Today, I recorded an interview with Tony Bragalia. You’ll remember him from not too long ago, making the claims about how the Pentagon admitted to having UFO debris, and the fact they released the test results through FOIA.
Well, viewers of this channel will know, I didn’t think his interpretation was accurate at all and I felt it was more sensationalism, so I explained that in a video post weeks ago.
That didn’t go over too well with Tony. So, after he continued to release information, but I felt it was not accurate, I invited him on this show.
I have respect for anyone who will step into The Vault, even if we don’t agree, so we did the interview.
And as you can probably expect… at times it got a bit heated. Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.
Live Stream Version
Transcripts published for The Black Vault are approximate, and done by AI, with a quick human pass through. There are often some minor mistakes, or grammatical errors, especially when guests talk about each other. These errors are not intentional.
John Greenewald 00:08
Hey everyone, john Greenewald here with theblackvault.com. Today I recorded an interview with Tony Bragalia. You’ll remember him from not too long ago, making the claims about how the Pentagon admitted to having UFO debris, and that they sent him the test results through the Freedom of Information Act. Well, viewers of this channel will know, I didn’t think his interpretation was accurate at all. And I felt it was way more sensationalism. So I explained that in a video posted just weeks ago, as you can imagine, that didn’t go over too well with Tony. So after he continued to release additional information, but I felt it was still not accurate. I invited him on the show for a friendly and respectful discussion. I have respect for anyone who will step into the vault, even if we don’t agree. So we did the interview. As you can also likely expect, at times it got a little bit heated. Stay tuned, you’re about to journey inside the black vault. That’s right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and making this your podcast or your live stream of choice. I’m your host, john Greenwald, Jr, founder and creator of the black vault calm. And you’ll notice that today’s show is just a little bit different. Now, my guest, Tony magalia. You’ve heard about him on this channel, before I talked a little bit about the headlines that he has come out with, and I extended an invitation. And to his credit, despite our respectful disagreement with each other, he accepted. And here he is via telephone. Tony, thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to speak to all of us.
Anthony Bragalia 02:20
Hi, john, I appreciate the opportunity to do that. And to have the opportunity to talk about the FOIA and help to clarify anything that folks have questions about.
John Greenewald 02:31
Well, very good. Well, I’m looking forward to it. And again, thank you for your time to do it. Now, before we get into the FOIA and to get into everything. You did choose not to do this via video, and you had said that you’re okay to address that. Would you like to tell everybody why you prefer not to be seen, because I couldn’t even get a picture of you that
Anthony Bragalia 02:52
just really prevents me from having my image broadcast widely. And so I’ve elected to instead, simply do audio. And in fact, before very recently, I’ve never even had my voice over the air. But I’m, I think obligated to because of the nature of this story come forward in a way that’s a little more direct than I have been in the past. So I’m here to talk but not to show my face.
John Greenewald 03:21
Fair enough. Well, I at least wanted to give everyone a chance to hear that side of it. Now, before we get into the story that you’re really here to talk about, which is the UFO debris in the documents that you received. Can you give everybody a little bit of background about how you got into UFO research, because this isn’t your first entry into it? You’ve been around for quite some time. Let everybody know a little bit about your background and UFOs and why you got started in it.
Anthony Bragalia 03:49
Sure. Well, like many people gone It began with a personal sighting. When I was a preteen living in the New York City metropolitan area where I grew up. And I had observed a crafted about age 12 or 13 cigar shaped craft, which was actually near Ryan, New York in Westchester County, and I had seen what could not possibly be a plane or a vehicle from this planet. Even at that very young age. I knew that. And so like many preteens, I got involved in the UFO magazines of the time and began reading the literature and became immersed in it to the point where I also began filing FOIA requests at a very young age. So you and I have that in common. And it isn’t a vocation though. My real location is an executive search. I find CEOs and CFOs and CEOs for major companies throughout the country. And in fact, some of my work is done in the defense and intelligence sectors. And so it’s kind of interesting how The my professional life and my avocation have kind of blended together in many ways.
John Greenewald 05:07
Very good. And let me ask just with your experience and your many years you have me beat we were talking before the show by a couple years and kudos to you. It’s always exciting to hear somebody who utilizes the FOIA but on top of that, starting at such a young age, you said that you would started at 13, which is what I
Anthony Bragalia 05:26
did, I filed a FOIA request, asking for information on something I had heard about from a neighbor. And it was a agency called the National Reconnaissance Office or NRO. And keep in mind this is in the mid 70s. When the NRO is not acknowledged as an agency, it so happens that one of my neighbors father’s work for the NRL, and I had to find out what reconnaissance meant and how to spell it even. And I put in a FOIA request asking for information on the National Reconnaissance organization or NRO. And I remember the FOIA completely, in fact, it’s on my website. I retained it all of these decades. They denied that section office existed back in the mid 70s. Through FOIA, which I don’t have a lot of faith in john FOIA request, basically told me that the response rather to my request, was that such an office did not exist, that there was no NRO. Of course, today, we know that there is and that they lied to us.
John Greenewald 06:34
Great story about the NRO with them existing for so long, it really does go to show you that not only will the government lie about all of this stuff, but they have things funded and fully operational for decades, and the general public doesn’t even know. But that’s right. That’s a whole different show in itself. But
Anthony Bragalia 06:50
It sure is, I live here in Florida, and I could tell you about some retirees who have worked at the NSA that have told me things you couldn’t believe a lady who has a neighbor with since passed at work for the NSA. And for 30 years could not tell her own family worked for them. She said that they worked. Using a different name entirely, I forget what it was, wherever the mountain is that they put the NSA. And that’s where she went. And she never even told her own husband, that she had worked for the NSA for decades, until they acknowledge the existence of the agency.
John Greenewald 07:25
Yeah, secrecy is is such an amazing thing, when you start getting into those types of details that not many people would even know about or think about that. That’s what they have to do and the lengths they have to go. But let me let me ask you just to kind of set the stage here about your personal beliefs. And I don’t know the answer to this question. With your experience of having the sighting that you did, and the years of research that you’ve had the people that you’ve met, the things that you’ve seen, are you 100% 100% convinced that this phenomena is truly in an alien phenomenon. Extra dress?
Anthony Bragalia 08:05
Well, it’s not an easy question to answer, because certainly there are classified research that is terrestrial, very terrestrial, that might appear Extra Terrestrial to those that aren’t aware of that kind of research. And I’m in a unique position to understand that in that I find the folks that design, many of the aircrafts that won’t be seen for 20 or 30 years from now, john. So, in fact, the way in which I recruit in that area is another story. And I think it dovetails into the foyer thing very nicely. But yeah, I happen to believe that there is an alien presence, but I am not prepared to say it’s extra terrestrial or ultra terrestrial. There is something that is not from here that comes here.
John Greenewald 08:54
Okay. Good. And, and I appreciate you kind of setting that stage just so we get an idea of where you’re coming from now. Yeah, let’s get into your recent headlines here that you have written. And that brings us together here on this show, but also, with some conversations elsewhere on the internet and so on. And that’s why I wanted to bring you on just to kind of get away from that social media drama, and and bring you aboard and and kind of get your side. Now, can you summarize your FOIA request and what you got? And ultimately what you did that for you? Yes, please,
Anthony Bragalia 09:29
for your listeners. Back in 2017, I made a FOIA request to the DIA the Defense Intelligence Agency asking for physical descriptions and properties and composition of UFO or UAP on densified aerial phenomena material that was held by the government and by its contractor, Bigelow Aerospace. And I became aware of this because as you know, john about 2017 late 2017 The New York Times, Leslie clean Kane had an article that talked about a previously covert UFO study program called a tip. And buried within the article was a mention of anomalous debris being held at Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas and Nevada. And that there had been specialized rather modified facilities that were to contain this material. I couldn’t really understand why folks weren’t talking about that more. So I filed a FOIA requesting the debris test results. And the FOIA that I read, the FOIA request was very specific. And it requested, test information on physical debris recovered by personnel of the Department of Defense, as residue or flotsam or shut off material or crashed material from uaps or From UFOs. And the documentation that I requested was very specific, and only mentioned UFOs uaps debris and Bigelow Aerospace. At no time whatsoever was the word weapons, weaponry, advanced weapons weapons programs ever mentioned within the foyer request. And so it related only to UFOs. Only to crash debris. Only to Bigelow Aerospace testing that debris. It probably was one and I’m sure you’d agree one of the most specific FOIA requests written Let me clear, it cannot ambiguous. Yeah. And let me just Tony funded to in kind.
John Greenewald 12:00
And let me and I don’t mean to step on ya, because I want you to finish that. But for those listening and watching, do you mind if I read your your item list?
Anthony Bragalia 12:09
John Greenewald 12:10
Yeah, I’ve got your FOIA
Anthony Bragalia 12:11
It’s on there you can read.
John Greenewald 12:12
Yep, no problem. I want to make sure everybody, we’re all on the same page. So this is Tony’s original FOIA request, I’m flashing it on screen for those that are watching, as you were talking, and, and I want to go through the because you’re right, it was very detailed and and nothing wrong about it, when it comes to the structure of the FOIA. So that’s not where I’m going with any of this, but I want to read what you wrote. So Tony requested the following number one, physical description of all held material number two, source of origin of all held material number three, circumstance and method of obtainment of all held material, ie float Sam residue shot off material crash material. Number four custodian US government agency of all held material. Number five, the title, and authors of all technical and analytical reports conducted on all held material. Number six names of private contractors to the US government engaged in the storage and study of all held material. Number seven test results on UAP recovered material to include physical properties, chemical and elemental composition of material and determination of the material as of terrestrial or extraterrestrial origin. Thank you for bearing with me on that, Tony, because I want to make sure that we’re as clear as possible. So let me pass it back to you. So you said that they responded in kind to your FOIA request.
Anthony Bragalia 13:42
They did. And they understood that it only referred to UFOs, UAP, Bigelow debris. All those key words were in the vfio official that responded, Steve Comiskey, who heads up foyer for the DA was the one that responded to my request. And he attached 151 pages of technical papers in response to that request.
John Greenewald 14:15
Right. So that leads us then to the headline that you had written that the Pentagon had admitted to UFO debris and released the test results. Now, when I had contacted the Pentagon, and I know you didn’t like their their statement, and I don’t blame you. But I know you didn’t like their statement, they had told me that the FOIA request was amended. So I had gone back to you and to your credit you had sent me the back and forth between you and the DIA. Now for those in the audience, amendments on foils are very, very common. There’s nothing wrong with that. And in fact, it’s actually encouraged. You get things sometimes quicker. So you know, none of that is out of the ordinary. What it amended to, and correct me if I’m wrong, Tony, was that it seems like from the emails that there were telephone conversations, and then a follow up of confirmation from the DI Absolutely.
Anthony Bragalia 15:16
And I can right speak to that very directly, Steven Timiski, who is the chief records management and Information Services Officer for the DIA. And I had several phone conversations which are alluded to in the emails, which are included in the articles that I have online. And Steven was very clear that I was referring to UFOs and uaps. I told Stephen that I didn’t want to play games, that if he was going to send me material from the AATIP, but it really was with a another program, similarly named AAWSAP help me there, john asked advanced aerospace weapons, those kinds of games wouldn’t be tolerated, that he understands completely, what I’m referring to, that the program has gone under different names that I am referring to UFO material. Steven to Minsky, to me specifically said he understood the request, and that he would get the material I seek. Right? So here would be my only friend who he was not under any, at no time. Did the DA ever mentioned to me the word weapon or weaponry. So I don’t know where this is coming from? Well, at all, other than the fact that I think that as you know, john, they are one in the same? Sure. I think that we’re actually
John Greenewald 16:44
if you’re if you’re talking about
Anthony Bragalia 16:46
memory, as well as to extraterrestrial Materials Research, and this is what has made it so very difficult to penetrate the many layers of this whole issue. And I’m not saying that it doesn’t have to do with weaponry, in fact, wouldn’t that be the very first place that you would look to place this material would be for military applications? Sure. I mean, it’s very simple. the Wright brothers when they created the airplane, 10 years later, we had guns on them. We were using them in warfare. So it’s, there’s a history of this.
John Greenewald 17:23
Yeah. I mean, the the program name when it comes to AAWSAP, and this is this is been a gripe of mine for quite some time on the on the government side of their naming mechanisms, in that it depends on who you listen to on whether or not AAWSAP and a tip were the same. You have those that have claimed to work on or or that worked on it. Excuse me, we know that Dr. Hal put off worked on it through Bigelow Aerospace. He said AATIP was a nickname. Mr. Luis Elizondo, who says that he headed the program said that they were two separate programs. According to the Pentagon, you have story number three, which is AAWSAP was an offshoot of AATIP, and AAWSAP was the contracted out. So why
Anthony Bragalia 18:08
it was so confusing, so very direct, because of precisely what you just said, I didn’t want to play games with acronyms, or program names. He full well knew what I was referring to. There’s no doubt. In fact, I’ll bet this man is in a lot of hot water. I’m sure you’d agree. He, in fact, in his response to me, refers to UAP material, he refers to Bigelow Aerospace. JOHN, I talked to the man directly, and I referred to it in the emails that are included in the articles that I’ve written. There is no doubt whatsoever that Steve Kaminsky understood my requests thoroughly to mean, unidentified flying objects or unidentified aerial phenomena, that I was referring to debris from those. And I was referring to debris that was stored at Bigelow, right? He understood it completely, there was no ambiguity whatsoever. And I’m perplexed at the whole thing, because if I asked you for a turkey dinner, and you gave me a hot dog, that’s not what I asked for. What if it was a turkey, come back and say, Well, this has to do with weapons? That was the UFOs is ridiculous. It’s outrageous.
John Greenewald 19:22
Well, let me let me jump in. And I don’t I don’t think I’m going to convince you on this. But at least if you could indulge me for a moment, absolutely. Where I think the the confusion comes from is item number five on your original request. And that is the titles and authors of all technical and analytical reports conducted on all held material. Now hold on, bear with me here. When you do a multi list foil like this. There’s nothing wrong with that. You did everything right. I’m not saying that you did anything wrong. However, those lists are in a legal sense or not, and meaning It doesn’t have to apply to numbers. Well to
Anthony Bragalia 20:03
God, come on. I know where you’re going. Well, I’ve The man knew fully well what I was referring to.
John Greenewald 20:10
Okay, just now bear with me. Now, you said that it’s in his letter. But if you read and here’s the letter, I’ve got it here and again, in the interest of accuracy. Let me just read that one part, because you’re out, you’re right on what he said. This was the official response to you this response to your freedom of information act request dated December 27 2017, that you submitted to the Defense Intelligence Agency for information can Okay, excuse me for information concerning requesting all information on test results from the UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace. Now, if that sounds weird to everybody, it’s because it is. And I even got Tongue Tied reading it. The requesting all information is, in my opinion, a copy and paste. Do you agree with that? No. Okay. But that No, I do not john, in fact that why it doesn’t?
Anthony Bragalia 21:02
To me, you’re talking about a response on a very serious issue. And unless these people have issues with basic reading comprehension. I can’t understand how anyone could misunderstand my request. It’s so clearly written, there is no ambiguity. Okay said I don’t understand what you’re talking about, about bass. What’s the Well,
John Greenewald 21:28
I’m happy to explain
Anthony Bragalia 21:30
There’s some other things I wanted to talk to you about and bring up.
John Greenewald 21:32
Before we get too far ahead, hold you at the time that you’d like, don’t, I’m not trying to cut you off. But I want to make sure we don’t get too jumped around here. So just to kind of finalize this thought, because like I said, I don’t expect to convince you. But after seeing 1000s and 1000s of these letters, most of the time, they have a summation of a FOIA request, especially multi item ones. And they’re not only internal working logs, if they are differed from the FOIA case, logs that they will give out. And a lot of times, they will, they will summarize, you know, multi seven 810 12, I’ve seen 30 items on a request, not by myself, but in foil logs and stuff like that, to where then they just kind of condense it. And in my opinion, when you have the capitalization the way that it is, and the fact that when you talk about grammar and comprehension, it doesn’t make sense. And it’s like they have a template. I just got a letter The other day I tweeted it out. It’s unrelated to this. But it’s my same point where it said, Dear ex, ex, ex ex ex, that was my foyer response. Now, that’s not my name, obviously. But they use templates, they copy and paste. So so let’s move beyond that. Because again, I don’t expect you to be convinced of it. But at all at all, which is which is which is fine.
Anthony Bragalia 22:53
Because I’m the one who actually talked to the man. If you didn’t I actually talk to Stephen, Tim and co direct with him as I am with you right now. Okay, there was no ambiguity whatsoever, he knew exactly what I was referring to. And why in the world would they elect to send to me, in response to my request 151 pages of highly technical information without understanding that this has to do with UFOs? Well, it makes no sense whatsoever.
John Greenewald 23:21
Let me bring up another…
Anthony Bragalia 23:23
John Greenewald 23:24
Anthony Bragalia 23:25
and also, john, I must interrupt here and explain to your reader or your listeners that you made it sound like I was not aware that these were unclassified documents, you made it seem to your listeners, like I was unaware that these materials were published over a decade ago. But in fact, that isn’t true. In my very first article, I talked about that very thing. In fact, I showed a text block with the data on it. Wait, can I ask it I even said that this material had been published on small websites, including George naps in the past. So when you started to tell folks that Oh, these were unclassified materials, and all these had already been released? Well, that really took a lot of the wind out of the sails in it. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that this has to do with a response to a request on UFOs. And I made it very clear to everybody that this material had been out there that it had been unclassified. You made it sound to your viewers, like I was trying to pull one over on everybody.
John Greenewald 24:26
No, no, no, no, no, yeah,
Anthony Bragalia 24:27
that’s the way it came off. The video that you had is called nails in the coffin. Well, we have a guy and that is not a very nice title. Well, in fact, the very day that that I’m going to tell you something, john, the very day that the nails in the coffin video came up, my aunt died of COVID. So the word nails in a coffin and not calling me or contacting me before you put that video on. I’d like you to tell listeners why we’re doing this now and why you didn’t contact me before. Oh, that’s easy.
John Greenewald 25:00
First video I’d be well, first and foremost, my condolences. I mean, if you think that that was some kind of shot on something I didn’t even know about.
Anthony Bragalia 25:07
But in the age of COVID, we don’t talk like that right now,
John Greenewald 25:10
it was pretty clear that it was about a story. But if you took it that way, I mean, I clearly don’t know about what happened to you.
Anthony Bragalia 25:21
We can’t assume anything. And I don’t use language like that. Well, he and I, here’s a pretty hyperbolic as you know, but that was really beyond the pale, right?
John Greenewald 25:30
But to be honest with you, you know, that was never an intent. But if that’s how you took it, then I sincerely apologize, I appreciate but it’s pretty, in my opinion, was pretty clear. I was referencing nails in the coffin of a story. And we will get to those in a couple minutes, because we haven’t even talked about them. But I’m happy to address your question to me, and I’ll address any ones that you like, and why I did that video without contacting you. You had did and to your credit, and I even complimented you on this. You had published everything. So there was nothing that I could go after with you because a phone call is not going to change my mind. And I’m sorry to say that. But I mean, unless you handed me a recording. And Stephen Tamulski from DIA said, Yep, that’s my voice, then great. We can deal with that. But obviously a phone call is not going to change anything. But it was never stated in your original reporting that you would amended the request. And yes, that actually does change things I
Anthony Bragalia 26:27
did not amend
John Greenewald 26:28
Hold on, Tony…
Anthony Bragalia 26:28
is the whole point. I don’t know where you got that either. That’s
John Greenewald 26:31
misinformation you amended. The
Anthony Bragalia 26:33
recruiter amended the request. They have the I had asked for everything about AATIP. And I reminded Stephen that no, I’m only asking about test results. So don’t put me in with all the others. That’s what happened. So what you’re referring to about amending?
John Greenewald 26:49
Sure. So here’s from DIA to you, this is what you send to me. This is from Steven to miski. Please excuse me if there’s been a misunderstanding I had understood and you had confirmed in our last email exchange that you accepted narrowing your scope to, quote,
Anthony Bragalia 27:08
test, but I never accepted it. I was the original request, as you know,
John Greenewald 27:14
okay. Hold on to it. I’m trying to read this not if I was paraphrasing, I can understand your frustration. But let me at least tell the viewers and audience what was said. So you had according to DIA’s message to you accepted narrowing your scope to test results from the UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace under
Anthony Bragalia 27:36
I have to interrupt you, john, I’d never accepted anything. The original request What?
John Greenewald 27:41
Well, Tony, if you’ll let me keep going here. This is, this is the letter, this is what you sent me. And I’m just trying to give everybody a little bit of background, I will give you all the time in the world that you would like. But if I could just finish what you had sent me. Because again, I don’t like to paraphrase when whenever I have a disagreement with a guest. So I’ll say again, according to the email from DIA, you accepted narrowing your scope to test results from UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace under contract to the DOD slash Pentagon, your confirmation per the thread below. Now you responded your email. Looks like 18 minutes after he sent that you said yes. That is the general request, quote, 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.
Anthony Bragalia 28:38
John Greenewald 28:41
So now let me paraphrase and correct me if I’m wrong. With all of that said, because I don’t want to get into the weeds of reading every single email here. But you would agree to a rolling release. Is that correct?
Anthony Bragalia 28:53
I agreed to getting the information I requested.
John Greenewald 28:57
Correct. So in order for him to feel…
Anthony Bragalia 28:59
I don’t how how they got it to me, when they got it to me sooner, the better.
John Greenewald 29:03
Okay, so. Right. So so in the legal sense, that’s called a rolling release, so and that
Anthony Bragalia 29:09
whatever it’s called, okay. And we can talk about it and use different words. But bottom line is the man knew what I was looking for. I’m not I mean, we’re playing around here.
John Greenewald 29:18
No, not at all.
Anthony Bragalia 29:19
It is, is a clear is the nose on my face?
John Greenewald 29:22
Well, you said that I was using different words and using what I want to call
Anthony Bragalia 29:28
the original Freedom of Information Act request.
John Greenewald 29:31
I understand that but it was a you know,
Anthony Bragalia 29:33
it never asked for everything about AATIP. There was never a request for amendment.
John Greenewald 29:38
I haven’t seen where you’re referring to that about you asking for everything about AATIP so so
Anthony Bragalia 29:42
Exactly. And that’s what he thought I was I don’t know, but
John Greenewald 29:45
even from his word, so I’m not sure about that side of it. You didn’t send me any of that. And that’s okay. That’s I’m not arguing any of that. But what I am trying to go for here is my one last point if I can get to it, because you said that you publish these emails and it’s okay for me to ask about him. He said, The Let me see here. Where is it? Where is it? Here it is. This is from Steven to you. 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. Now, may I ask for clarification, because nowhere did you send me anything where you had talked about a legal action other than what you posted? I
Anthony Bragalia 30:30
actually did though, john.
John Greenewald 30:31
No, no, that’s why I’m asking
Anthony Bragalia 30:33
attorney’s that I’m consulting about that very thing.
John Greenewald 30:36
Okay. Hold on. Let done. Let me finish that thought. What I was trying to say was not the one that you posted after I’m talking about when you were communicating with Oh,
Anthony Bragalia 30:44
let me clarify. Yeah. JOHN, in the conversation I had with Stephen, I said, Stephen, I’m have means I’m able to hire the best attorneys in the nation specializing in FOIA. Okay, if they’re if I’m sensing any kind of delay or distraction or anything like that, I’m prepared to take legal action. And I’ve already consulted an interview to attorneys in the DC area. Great. So you, because after three and a half years, and then him sending me back a letter of lies that I’m amending and requesting all information on a tip, which of course is not correct. I felt that I had to push the up button. And if it required legal assistance, I can do it.
John Greenewald 31:29
Great. Okay. So that then that’s totally fair. So with all of that being said, You were telling him You didn’t want to play word games, you were telling him that there’s potential legal action, all of that fine. I’m not harping on you for it. You don’t think that he was trying to be transparent, because that number five in your FOIA request, which did not mention uaps or UFOs, but talked about hold on Tony lip? Hear me out?
Anthony Bragalia 31:57
Okay. You know what I’m thinking is funny.
John Greenewald 32:00
So number five, you didn’t mention UFOs or uaps? In a legal sense, it’s not and it’s or meaning it doesn’t have to include every item on your list. You, again, stipulated you didn’t want these games that you were upset, because he apologized a couple times in these emails.
Anthony Bragalia 32:19
He sure did…
John Greenewald 32:21
Which great I mean, I I don’t employ that tactic. But if that worked for you, awesome,
Anthony Bragalia 32:27
but it did, didn’t it? And there you go to john, you and I finished totally different way. But you’re an archivist. I’m a journalist,
John Greenewald 32:35
you need to let me…
Anthony Bragalia 32:36
I am a little bit more forward and bold than you are. I think you acquiesce to these folks. Because you want to be an archivist. You want to maintain your relationship as the black vault to the government agencies, and therefore you have to be very careful about how you approach these folks. And the relationship that you maintain with them. I don’t have that obligation, or that interest. My interest is only in truth.
John Greenewald 33:01
Okay, if you’re insinuating that my interest is not, then you don’t
Anthony Bragalia 33:05
No, no, no, no, no, I don’t say that out. No, I am. Now that you didn’t say that yours wasn’t right. I simply said that. I think that you tend to kowtow to these folks. And don’t want to in any way disrupt your relationship with them by being forward or bold like I am
John Greenewald 33:24
What, What relationship do you think I have? I mean, I’ve filed over 10,000 requests, I have archived 2.4 million pages. I’ve tried to do through FOIA appeals and so on and so forth. Getting these document I
Anthony Bragalia 33:39
think you’re too trusting of these people, John.
John Greenewald 33:43
Well I’m not really sure what to tell you with that, because most of the time, I’m not even dealing with spokespeople. But on top of that out of 10,000 requests, I pretty much understand how their templating works. I know how that part of the system works. Why can’t you be open to the fact that maybe under threat of a lawsuit, and him trying to be a little bit transparent with you, so you can’t accuse him of playing games? He gave you material that met your requirements of item number five on your request. So you have completely shut that down. But
Anthony Bragalia 34:19
why I really still after all this time, I still don’t sincerely I don’t get what you were talking about?
John Greenewald 34:25
Well, we can move on. Don’t let me I’ll give you I’ll give you an example. I did a FOIA request to the US Army asking for all UFO material and use some of the keywords like flying saucers and this and that. That was my request. Okay. I sent that in and I received hundreds of pages as a response to a request for UFO information and flying saucers, okay, that’s what I requested. However, in there was the majority. The majority of what was in there was a schematics from the Nazi Horton brothers and a flying wing design. Now would it be fair for me, Tony to say that the Horton brothers design was all UFO or flying saucer in relation to extraterrestrials? Would that be fair?
Anthony Bragalia 35:13
I don’t know enough about the FOIA request, I’d have to see it view it view the replies, I’m not going to send it to you that I don’t know enough about like that, john.
John Greenewald 35:21
Well I sent it to you.
Anthony Bragalia 35:22
I know is the FOIA that I received that I re requested. And the reply that I received only referred to UFOs, uaps, and Bigelow and debris, and we really need to hone in and why they would be talking about weaponry. And why would they choose these 151 pages to send to me when they could have sent me anything from anywhere at any time, why he chose. The one pages that relate to exotic materials that can induce in visibility, compress electromagnetic energy, can perform shape and memory properties similar to the material found at Roswell, which is an extraordinary coincidence. Why would they send that to me? Of all the things in the world they could send to me? Why would they send me 151 pages, which were authorized by the DIA’s ufologist. And it’s an incredible thing. He was both a rocket scientist and the UFO point person for the DIA. David let cat ski when I found out that he was the one that was program manager that authorized all of these 151 pages, I was floored. And I can’t believe that you aren’t. The very man who authorized the release of these rather the initiation of these studies and who created these papers? is also a UFO point person for the CIA or was okay, he was forced out.
John Greenewald 36:56
Okay, can I ask you to clarify because and, by the way,
Anthony Bragalia 36:59
if you want to see that actual article that appears on my website, UFOexplorations.com, you can read all about it, but it kind of closes the circle. The fact is that all of the material that was sent to me was approved by the DIA is UFO point person.
John Greenewald 37:15
Okay, so let me jump in there because there’s nothing. And I want to ask you to support that with evidence. But the man who actually was in charge of the AAWSAP program, which, in the DIAs eyes, they lumped together AAWSAP and AATIP whether they were officially separate programs or not, at this point, it’s irrelevant to our conversation. However, Dr. Hal Putoff was the lead scientist and engineer for Bigelow Aerospace’s BASS, and he has gone on the record and nobody has disputed that it was him that chose the topics of the DIRDS. And it was him that farmed it out. Now, James
Anthony Bragalia 37:50
name does not appear on it. David locat. skis does.
John Greenewald 37:53
It’s James Lacatski
Anthony Bragalia 37:53
interestingly enough, and I want viewers to know
John Greenewald 37:55
James… James Lacatski…
Anthony Bragalia 37:56
the material that I received redacted David locat. skis name correct. Yet it has been out there for many years and in different formats on different websites on a leak. Very, very curious. I think everyone would agree, I think you’re reading it. And then we find out that in fact, a cat ski was kicked out or forced out because of his belief that this was extraterrestrial in origin. And others didn’t like the conclusions that he was reaching. He left the government service and is now retired and wants nothing to do with anyone.
John Greenewald 38:28
Right. However, nobody’s ever named Lacatski. So you’re referencing Elizondo. Now, here’s the deal, I actually probably think
Anthony Bragalia 38:35
I’m not referencing anything, it’s on the document, the unredacted document uses his name and chose him as the program manager
John Greenewald 38:43
On DIAs side.
Anthony Bragalia 38:44
And that is just extraordinary. Really,
John Greenewald 38:47
it can be extraordinary. That’s great. But he’s not the one that made the dirt. And if you want
Anthony Bragalia 38:52
to decide the matter, he’s the program manager. He’s the guy whose name appears on all of the documents done. It does. I mean, I don’t know about how put off he’s got a history which I don’t want to get too much in the weeds, but I would not trust how put off as far as I can throw him.
John Greenewald 39:08
Well, since we’re on Hal he chimed in as well. And again, I mean, it doesn’t sound like you by back up,
Anthony Bragalia 39:13
I’m not prepared to talk about Hal I’m prepared to talk about this FOIA.
John Greenewald 39:17
Well, but But Hal was the one who chose the topics?
Anthony Bragalia 39:21
Anything about him? Other than that he’s not a reliable, credible, and many people have been issues with him. Well, he’s the real deal. Okay, I’m
John Greenewald 39:30
gonna have to deal. Okay, it’s James Lacatski. Hey, James.
Anthony Bragalia 39:34
John Greenewald 39:35
right, okay. And you may want to look into Dr. Hal Putoff because again, it’s not disputed that he was the one that chose the topics, the quotes that you’re citing his name on them and I have to let other people talk. I mean, where where is the material?
Anthony Bragalia 39:48
Where’s his name on the material? Where’s here’s you’re making things up? I I don’t see his name on this material.
John Greenewald 39:53
I’ll show it to you. He authored multiple DIRDS…
Anthony Bragalia 39:57
Oh, he he authored somebody but the program manager was Lacatski…
John Greenewald 40:01
I don’t care about the DIAs side. I’m talking about what bass created. And I think that this goes into the bigger confusion on what BAASS did in the private sector for their contract was Lacatski involved. Yes. I’m probably not even going to argue with you on that at all because I agree with you. The problem is, is that you can’t say that Lacatski was the UFO point guy, because nobody has said that and on top of it, it wasn’t him that chose the dirts. And if you think that it was great, all I’m looking for is evidence, but no one has said that it was him. You would cite it in your article that Elizondo was talking about Lacatski you had talked about Senator Harry Reid was talking about Lacatski, but you have to admit those were assumptions. There’s no quote where they named Lacatski, right.
Anthony Bragalia 40:53
Dr. James Lacatski is a DIA rocket scientist and UFOlogist. Dr. Lacatski’s conclusions about UFOs cost him his job. Luis Elizondo knows that
John Greenewald 41:04
Anthony Bragalia 41:06
had said that certain senior government officials thought our collection of facts on UAP was dangerous to their philosophical beliefs. In fact, my a tip predecessors career was ruined, because of misplaced fear by an elite few. Rather than accept the data as provided by a top ranked science rocket scientist. They decided the data was a threat to their belief systems and instead destroyed his career because of it.
John Greenewald 41:31
Where did he say Lacatski?
Anthony Bragalia 41:36
What do you mean?
John Greenewald 41:37
Well, because according to Mr. Elizondo, AATIP and AAWSAP were two wildly different programs. So his predecessor on AATIP…
Anthony Bragalia 41:45
when Harry Reid said that he had been visited by the PhD rocket scientists, the DIA, who do you think he was referring to?
John Greenewald 41:54
But but that’s irrelevant? It doesn’t. It does.
Anthony Bragalia 41:56
And again, we’ve done this, but I’m quite certain that Dr. Lacatski was involved. In AATIP. I’m quite certain that he went to Bigelow Aerospace. I’m quite certain he went to the skinwalker Ranch.
John Greenewald 42:10
That’s that’s fine, Tony. But where I’m going with this is I don’t necessarily disagree if I can finish the sentence and the thought, I don’t necessarily disagree with you that I’m sure I’ve been trying to say for 10 minutes. I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong. But you’ve jumped to too many conclusions on whether or not Lacatski is truly the guy. And then on top of that, and I mean, no offense, you’re saying the wrong name. And on top of that, you don’t even want to know.
Anthony Bragalia 42:34
John Greenewald 42:35
You don’t even want to deal with the guy who actually was involved on the Bigelow Aerospace side, who was in charge of all the DIRDs. Now for the record, and that’s fine. So let’s move on. We don’t have to keep beating the dead horse, your headline and I want you to explain that this one to me. Your headline when you had talked about Lacatski was Pentagon’s UFO debris study manager found et connection confirmed. Where is the ET connection confirmed.
Anthony Bragalia 43:09
I’m not following you.
John Greenewald 43:10
Well, that’s your headline. You wrote that. Right?
Anthony Bragalia 43:15
John Greenewald 43:16
Okay. So where’s the confirmation of ET?
Anthony Bragalia 43:21
I’m not understanding what you mean. Okay. So
John Greenewald 43:24
you wrote this, sir. So, ET connection confirmed..
Anthony Bragalia 43:28
name is Tony.
John Greenewald 43:29
I, I’m sorry. I said, Sir, is that an insult? Anyway, I apologize, Tony, I’m, I’ve grown up trying to show respect to people. But regardless, you wrote the connection, ET or excuse me, the headline ET connection confirmed you wrote that, not me.
Anthony Bragalia 43:48
Yeah. study manager Lacatski was the study manager for both the AATIP as well as for UFO work. That is correct. Great. That is
John Greenewald 43:57
no, ET you said ET extraterrestrial connection confirmed?
Anthony Bragalia 44:01
Well, we are thinking that these are terrestrial materials.
John Greenewald 44:04
Absolutely. They could be
Anthony Bragalia 44:06
okay. And that’s where you and I differ is where the central problem is, in some way you believe that they were going to provide to me chemical and elemental analysis on you unique materials, what they did is provide to me the applications of these materials. And that’s why I want to initiate a lawsuit because they did not reply to my FOIA request, in the way that I had requested.
John Greenewald 44:37
Okay, so there’s many things
Anthony Bragalia 44:38
that are not included. And that’s exactly why I wanted to move forward
John Greenewald 44:41
because I want to make sure that I understand you if you could, as quickly as you can, because I don’t I don’t know how much more time I have a lot. 10 minutes, but eight minutes here. Okay. So then let me rush through this. What is the what is what makes the metamaterial analysis alien
Anthony Bragalia 45:01
I have a lot of time. I mean, this is so very deep that I don’t even know where to begin.
John Greenewald 45:08
I mean you can you can summarize alien
Anthony Bragalia 45:10
In the impetus of this material is alien inspired. It’s not in and of itself alien and this is where the problem okay, so
John Greenewald 45:20
where’s the inspiration
Anthony Bragalia 45:21
coming john we’re talking about an event that happened 70 years ago, the folks that are involved in scientific work work on this kind of thing weren’t even born then. Over the decades, this kind of work has been blended into arrow research and weaponry, research, and artfully done. They’ve they blended it in so it’s very, very difficult to separate the two. But when you look at the material that is referred to in and that was sent to me, we’re talking about material that exactly matches that of UFOs the ability to become invisible the ability to morph the ability to compress energy. All of these kinds of things are UFO like, but that
John Greenewald 46:09
doesn’t make an alien what I’m looking for is the confirmation…
Anthony Bragalia 46:12
John this is the problem.
John Greenewald 46:14
You said inspired by…
Anthony Bragalia 46:17
A elemental analysis or chemical analysis of alien material that’s evident it’s so obvious. These are this is information gleaned from decades of work. Okay, on material that was recovered I don’t know how more clear I can be.
John Greenewald 46:37
So is this because it is all inspired by Roswell?
Anthony Bragalia 46:39
I’ll make it very clear here sure. One of the reports received was about netanel sometimes called nitinol shape memory alloys very similar to the debris recovered at Roswell I have actually create created a table of 40 witnesses to memory metal found at Roswell for them to to then send back to me about 12 to 15 pages on shape memory alloy used in the human body as a biomaterial was more than curious. Why would they send me information about shape memory alloys and memory metal? Much like found at Roswell?
John Greenewald 47:23
because those were the because that’s, that’s responsive to your request. And it’s…
Anthony Bragalia 47:29
John Greenewald 47:30
Okay. But But I think your your
Anthony Bragalia 47:33
There is a long history about memory metal, and that is a whole nother issue. We could take another hour or even three hours about, but as we as listeners know, or may know, I have worked on the memory metal issue for years and years. And the fact that they sent back to me, very advanced technical papers on using memory metal in the human system as a bio material was extraordinary.
John Greenewald 48:00
Yeah, but I mean, and again, that’s the root of all of this that you don’t want to look at which if Dr. Hal Puthoff truly had that intent when he brought up the topic, you’d
Anthony Bragalia 48:08
Hal Puthoff has no idea why he was working on it. Why would a man in 2021 know about material recovered in 1947. This is ET inspired research was done under the cover of aerospace and weapons research. These folks have no need to know about Roswell, they have no need to know whatsoever about the circumstances involving the recovery, how it was obtained, where it’s been held. And all of that is ancillary.
John Greenewald 48:38
So in the last couple of minutes, just so I can, again, I can urge I’ll give you more time if you want it but you’re putting it all
Anthony Bragalia 48:45
we’re gonna have time on Wednesday, you will tell folks about that.
John Greenewald 48:48
Sure. That being said, I know your apparent disregard for Dr. Hal Puthoff which is fine. The Pentagon obviously you’re not siding with but the the man who headed the BAASS has come out and said they never had any material. You’re the one that wrote the headline about UFO debris. It sounds like you might be trying to shift that a little bit was saying that it’s expired but Okay, so they had UFO debris is your claim you really quickly because I’m running out of time.
Anthony Bragalia 49:21
John Greenewald 49:24
Have you been in possession of UFO debris for at least 70 years right through AAWSAP through these reports is what you’re saying? That was your headline.
Anthony Bragalia 49:34
I’m saying that that the material received confirms this.
John Greenewald 49:39
Okay, so we’ve already dealt with like I’m trying to get where the confirmation is, but we don’t get it but but but you’re saying that Dr. Hal Puthoff the Pentagon who actually agreed to help.
Anthony Bragalia 49:51
If all I know is that I requested information on UFO debris and this is what I got.
John Greenewald 49:56
Well, again, item number five didn’t mention UFO But yeah,
Anthony Bragalia 50:00
I don’t, I will not agree with you on that I don’t understand
John Greenewald 50:03
Which is fine
Anthony Bragalia 50:04
That I we could talk about it for hours probably. So Dan Kaminsky in the da fullwell knew I was requesting information on UFOs or uaps. And on debris, everyone that has read the request, everyone that has read the reply agrees it’s unambiguous and that to say anything else is misinforming.
John Greenewald 50:23
Well, I mean, I have to ask this question, because I feel in situations like this, and I commend you for getting the documents I have since day one, I think they’re important to come out officially, I think they were misinterpreted. Do you think that there is a chance that you are misinterpreting kind of I mean, you have the Roswell slide
Anthony Bragalia 50:42
is so unambiguous, I was able to talk to the DEA fire chief. I’m the one who heard his responses he knew full well, I was looking for UFO material. And john, you just don’t? It’s almost like we’re talking past each other. Where in the world did I ever request information on weapons?
John Greenewald 51:03
Again, I’m not having asked you about weapons.
Anthony Bragalia 51:06
What were the title? weapon? Where did I request information on advanced weaponry?
John Greenewald 51:11
Okay. See, that’s that you answer
Anthony Bragalia 51:13
that for me? Where is it that I
John Greenewald 51:15
should know? clarify? So you can ask the DIA that but regardless, it was,
Anthony Bragalia 51:21
I’m asking you, because you’ve been reading all of the material more than anyone except me. You’ve really gone through and I have commend you for having done that. Where have I ever mentioned the word weapons, weaponry or advanced weapons program?
John Greenewald 51:35
But where did I ask you
Anthony Bragalia 51:36
about it? Where did it? Where is it?
John Greenewald 51:39
If you can talk about it? If I could talk? I don’t know. I mean, you want people to finish
Anthony Bragalia 51:44
waiting to hear from you?
John Greenewald 51:45
Well, if you allow me to the AAWSAP original bid, solicit solicitation talked about advanced aerospace, aerospace platforms, forward looking program, where
Anthony Bragalia 51:57
Where was my statement of weaponry?
John Greenewald 51:59
Tony, you got to let other sides speak if you want them to answer a question. And I’m trying to answer it for you. Going back 30 or 40 minutes ago, when we started talking about AAWSAP, I was the one that brought up how confusing these naming mechanisms are. Because really, when you look at the description for AATIP, or excuse me for AAWSAP, and it talks about advanced aerospace platforms and technology forward looking into the future by 40 years, that may or may not apply to weapons, but it sure didn’t seem it was primarily about weapons, it seemed like it was primarily about Aerospace Research. Hence my concern hold on Tony, hence my concern, and has been for quite some time that this had anything to do with UFOs in the first place. You keep dismissing doctor Hal Puthoff, but to be honest with you, it actually may play a role. You guys might even find an intersection somewhere with you thinking that this is inspired by something. I’m not speaking for him. But the fact that you didn’t even talk to him is kind of telling that you didn’t want ultimately the whole truth. You keep talking about truth.
Anthony Bragalia 53:02
Oh, my heavens, I would be careful there, john, then why haven’t you said the whole truth.
John Greenewald 53:10
So why do you think that I talked to the Pentagon,
Anthony Bragalia 53:13
this Hal Puthoff guy. I don’t know what you’re referring to here. I’m talking about material that I received from the DEA from Steven Kaminski. And then the Pentagon backpedaling through their Pentagon spokesperson, Sue costs, costs. And I’m sorry if I mispronounced it. So that’s all I can talk about is what I received. And all I know about is I asked for and I think that I never asked about anything to do with weapons. I asked about UFO. I don’t know why I never asked for anything about advanced weapons programs, per se. I asked for information on UFO debris. And when I received this material it was was that understanding. It couldn’t be more clear. And I am really perplexed how you can even defend or try to have people understand why they would provide to me this material and then backpedal and say it had nothing to do with UFOs when that’s all I talked about. Looks like going to a restaurant and asking for a turkey dinner and they give you a hotdog. I that’s the second time you’ve used your hotdog analogy. Well, better to say it it’s that obvious. Okay, but after one thing and they give me something totally different.
John Greenewald 54:31
Okay, so in the last couple minutes here and again, I’ll hang out with you if you wanted to give more time
Anthony Bragalia 54:36
I’m unable to we got a hard stop here in about a couple minutes as we record.
John Greenewald 54:40
So I’ve given you real world citable examples prior to this show. You have commented on my video and articles. I’m asking you about the FOIA request that I did to the Army asking for UFO related material. And I got flying wing schematics from World War Two and Nazi designs. My question to you here in the end is why can’t you acknowledge that in the FOIA, I call it exactly responsive or loosely responsive, that why can’t you acknowledge that there is a chance that possibly this FOIA officer the action officer released something to you, because he saw materials it fits exactly. To item number 5.
Anthony Bragalia 55:19
Why wouldn’t Kaminsky, then clarify and come forward and explain because he doesn’t speak for the agency and
John Greenewald 55:26
the FOIA doesn’t allow for you or
Anthony Bragalia 55:28
I to ask questions give me he doesn’t allow him to respond. That is
John Greenewald 55:31
Anthony Bragalia 55:34
he and I had many sessions over FOIA by best and his reply..
John Greenewald 55:38
No, no, you’re mishearing what I’m saying. When when you’re asking about clarification, the Pentagon who is tasked to clarify something on that action, has you’ve dismissed it, it’s not the action officers job. And I’ve dealt with that situation multiple times. Because when the final determination is made, it can then go either to an appeal, as you well know, or judicial review. At that moment, the action officer has to step back, and those that are tasked to respond will in this particular situationm that would be Pentagon spokesperson, Susan Gough, so you keep asking for clarification while you have it. That was well, Susan Goff has
Anthony Bragalia 56:24
She has refused repeatedly, to talk to me to answer my emails, and instead has left me out to hand…
John Greenewald 56:30
If you’re threatening lawsuits everywhere… Tony, I don’t blame her.
Anthony Bragalia 56:34
Wait a minute. Now, the word threaten. What is threatening about a lawsuit?
John Greenewald 56:39
When you threaten a lawsuit, it is an expression.
Anthony Bragalia 56:41
I’m sure you filed some yourself.
John Greenewald 56:45
Okay, like I said earlier in the show,
Anthony Bragalia 56:49
threatening, you know, you and I view these guys in a totally different way, john, and again, I have to go back to the fact that I’m researching journalism, you’re an archivist, you depend on a relationship with them to provide to you the FOIA dumps, and you don’t you wouldn’t do what I do. You wouldn’t contradict them. I can tell by the way you’re talking. You wouldn’t do it,
John Greenewald 57:13
then you know nothing about me. No offense…
Anthony Bragalia 57:16
I guess not. Because
John Greenewald 57:18
Do you know how I’ve spent almost 25 years showing how how public statements and public documents and FOIA responses, a lot have been lies,
Anthony Bragalia 57:30
you know, John I’m going to tell you that in the people that I’ve talked to in the information I’ve received from other folks, they cannot understand how anyone could see this any differently. It is so evident that I request in the request was so specific, it probably is one of the best FOIA requests ever written. It is so very good here and you agreed, his responses were clear, you
John Greenewald 57:53
really want to get on the record and say this is the best FOIA request ever written?
Anthony Bragalia 57:55
to me it has to do with weapons, and then for her to not even respond to me or to clarify, and leave me out to hang is so obvious. The only person that’s not obvious to is you.
John Greenewald 58:05
So why aren’t you on 60 minutes, or Fox News? Or CNN…
Anthony Bragalia 58:08
Oh I will tell you about that! I really do have to go here, your video or show that you did the nails in the coffin? There’s no, there’s no doubt that mainstream media often consults the black Vault for information related to UFOs and soya when they saw that video. And again, I want your listeners to know that you didn’t even bother to contact me before you released it. Already. When mainstream media saw the videos on my show, when they when they when they saw the video, it’s evident that they didn’t want to pursue it any further. And you’ve done a disservice to me and to others by having sent out that video and the nasty things that have been said, resulting from that video. And they walked away from it. Yes, I did receive headlines, but they were from the Daily Mail and from you know, many, many newspapers around the world. Would I have preferred to have been on 60 minutes or Tucker Carlson? Yes. But I do believe that you’re putting up that video may have prevented that from happening.
John Greenewald 59:18
I don’t have that much power, but I appreciate you//.
Anthony Bragalia 59:21
You don’t but they
John Greenewald 59:22
Well, you’re accusing me of being a stooge…
Anthony Bragalia 59:24
videos and they see what you’ve put out. And when they see it, then they turn off from it. And that’s been a disservice. I can give you another example there’s a YouTube channel called fake or fiction or fact and fiction gentleman whose name I can’t remember. And he had a YouTube on this voice and he refers people to you and to your boy
John Greenewald 59:46
oh you’re talking about Bill’s Channel. Oh yes and hello to all the bills channels viewers. I really appreciate the
Anthony Bragalia 59:50
channel Thank you Bill’s channel. So hey, Bill’s Channel i love you guys. I wish that Bill didn’t do that because he just referred people over to JOHN and there’s an example a great example, where they see your video and they don’t hear from me and my reply, well, what
John Greenewald 1:00:08
What are you doing now? Okay, well, look, cuz I know I know what I’m talking about. You know, I
Anthony Bragalia 1:00:13
don’t I don’t mean to embarrass you, in front of your viewers, but you know that that is what happened.
John Greenewald 1:00:18
Okay, well, you’re not embarrassing me. I I’m starting to think you’re not listening to what I’ve said. I already explained why I didn’t invite you on, you published everything. When I learned that there was
Anthony Bragalia 1:00:27
no sense belied by the fact that you have me on now.
John Greenewald 1:00:30
You published everything.
Anthony Bragalia 1:00:31
If you felt that all the answers were there. Why do you have me on now? Because you came out with more information, Tony, exactly, and as people will know I am continuing investigations. My Battelle investigation is going on in its 17th year. I mean, these are things that continue and continue and for you to immediately hop on it and put out that video did a disservice the apology?
John Greenewald 1:00:56
Well, I’m sorry to hear you say that. But like I said, I backed my stuff up with evidence and I can’t even get you to agree with station john, you or you came out, that’s fine.
Anthony Bragalia 1:01:05
Now understand that you’ve had well over really rather viewers understand that a real journalist, a professional would have contacted me
John Greenewald 1:01:13
We going to start insulting now?
Anthony Bragalia 1:01:15
and then put out a video not the other way around, where you put out a video a damning video, and not consult me and then later asked me to come on, but nothing of the way that it went down.
John Greenewald 1:01:27
There’s nothing that has come forward, that hasn’t updated what I originally put out, and I stand by it, I don’t change anything
Anthony Bragalia 1:01:33
It doesn’t matter, John.
John Greenewald 1:01:34
No, it does.
Anthony Bragalia 1:01:35
A professional would have contacted the individual they are going to talk about first, I’m not that difficult to get ahold of you. When I share similar connections and contacts. I have an email on my website, the least you could have done was to contact me first, before you did the video, I would have done that for you. I do that in all my reads my
John Greenewald 1:01:58
– overlap –
Anthony Bragalia 1:02:00
And I have worked on many cases together, where we act in the best interest and we try and get the other side of the story before we release a video like that. And now I think you understand why I am angry.
John Greenewald 1:02:15
Well, I’m sorry that you’re angry. You shouldn’t get that worked up over it. I don’t have that my
Anthony Bragalia 1:02:19
couldn’t get that worked up over it.
John Greenewald 1:02:21
Can I can I talk on my own show? Or is that a
Anthony Bragalia 1:02:23
yes, you can get.
John Greenewald 1:02:25
So you can get as angry as you’d like. What my video wasm was about your FOIA request and response which you publish in full. That’s all I was talking about. And I even cited other parts of your article and said, I’m not going to go into that. Why? Because I wasn’t going to start nitpicking all the errors that you had. And I’m sorry, there were quite a few. But my whole intent with that video was to talk about the foyer responses and these exaggerated headlines when you submitted or sent out whatever you want to call it your second article. I then yeah, I extended an invitation to you because I
Anthony Bragalia 1:03:02
know the third article it took three articles for you to do that john,
John Greenewald 1:03:05
Regardless. Okay, I sent the I sent the annotate my points they sent them I sent them to
Anthony Bragalia 1:03:11
Anybody who does an investigation tries to get both sides of the story before they release anything. That’s just good business that’s professional
John Greenewald 1:03:20
Yet here you are and you’re still angry.
Anthony Bragalia 1:03:22
Like you were not being professional, you could have gotten a hold of me. And instead, you didn’t and it caused some issues because yes, mainstream media now is avoiding this story. In largest there’s
John Greenewald 1:03:37
There’s no evidence. There’s no I’m sorry, Tony. There’s just no evidence there’s not. And if there was
Anthony Bragalia 1:03:44
no evidence of what john, what you’re gonna do, it was lambing. I asked you even consult me on beforehand. I don’t need to publish everything.
John Greenewald 1:03:54
Okay, but when but when you put stuff out, I’m just I decided to give you a chance. There was a three articles in as you and nothing that you’ve produced has showed me anything I asked you to clarify your headline. And you You gave me crickets there for a little bit. Hold me
Anthony Bragalia 1:04:12
you have you can interpret cricket. Yeah, I mean, listen, you want to characterize every little tiny thing, which you tend to do. I’m gonna go into some of the other comments in the video, which had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever, including visuals I had in the in the articles. Yeah, it’s misleading, quite understanding that at all. And I have to get going. I have a kind of a hard stop here because I have a business. But john and I will be talking Kevin randles radio show on Wednesday, and we’re going to pick up here and john will let you know more about that.
John Greenewald 1:04:47
Yep. And that’s it. Tony as I said in the beginning of the show, I do appreciate you taking the time I know it gets heated because we don’t know I do agree on everything here but I do admire those who will have the conversation nonetheless. Thank you for that. Thank you. I
Anthony Bragalia 1:05:01
appreciate it, john, and I really look forward to talking to gun and Wednesday. And really again, appreciate it so very much
John Greenewald 1:05:09
anytime and thank you all for listening and watching. This is John Greenewald Jr signing off. We’ll see you next time. I don’t think he wanted to talk to me anymore.