Wednesday, March 14, 2018

"To The Stars" Releases Another Video, And Things Get Curiouser & Curiouser

As has been the case these past few months, discussions of Tom DeLonge, his To The Stars  "Public Benefit Corporation," and the supposed Pentagon UFO program, Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program, have sucked all of the air out of other UFO-related discussions. 

As you have undoubtedly heard unless you have been hiding under a rock, To The Stars Academy has released a third infrared UFO video, supposedly declassified by the recent Pentagon UFO Program. To The Stars claims to have a "chain of custody" for these videos, showing the process of their release by the Pentagon, but nobody has seen it. 

Also, why are all of the supposed Pentagon UFO videos in the infrared? Doesn't the military have ordinary video cameras? Undoubtedly they do, but when birds or balloons turn up on ordinary video, they are immediately recognized. Is it perhaps because they have no real understanding of how these FLIR devices operate, and lots of things thus become UFOs? And only the Raytheon FLIR systems on the F-18 ever turn up UFOs - no other cameras, and on no other aircraft?

Since everyone I talk to seems as confused as hell about which video is which, let's review these three videos, in the order that To The Stars presented them, and what we know about them.

1. 2004 USS NIMITZ FLIR1 VIDEO ("Tic Tac" video)

"It is the only official footage captured by a US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet present at the 2004 Nimitz incident off the coast of San Diego."


Supposedly taken off the coast of Florida in 2015.

3. 2015 GO FAST FOOTAGE ("Go Fast" video)

Supposedly taken somewhere off the east coast in 2015.
Frame showing supposed "UFO" in Go Fast video. That little dot in the middle, that's it.

Go Fast is, of course, the most recent video, and the subject of most of the recent discussion. The video as TTSA presents it to us, with analysis, is only two minutes long. The "UFO" itself is only visible for a few seconds, and is (as might be expected) just a featureless dot. But that is enough for it to be repeated endlessly across all the "serious" media as if it were proof of the arrival of aliens. The best critical examination of the Go Fast video thus far is on Mick West's Metabunk. West argues that the object's apparent rapid motion is due to the parallax effect of the aircraft's motion. There are several models of a 3-D representation showing the object and the jet, using the information provided in the FLIR display. The consensus seems to be that the object is about 10 feet across, and traveling slowly enough to be a bird or a balloon.

But wait, it gets curiouser: according to poster Blu3Skies on Reddit
if you look to the right side of the sensor overlays you'll see a 4 digit code...  That is the laser PRF code set for laser guided munitions.... Gimbal video is PRF code 1688. It took place in 2015 off the East Coast. Go Fast video is PRF code 1688. Articles sight [sic] it as taking place off the East Coast. Gimbal and Go Fast are both pieces of the same video it appears. No discrepancies in location or time as of now, however, this begs the question whether TTSA is cutting and feeding these videos to us to keep funds rolling in OR the gov is cutting/splicing and releasing them to TTSA intentionally this way.
So it appears that the Gimbal video, and the Go Fast video, were taken by the same aircraft, by the same pilot, on the same mission, and less than 20 minutes apart. While this has not been absolutely confirmed yet, it certainly appears to be true. Comparing the two videos, Mick West says that "The display configuration is all essentially the same. The time code at the bottom is in seconds, with a difference of 991 seconds (16.5 minutes) between the end of GO FAST (4254) and the start of GIMBAL (5245)" Others have remarked that the pilot's voice on the two videos sounds like the same guy, especially when he says "dude!".

Mick West compares the data displayed for Go Fast (left), and Gimbal (right)

This immediately raises some interesting issues:
  • Doesn't To The Stars realize that these appear to be from the same video? If so, why didn't they tell us? If they didn't, the incompetence of their analysis is staggering.
  • There are now only two, and not three, supposed Pentagon FLIR video recordings of UFOs. The supposed description "off the east coast in 2015" is compatible with "off the coast of Florida in 2015."
  • One F-18 pilot in 2015 seems to have had a very busy and exciting day recording UFOs. What are the chances that two very different 'genuine UFOs' would be zooming around off the coast of Florida, less than 20 minutes apart, compared with the chances that these people don't know what the #$%^ they are talking about concerning these FLIR images?

Curiouser and Curiouser.....

Since To The Stars' first announcement of these supposed 'Pentagon UFO videos," lots of journalists and UFO researchers have filed Freedom of Information requests basically asking for absolutely everything pertaining to this supposed "Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program" (sometimes called the "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program"). Having heard about so many requests, I pity the poor schmuck working in the Pentagon on whose desk all these requests land. However, nothing seems to be turning up.

One of the most prolific filers of Freedom of Information requests is John Greenewald of The Black Vault, a huge on-line repository of UFO-related documents and materials. On March 12 he updated an earlier posting about his FOIA requests related to TTSA, AATIP, etc., and what he found runs counter to DeLonge's narrative. As soon as "To The Stars" was announced in its press conference, Greenewald filed a FOIA request with the Department of Defense requesting all documents concerning the supposed AATIP program. He writes,
On November 27, 2017, the DOD responded with a “no records” determination.

There are three possibilities:

1) The DoD is lying — which under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) — if proven — is actually more of a damning situation than you might think.

2) The program is being blown out of proportion, is misinformation, or doesn’t even exist.

3) For whatever reason, the DoD doesn’t have an outline, mission statement, objectives, etc of the DOD Aviation Threat Program as my specific request asked for, but it does exist. It would be highly doubtful, but a possibility, so my “no records” response is simply directed at my specific request.

So, I have appealed the “no records” response, and have filed more FOIA requests — but something does not seem to add up.

In other words, the Department of Defense says that this supposed program, the cornerstone of To The Stars' message, never existed. Greenewald next filed a similar request concerning the AATIP with the NSA:
On 8 January 2018, the NSA told me that there were “no records” responsive to my request, which means, out of the  millions of pages within the entire Intellipedia collection, there is not a single reference to the program.   There could be many reasons for this, so this is just speculation, but it is interesting to note that there are countless mentions of classified programs within Intellipedia. When classified pages are found during searches, for examples, many of the Edward Snowden revelations (like  Wrangler), the NSA will acknowledge they are there, but exempts them from release. Another example, is my request on  Echelon.  This may have entered the realm of still heavily classified to the point they can’t even admit it’s there, and they give a GLOMAR response (“can neither confirm nor deny”). My point with these examples, is that the possible explanation that it is “still classified” and they are lying just does not fit (emphasis added).
Luis Elizondo, who reportedly ran the Pentagon's Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.
Greenewald's next request was specifically for material relating to Luis Elizondo, the man who supposedly ran AATIP, now working for To The Stars as its Director of Global Security. (No longer supervising UFO investigations, he is now DeLonge's chief Bouncer.) He writes,
On February 12, 2018, the Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff office, in FOIA Case 18-F-0324, gave another rather odd  “no records response” to a request which had multiple parts.
1) The resignation letter of Mr. Luis Elizondo, DoD personnel who played a role in The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.
2) Any/all responses by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, or any other DoD official to Mr. Elizondo regarding his resignation.
3) Any/all letters, memos, recommendations, email, etc. sent from Mr. Elizondo, to any DoD official, regarding the declassification or public release of videos, as obtained by the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.
4) Any/all response to Mr. Elizondo, and his effort to get videos or material evidence in the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program released to the public.
Although I have an open appeal on the above with the DOD, it is noted they just wanted to forward my request to the Defense Intelligence Agency instead.  However, due to the fact that Mr. Elizondo stated clearly he worked within OSD (not DIA), and the NY TIMES among many other news outlets cited Mr. Elizondo’s resignation letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, at least that portion of my request would be at the office that just gave the “no records” response.

Something does not seem right, and I will post the results of the appeal when they become available.
So, to summarize, there are no documents to support what Elizondo says about AATIP, and their absence is very curious, especially since the Pentagon has verbally acknowledged the bare fact of the program's existence.
The product of legislation cosponsored by senators Harry Reid of Nevada and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, the program, according to Pentagon spokesperson Audricia Harris, was primarily executed through a contract with Bigelow Aerospace—a company owned by Reid’s constituent and donor Robert Bigelow. 

However, there seem to be absolutely no documents associated with AATIP. And the Pentagon has unambiguously stated that they dd not release the  three videos that TTSA is claiming to have obtained from them:
"The Department of Defense did not release those videos. I cannot confirm their authenticity. I don't have any additional info to provide," said Tom Crosson, a spokesman for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Might AATIP have existed only as a "Rogue program," never actually sanctioned? Good luck to you in your research, Mr. Greenewald, let us hope you can get to the bottom of all this.

Saturday, March 3, 2018

To The Stars, or To The Dogs? The Case of the Missing Hot Dogs

Just when it seems there's nothing new to be said about the mega-subject of Tom DeLonge and his "To The Stars Academy," this turns up: The Case of the Missing Hot Dogs.

On p. 28 of the Offering Circular for To The Stars, we find:
We have received one loan from Our Two Dogs, Inc. (“OTD”) in two disbursements – one for $300,000 in April 2016 and another for $200,000 in March 2017 (see “Interest of Management and Others in Certain Transactions”). The note was amended on August 10, 2017 to provide for $300,000 to be provided in 2017, making the note agreement a total of $600,000. The note bears interest at 6% per annum and is due on December 31, 2018. In addition, the holder can require the note to be repaid prior to maturity in the amount equal to 10% of the net proceeds from any third party debt or equity financing. As of December 31, 2016, the principal balance of the April 2016 note was $300,000 with accrued interest of $13,512 due under then note.
Tom DeLonge
During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, OTD contributed capital in the amounts of $183,184 and $329,994, respectively. The contributions were used within operations. Subsequent to December 31, 2016, OTD has provided a total of $257,000 to the company, $200,000 to fulfill the terms of the loan note and $57,000 for working capital. 
 Mirageman notes on Above Top Secret that in the Offering Circular (p. 16), it is stated that
If the offering size were to be less than $5 million and above the $1 million minimum, TTS AAS would adjust its use of proceeds by reducing planned growth of employee headcount, reducing operational costs, and slowing down projects or not making investment in projects. The company is also required under the loan to Our Two Dogs, Inc. to repay 10% of the net proceeds from funds raised in this offering, up to $400,000 in this scenario.
With the offering having raised thus far approximately $2,500,000, and with the offering of shares to end on September 29, 2018, it  appears likely that $5 million will not be reached, and 10% of the net proceeds will go To The Dogs.

In a similar vein, Jess Weisbein writes in Best Techie   "I’m a huge Tom DeLonge fan, but don’t invest in his latest venture":
As we just discussed, $50 million isn’t even enough to work on the projects they’ve highlighted in the letter, how would $1 million help? It wouldn’t help with anything other than paying back Tom for a “loan” he gave To The Stars in 2015 and 2016.
But what in the world is "Our Two Dogs"?

Dun & Bradstreet business listing for "Our Two Dogs." A retail Hot Dog Stand. Contact person: Thomas M Delonge.

The phone number appears to be the same one as for Louis Tommasino, CPA & Associates. When I called and asked if they delivered freshly made hotdogs to England I was asked why didn't I cough four times. Whatever that meant?...

To the Stars Academy employees less people (3) than the hotdog stand and is being loaned more cash from the hotdog stand than it generates as revenue (not profit) in a year.
Key Personnel of "To The Stars". Louis Tommasino is the Chief Financial Officer.
Surprisingly, Yelp (on-line customer reviews) in San Diego has no listing for "Our Two Dogs." You can find "Hot Diggety Dog," "Wobbly Wieners," and pages of other hot dog vendors listed. "Our Two Dogs" does not seem to have any customers, or any retail location, yet reportedly employs twelve people and has a revenue of over $400,000 a year. Something about this is not right!
Visiting 6265 Greenwich Drive, San Diego
Since this is not terribly far from where I live, I went down to 6265 Greenwich Drive in San Diego, which is in the business park area of the Sorrento Valley. The suite number of Our Two Dogs, 210, indeed takes you to the offices of Louis Tommasino, CPA, who is the Chief Financial Officer of To The Stars Academy.

Suite 210: Louis Tommasino, CPA

I walked into the office holding a copy of Dun & Bradstreet's report on Our Two Dogs. I began by handing the receptionist my card, and asking her about the supposed hot dog stand. A gentleman overheard what I was saying, and came over. I showed the report to him, and asked "where are the hot dogs?" He looked somewhat perturbed and said, "There are no hot dogs, this is not a hot dog business. Dun and Bradstreet is garbage, you insult me by bringing that in here." I asked him if he was Mr. Tommasino, he replied that he was.

We moved briefly into a small conference area, and another employee of his joined us. I mentioned the loan payment that To The Stars will make to Our Two Dogs from the money raised by selling shares, and it quickly became apparent that Tommasino was unhappy with this line of inquiry. "Dun and Bradstreet is garbage, everyone knows they are garbage." The other employee agrees, they are garbage. (Dun and Bradstreet is, of course, the largest and most respected source of business information in the United States and in many foreign countries, founded in 1841.)  "You insult me by bringing that in here." "Our Two Dogs is a management company, a highly respected management company, that I have operated for many years," he said.

Sensing that there was no point in further discussions, I began to walk out. "Do you have any other questions?", Tommasino asked, obviously quite perturbed. I pointed to the Dun and Bradstreet report (prompting another complaint that I am "insulting" him), and asked, "Is the $400,000 number correct?". "No." "Is the 'twelve employees' correct?". "No." "If you have any other questions, you can ask my attorney" (name mentioned, but no contact information given)."And my attorney will sue you if you write that this is a hot dog business." He need not worry - I am happy to report that Our Two Dogs is not a Hot Dog company.

I did not mention it at the time, but some other business information sites, such as Buzzfile and Manta, also say that Our Two Dogs is in the hot dog business. Reportedly, Our Two Dogs is listed as a "limited-service restaurant" in the NAICS (government census) database. Bizapedia and Corporationwiki have the registration information for Our Two Dogs, but do not state what the business of the company is. They place the corporation's founding in 2000, not 2008. It occurred to me that DeLonge may have described his business as a "hot dog stand" just as a joke. If so, he should realize it is a bad idea to  make jokes in financial filings.

In conclusion, two things are evident from this little investigation:

1. "Our Two Dogs" is not a Hot Dog company, and

2. Mr. Tommasino (and by implication, Mr. DeLonge) are quite unhappy with someone looking  into this matter.

Mirageman posted this photo  to Above Top Secret of TTSA's Luis Elizondo eating a hot dog at what might be  DeLonge's hot dog stand. But we believe it to be a hoax.😏