Corporate Communications, John Greenewald, Jr. was able to learn that according to DIA, BAASS was the “sole bidder.” The exact quote from the email states:

“DIA awarded a contract to a sole bidder [Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, LLC,] who identified and worked with academics and scientists to produce 38 technical reports. ”

Source: Email exchange between DIA and John Greenewald, Jr. Source Email. (In order to stop any misunderstanding, a follow up was written confirming that BAASS was the ONLY bid received, and the response was, “Yes.”)

Problem: This goes somewhat against the implication by Senator Reid that BAASS was given a contract because they gave the “best cost.” Technically, that can be true, but it is more accurate to say it was the “only” cost that was put forth. It is a bit misleading given the fact that Senator Reid was trying to put to rest that the contract awarded to BAASS was a “sweetheart deal” as he referred to it.  

EXACT Date Unknown

Source: Mr. George Knapp, KLAS, in the video story here: Documents prove secret UFO study based in Nevada. The source of the actual documents shown where Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies is filled out in the awarded contract, is unknown and not sourced.

Problem: This contradicts statements by Mr. Luis Elizondo and Dr. Hal Puthoff, both principals in the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA), that AAWSAP was already underway in 2007, more than a year prior to this notice being posted seeking bids. Dr. Puthoff timestamped his statement as June of 2007 (see above) while Mr. Elizondo only said 2007 in some presentations, and 2007/2008 in his 2018 MUFON interview with Chase Kloetzke.

EXACT Date Unknown

Source: Dr. Hal Puthoff speech to the SSE/IRVA Conference, Las Vegas, 8 June 2018. Full transcript available at Paradigm Research Group. The relevant portion:

“I was contracted to commission mostly unclassified whitepapers from experts around the globe about where their particular subject areas would be in (the year) 2050 as like a general survey of aerospace futures. I decided this would be the best way to get the best knowledge we had across many technologies without actually exposing why we wanted to know. So, I let out 38 contracts over a two-year period. I’ll show you what the studies were on. You can read them there: positron aerospace propulsion, IEC fusion as a compact energy source, warp drive, dark energy, extra dimensions, metallic glasses for aerospace use. Really cutting edge kinds of things.”

Problem: This potentially opens up a slew of misreporting by various media outlets in January of 2019. I have chosen to not dissect each one, but rather point out an established timeline point, according to Dr. Puthoff. Contrary to media reports that the DIA/The Government specifically contracted work on Warp Drives, Time Travel and the Drake Equation, Dr. Puthoff establishes that he, as a contractor with BAASS, commissioned the topics. This is an important point to clarify, because it strongly goes against much of the reporting and wording that the DIA itself mandated the studies. Contrary to all of the flashy headlines, Dr. Puthoff states, it was his action that commissioned the mostly unclassified whitepapers. That point is an important one when establishing the actual context of the 38 Reports created under AATIP and whether or not they were truly mandated or specifically requested by DIA (or anyone in “the government”), so it needs to be established who actually mandated the studies.

June 24, 2009

Source: July 25, 2018 story by Mr. George Knapp – I-Team obtains some key documents related to Pentagon UFO study. The actual letter’s source, Mr. Knapp has not stated, but asked Mr. Luis Elizondo and Senator Harry Reid on camera if it was genuine, and they acknowledged it was.

Note: Some people have indicated this letter is proof of Mr. Elizondo’s involvement in, or leadership of, the AATIP program, since his name appeared on it and a new “leak” was revealed by Mr. George Knapp. However, evidence shows that argument may not be solid. Not only does it pre-date Mr. Elizondo’s claim (he claimed he took over AATIP in 2010, and the letter was written in 2009), the Pentagon issued statements to The Black Vault stating that although the letter was real, it did not change their stance that he had “no responsibilities” on the AATIP program. The Black Vault created this video excerpt from a larger presentation which outlines why it is likely Mr. Elizondo’s name would be on such a letter, and it would not indicate he worked on, or led, the program. Rather, it just indicates he would know about it.

Exact Report Delivery Dates Throughout Year Unknown

Relevant excerpt:

“26 of 38 reports were delivered in FY 2009; the balance in FY 2010. That’s when the project ended at DIA. I have no additional information about what happened after the contract was fulfilled after DIA received 38 reports that covered the 12 research areas requested.”

Source: Email exchange between DIA and John Greenewald, Jr. Source Email.

EXACT Date Unknown

Source: Mr. Luis Elizondo Slide Presentation, MUFON Conference, July 29, 2018. Slide Graphic.

March 29, 2010

As of the writing of this timeline, there have only been a select few DIRD reports (part of the 38 reports) that have been leaked out and reported on. The most recent of them, as of the writing of this timeline, is dated 29 March 2010.  It is, “Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Vacuum (Spacetime Metric) Engineering” by Dr. Hal Puthoff, EarthTech International. In the beginning of the report, it states:

“This product is one in a series of advanced technology reports produced in FY 2009 under the Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Warning Office’s Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications (AAWSA) Program. Comments or questions pertaining to this document should be addressed to James T. Lacatski, D.Eng., AAWSA Program Manager, Defense Intelligence Agency, ATTN: CLAR/DWO-3, Bldg 6000, Washington, DC 20340-5100.” Source Document

Problem: This contradicts Mr. Luis Elizondo, wherein he has stated that 1) AATIP was not AAWSAP, and 2) AAWSAP’s name changed to AATIP in 2008. See multiple points on this timeline to source that statement. All other DIRD reports, as of the writing of this timeline, that have leaked — also use the AAWSAP program name after Mr. Elizondo said it had changed in 2008. 

Source: Mr. George Knapp and Mr. Matt Adams, I-Team: Documents prove secret UFO study based in Nevada, published May 4, 2018. The exact quote:

“AAWSAP came to an end after 2011. Elizondo, who had interacted with the study from the Pentagon, was assigned to continue the work, but he chose a smaller focus, limited to military encounters with unknown aircraft. his effort, dubbed AATIP, survived by keeping a low profile.”

Problem: This contradicts previous statements by Mr. Luis Elizondo, presenting that AAWSAP was formerly changed to AATIP in 2008. In addition, Mr. Elizondo stated that AATIP’s focus, was fine tuned to focus on UAPs in 2008. What did he refocus in 2011?

Mr. Elizondo said in his MUFON Conference lecture on July 29, 2018:

“In 2008, the program was already beginning to evolve. The original AAWSAP portfolio was much broader than the AATIP. The decision was made early on, that we would go ahead and focus the effort more to the phenomena specific, looking at the observables and the identifiables. What could we look at; what could we collect on; what could we report on back to Senior DOD leadership. Because that’s what their concerned with.”

In addition, it should be clarified why would Mr. Elizondo would need to be assigned (again) to continue AATIP after AAWSAP ended in 2011 (even though that date contradicts his own timeline)?  According to Mr. Elizondo, the program had already changed in 2008 with a focus on UAPs (contradicting again this news report); AAWSAP was already renamed to AATIP in 2008 (contradicting again this news report); Mr. Elizondo was promoted to head the AATIP program in 2010, and he further claims it never stopped in 2012, despite the misappropriated funds and contradicting statements by the Pentagon and the DIA.   

In addition, this entire claim is disputed by official Pentagon statements given to The Intercept and published on June 1, 2019, along with more statements given to Bloomberg, and published October 21, 2019. These claims state that Mr. Elizondo had “no responsibilities” on the AATIP program.

2013-2014

Source: Mr. Luis Elizondo Slide Presentation, MUFON Conference, July 29, 2018. Slide Graphic. Excerpt from the slide states:

“2013-2014 — New funding vehicle under Joint ISR is created, intended to bolster AATIP efforts. Data and reporting continues to flow through AATIP channels”

Problem: This contradicts statements by the Department of Defense acknowledging the program was real, but it ended in 2012. This statement was given to the NY Times in the original article, but was also told to numerous media outlets that reported the same.  The program’s cancellation was also confirmed to John Greenewald, Jr. by the Pentagon’s Spokesperson Major Audricia Harris and a public affairs officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency.  It also should be noted, that despite the quote from the slide, Mr. Luis Elizondo has said on multiple occasions that the funding slated for AATIP, was ultimately forwarded to a different office, therefore one can only conclude that it would hinder AATIP 2013 on efforts. This, to me, seemingly contradicts a statement saying AATIP was “bolstered” (which is defined as “strengthening”) through a “new funding vehicle.” You can’t take money away from a project, but in the same slide, saying new funding “bolstered” the effort.  This definitely needs clarification. 

Circa September 2017

Source: Commander David Fravor, The Fighter Pilot Podcast, January 2, 2019. Relevant portion of the interview:

“I had got a call from the other pilot and they said, ‘Hey, have you been talked to about the Tic Tac lately?’ And I said, ‘No.’ They said, ‘Well…you know, I’ve been asked to go to the Pentagon like five times.’ You know, and they said, ‘Well you had, you know, the most ACM’ cause I was actually the one that engaged it. And I said, ‘Well, just give ’em my name and I’ll talk to them.’ So that was Lue Elizondo, who was running the AATIP program at the Pentagon. So he had called me up and said, ‘Hey, we’re gonna come up and talk to you.’ I said, ‘Great. No problem.’ And, umm, I didn’t think much of it. I’m like, yeah, I’ll tell you what you got.  So about, um, I don’t know, probably a month later I had gotten information on the, “To The Stars” that was coming out with Tom DeLonge and I’m watching this clip that guy had sent me and Lue’s on it. So I call Lue. I go, ‘What’s going on?’ He goes, ‘I left the Pentagon.’ I said, well he goes, ‘We’ll be there like this weekend to talk to you.’ I said okay.

“So they came up here and talked to me about the whole incident and he told me what was going on. And, and, he actually explained why he had left the Pentagon. He was a little bit frustrated with basically the bureaucracy that he was having to deal with. And what he thought was very important. So, he called me up about a month later and said, ‘Hey, we want to do this article with the New York Times. Will you do it?’ And I said, ‘No.’ I actually said, ‘No, I’m not doing that.’ And he said, ‘No, no, seriously, dude we really need you to do this.’ I said, ‘Why do you need me to do this?’

Problem: This a major point that needs to be clarified. Following Mr. Elizondo’s version of the timeline, he had worked on AATIP for 10 years at this point (as stated to Chase Kloetzke interview with the MUFON Journal  – see above timeline point). In the course of 10 years, while working on a program looking at UAPs/UFOs, I would imagine that the Nimitz encounter would undoubtedly be a major case for study in such a program. Why would Cmdr. Fravor (the actual pilot who engaged the “tic-tac”) not be contacted once, by anyone in the AATIP, until September of 2017?  In addition, why would Mr. Elizondo care more about getting him into a NY Times piece (which also publicized the TTSA efforts), rather than inserting the actual pilot’s engagement into any AATIP related report, ever, in the entire history of AATIP? Mr. Elizondo specifically told Cmdr. Fravor his input would do nothing but help credibility in the NY Times article. If that is true – why would he not want Cmdr. Fravor’s testimony somewhere in AATIP?  If you omit evidence like that from AATIP, it may shed light on why the upper echelon of the DOD, along with the DIA, found no value to keep the program running, if you believe the official line. 

In addition, Cmdr. Fravor detailed a journalist finding him and his wife eating at a coffee shop.

“I had a guy, literally, The Boston Herald guy track me down on Sunday and found me in a coffee shop on the north end with my wife and daughter.” … snip … “It is amazing because, you know, I’m not, it’s not like I’m publicizing this. I’ve actually tried to hide from a lot of people. And, uh, they find you. Now it makes it easy because there’s not a lot of David Fravors running around the United States. I won’t say how many but it’s very few. I asked the girl. I said, ‘How did you find me?’ And she goes, ‘Oh, it wasn’t hard. We have this database we can go to.’”

Problem: Certainly, given the capability of this journalist to find Cmdr. Fravor at a coffee shop; counter-intelligence agent, and active DOD personnel officer, Mr. Luis Elizondo could have tracked him down, given the resources he had access to in the 10 years of his involvement with AATIP. It should be clarified why Cmdr. Fravor’s testimony only became important after a decade of being involved in AATIP. (I will be fair and note Cmdr. Fravor stated another pilot was spoken to 5 times at the Pentagon – but we have no timeframe that I know of. Meaning, was in 5 times over the course of a week, a month, six years? But the point stands on why the pilot who actually engaged the object, was never contacted a single time.)

October 11, 2017

Source: Watch Tom DeLonge’s To the Stars Academy UFO Press Conference Here (Transcript Available Here)

March 15, 2019

Source: The Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU), Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena (AAP) Conference, March 15, 2019.  There are two sections chosen that deserve to be on this timeline, to coincide with the above contradictions. First excerpt, from the Q&A session of pre-screened questions:

Question: Which military service agency within the IC [intelligence community]would be the best focal point for FOIA requests related to the phenomenon and AATIP.

Mr. Elizondo: “If I was a betting man, I would probably stick with, ummm, knocking on the doors of DIA. Um. They have already admitted that the uhh, after some time they they actually were running part of the program. Umm I’d keep knocking on those doors.” (End of answer)

Problem: Mr. Elizondo went on the record that OSD was the home of AATIP, beginning in 2010. This is not contested by the DIA, so they are in agreement on the timeline there. From 2010 through 2017 (according to Mr. Elizondo) AATIP was fully housed within the OSD, and not DIA. That means that there are 7 years worth of documents that can be found at OSD. To direct the audience to focus on DIA, seems to be a complete disregard for his entire story and the fact that AATIP continued on for so long. DIA would not have any release authority for documents dated 2010 through 2017 so why would he not include this agency in his answer as well? This needs clarification, since his tenure heading the project was not at the agency he recommended focusing on, so why does he find no value in chasing after documents that, according to Senator Harry Reid, are 80%+ unclassified?  

In addition, Mr. Elizondo said the following. I will include the entire answer first, then dissect, as it is INCREDIBLY important to finalize this timeline with the most recent information Mr. Elizondo is giving out. The follow is also during the Q&A, where Mr. Elizondo was talking about multiple things during a single answer:

“If you look at Senator Reid’s letter, on the very last page, look at the very bottom page and you are going to see FOIA Exempt language. That’s real. Now you can say oh that’s sneaky, they shouldn’t put it there, but we do… for a reason. Some of that stuff is FOIA Exempt and you are not going to see it. I don’t know what to tell ya. And it is FOIA Exempt for a reason. And there are exceptions, by law, there are, there are, when you look at those exemptions, they actually go back to very very specific things — loopholes if you will — or circumstances that something is not FOIAable. Because of sensitivities, because of sources and methods, because of all sorts of reasons. Um, and so, from that respective some of the frustration people… first of all they thought it was “Advanced Aviation” so you are not going to get anything. So for 6 months I was telling people write “Aerospace”. Umm, that’s one thing. You have to be very specific when you do a FOIA, also you need to know which offices, so uhh the DIA, the DOD is a big organization. So you might not get anything you want. It’s not a magic bullet. You have to continue to keep pushing. And keep pushing, and digging, and finding out what offices were around and what offices were not, and then maybe apply those specifically magic bullet ways to those specific offices. AAWSAP was indeed the predecessor to AATIP. We made that very clear from day 1. Unfortunately, I can not talk much about it, out of respect to my former colleagues. I won’t do it. If you want to know more about AAWSAP and what they were doing, you’re going to have to talk to the former director. Or unless he gives me permission, to mention it, I can’t do it. It’s just out of respect for him. It’s a promise I made him long ago and it’s just like I don’t want people speaking on my behalf. Which apparently people do all the time. But thats… ask me and I’ll tell you. So with all due respect, I really can’t answer too much about the AAWSAP.”

Now I will break this down into pieces.

“If you look at Senator Reid’s letter, on the very last page, look at the very bottom page and you are going to see FOIA Exempt language. That’s real. Now you can say oh that’s sneaky, they shouldn’t put it there, but we do… for a reason. Some of that stuff is FOIA Exempt and you are not going to see it. I don’t know what to tell ya. And it is FOIA Exempt for a reason. And there are exceptions, by law, there are, there are, when you look at those exemptions, they actually go back to very very specific things — loopholes if you will — or circumstances that something is not FOIAable.”

Problem: This has been an overly embellished and wildly misunderstood issue by the general public, ever since the letter by Senator Reid leaked. The exact language (as it does not just read “FOIA Exempt” as reported by some), states, “This document contains information exempt from mandatory disclosure under FOIA. Exemptions 1 and 5 apply.” FOIA Exempt language is quite common on records, due to the automatic declassification language within Executive Order 13526. Simple google searches on .mil and .gov domains seeking “FOIA Exempt” explanations will bring up reams of material, including documents with similar language. It simply means, that upon a 25 year passage of time, documents marked with FOIA Exempt language need a closer review, to properly cite exempted material, and redact where necessary. To say, however, that it is “not FOIAable” by the public, is downright wrong.  Because as stipulated by 5 U.S.C. § 552, also known as the FOIA, you can request anything you want with few exceptions. Those few exceptions (like Presidential Records) do not come close to making anything related to AAWSAP or AATIP “not FOIAable”.  The language is there to ensure document reviewers are aware that certain FOIA Exemptions, in which there are 9 total, MAY apply to the document in whole, in part or may be no longer applicable after a proper review.   Anyone can FOIA any document with “FOIA Exempt” language, and it does not mean what the public is being told, especially here.

“…first of all they thought it was “Advanced Aviation” so you are not going to get anything. So for 6 months I was telling people write “Aerospace”. Umm, that’s one thing.”

Problem: This is entirely untrue and misleading. Since I am the source of the first DOD denial, Mr. Elizondo should have seen why that denial took place. The language of the original FOIA request by me never mentioned AATIP (or AAWSAP) or any program name. The request was entirely based on how Mr. Elizondo described the program during the TTSA press conference in October of 2017, wherein he described it as a “DOD Aerospace Threat Program.”  The name controversy came months later, and played zero role in that denial. To say so, is a disservice to the truth on what really happened, and each letter is documented within FOIA Case 18-F-0077, dating back to October of 2017, in case anyone would like to verify. 

“AAWSAP was indeed the predecessor to AATIP. We made that very clear from day 1.”

Problem: This is a fabrication. From Day 1, AATIP was not even revealed. AAWSAP did not get revealed until months after that, and in Mr. Elizondo’s own words during his MUFON speech, he explained why he never brought up AAWSAP. He stated: “A lot of folks will see, ‘Well Lue, when you first came out, why didn’t you just tell us that?’ Well the reason is, I wasn’t really part of that. And that’s not really my place to discuss a mission, at an organization, where I was really walking in at the tail end. I was brought it to conduct counter-intelligence and security for an organization that was in the process of evolving into something else. There was another director running that program. “

So, you can not have it both ways to explain to one audience why you did not mention AAWSAP, then tell a second audience you told the public about AAWSAP from day 1.  This is a wild contradiction, and needs to be clarified/corrected.