PENTAGON CAUGHT CONTRADICTING ITSELF ON UFO DEBRIS - MISLEADS CIVILIAN RESEARCH GROUP “BLACK VAULT” by ANTHONY BRAGALIA

Pentagon officials, caught in a web of contradiction that they possess and have tested UFO debris, now state that the reports provided to this author under a FOIA request made over three years ago do not relate to UFOs, but to things known. This is contradicted by other Pentagon branch officials, the New York Times reporter who broke the story originally, and by the President of the defense contracting company for storing the anomalous materials. A statement released to the operator of a civilian investigative research group “Black Vault” denying the relationship of the study to UFO debris is inaccurate and misleading. A lawsuit against the Pentagon by this author has been initiated today with the retention of counsel to uncover the underlying truth.

The Pentagon Confirms FOIA Response Involved UFO Debris – Then Denies It

On January 6^th  a phone conversation transpired between this author and the DIA’s Branch Chief, Steven W. Tumiski (GG-15, Supervisory Program Manager, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Branch Chief (FAC-2C), Records Management & Information Services Mission Services Directorate (MS), Office of Facilities & Services (FAC)  He affirmed that information to be received on January 17, 2021 “would be responsive in every way possible to your request” to my request for UAP test results, but that some would have to necessarily be redacted.

In a January 6^th email and in a January 13^th, 2021 email seen below, DIA Branch Chief Tumiski again confirms his understanding of a request for UFO/UAP related test results – not for known aero-defense metals as the Pentagon now claims they were referring to when replying to John Greenewald, operator of an investigative research site called the “Black Vault.”

From: Tumiski, Steven W CIV DIA (US) [email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 4:38 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: FOIA-0089-2018 (BRAGAGALIA Anthony)(AATIP – Bigelow Aerospace)

Hello, Mr. Bragaglia,

I am sorry that you are concerned. I was trying to help you get what you considered most important to you perhaps sooner than this summer. It was obviously a misunderstanding.

Please accept our prospective forthcoming response as an installment/rolling release.

You will have to wait until FOIA officers finish processing release of the various respectively responsive records to the many requests/requesters related to AATIP and Bigelow Aerospace, which at this time, we project releases to requesters toward JUN-JUL2021.  All responses will be processed in accordance with the FOIA. DIA fully supports DOJ and DOD guidance toward release and transparency to the fullest extent possible with exception of information that should be lawfully withheld under the FOIA.

All parties should remember that that an estimated completion date is only an estimate based on the available information at the time of making the estimate. Estimated completion dates are subject to change.

If there are delays as we approach JUN-JUL; we will contact you with an updated estimated completion date.

Thank you.

Kind regards and V/R,

Steve

Steven W. Tumiski

GG-15, Supervisory Program Manager

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

Branch Chief (FAC-2C), Records Management & Information Services

Mission Services Directorate (MS), Office of Facilities & Services (FAC)

Tel: +1 301-394-5917                             

TS-VOIP: 988-2703 or 910-5264         

TANDBERG: 912-1245                          

Desk Location: MS2 3E135                  

N:  [email protected]

S:  [email protected]

J:  [email protected]

From:

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 4:20 PM
To: Tumiski, Steven W CIV DIA (US) [email protected]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: FOIA-0089-2018 (BRAGAGALIA Anthony)(AATIP – Bigelow Aerospace)

Yes, that is the general request : “test results from the UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace under contract to the DoD/Pentagon” however, the specifics of that request were also included in the original 2017 request, Steven.

They are enumerated in my previous email.

Besides, “test results” by their very nature would have to include what I have enumerated: physical description, properties, and composition of the material tested, titles and authors of those tests, names of those contractors that conducted those tests, etc.  Hope that this helps.  I did request “test results from the UAP..” but in the interest of helping you and of focusing the request I enumerated what “tests” and “test results” means.

I am very concerned that Alesia did not handle this well. It is clear that where we are now is not what I requested four years ago. It cannot be simple incompetency. I am concerned something else is going on. Bigelow Aerospace is the contractor who conducted the tests requested. The company is now bankrupt and they still have the material. Bigelow refuses to answer my questions and keeps on directing me back to “the FOIA Officer” in charge of that kind of request – namely, you.

Tony Bragaglia

 From: Tumiski, Steven W CIV DIA (US) [email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 4:02 PM
To:
Subject: RE: FOIA-0089-2018 (BRAGAGALIA Anthony)(AATIP – Bigelow Aerospace)

Hello, Mr. Bragagalia,

Please excuse me if there has been a misunderstanding.

I had understood, and you had confirmed, in our last email exchange that you accepted narrowing your scope to:

test results from the UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace under contract to the DoD/Pentagon

Your confirmation (per the thread below):

—-
From:

Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 3:08 PM
To: Tumiski, Steven W CIV DIA (US) [email protected]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: FOIA-0089-2018 (BRAGAGALIA Anthony)(AATIP – Bigelow Aerospace)

Thanks Steven…yes, just the test results on the material.  Tony

—-

Thus, this is the basis for my fulfilled promise to you from 06JAN where I told you I would update you ASAP with an estimated completion date based on what I thought was your narrowed scope.

I regret that you have doubts about us fulfilling your request in accordance with the FOIA.

I can assure you that your request is not being handled differently than any other request processed by DIA.

I can assure you that your request is being processed in accordance with the FOIA.

I am not concerned with your statements regarding press or legal actions; I have dealt, and will continue to deal, with you in good faith, and I hope that you will do so with me.

If you no longer agree to what was understood as narrowing the scope of your request to responsive records specific to:

test results from the UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace under contract to the DoD/Pentagon

then, please accept our prospective forthcoming response on this scope as an installment/rolling release.

You will have to wait until FOIA officers finish processing release of the various respectively responsive records to the many requests/requesters related to AATIP and Bigelow Aerospace, which at this time, we project releases to requesters toward JUN-JUL2021.  All responses will be processed in accordance with the FOIA. DIA fully supports DOJ and DOD guidance toward release and transparency to the fullest extent possible with exception of information that should be lawfully withheld under the FOIA.

All parties should remember that that an estimated completion date is only an estimate based on the available information at the time of making the estimate. Estimated completion dates are subject to change.

Thank you.

Kind regards and V/R,

Steve

Steven W. Tumiski

GG-15, Supervisory Program Manager

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

Branch Chief (FAC-2C), Records Management & Information Services

Mission Services Directorate (MS), Office of Facilities & Services (FAC)

Tel: +1 301-394-5917                             

TS-VOIP: 988-2703 or 910-5264         

TANDBERG: 912-1245                          

Desk Location: MS2 3E135                  

The New York Times Refutes the Pentagon’s Claim that the Reports Relate to Known Technologies.

Investigative reporter Ralph Blumenthal was one of the authors of The Times expose’ of the Pentagon’s AATIP on the television network MSNBC in December, 2017 about the alloys: “They have, as we reported in the paper, some material from these objects that is being studied so that scientists can find what accounts for their amazing properties, this technology of these objects, whatever they are.” When asked what the materials were, Blumenthal responded, “They don’t know. They’re studying it, but it’s some kind of compound that they don’t recognize.” Mr. Blumenthal is being sought for additional comment to clarify the contradictory statement received by civilian research group “Black Vault.”

Defense Contractor President Robert Bigelow Contradicts Pentagon’s Claims

On February 5^th, former President of Bigelow Aerospace Robert Bigelow, knowing of my attempts at contacting him just days before about the debris through several emails, himself admits to his involvement with material objects of unknown origin. They are not known to man, as the Pentagon tells Black Vault. In fact, they are unable to be back-engineered. Bigelow knows this because he was contracted by the Pentagon for this reason. Bigelow committed his knowledge to tape in an interview with investigative reporter George Knapp,  at 20:36: ”Machinery really does exist. It does exist. But the problem has been the inability to back-engineer it.”

https://youtu.be/9Sv66dG6Ldc?t=1236

The US Government’s Long History of “Mixing” ET and Defense Research

The easiest way to study extraterrestrial material is to “fold it into” existing programs of terrestrial materials. This serves as a seamless “cover” for study of highly sensitive materials. From Battelle scientist Elroy John Center famously being told that his work on an unusual metal was “from the Russians” to the US government program called “Project Moon Dust” which could refer to a downed Soviet satellite recovery or that of an ET spacecraft- it’s a two-edged ploy. The association of these exotic metals with defense materials research allows them to confuse their true origin. And they have done this again with their reply to an inquiring research group questioning the veracity of these claims.

AB YouTube video Robert Bigelow Interview with George Knapp – Part 2 – Feb. 2021

http://ufocon.blogspot.com – The UFO Iconoclast(s)