Description
Since October of 2017, intrigue and mystery have surrounded Luis Elizondo. He says he headed a secret UFO study known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), but his journey telling the story about his career at the Department of Defense has been challenged by the Pentagon every step of the way.
After years of seeking a paper trail to either prove or disprove his story, The Black Vault made a discovery that has turned the entire saga upside down.
According to the Pentagon, they destroyed Elizondo’s e-mail box. The importance of this, is that box resides on a short list of evidence that could help solve the mystery of what really happened during Elizondo’s days working within the classified intelligence world.
The biggest question when it was all over, was whether or not the DOD had proper authorization to destroy the data. And when asked, they were unable to prove it after nearly two months of being asked .
This is the story behind what really happened these past few years to unravel this mystery. So stay tuned – you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.
SHOW NOTES
Live Stream Version
Transcript
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 0:04
Since October of 2017, intrigue and mystery have surrounded Luis Elizondo, he says he had a secret UFO study known as the advanced aerospace threat identification program or a tip.
But his journey telling the story about his career within the Department of Defense has been challenged by the Pentagon every step of the way.
After years of seeking a paper trail to either prove or disprove his story, the black vault made a discovery that has turned the entire saga upside down. According to the Pentagon, they destroyed Elizondo his email box now the importance of this is that botch resides on a shortlist of evidence that could help solve the mystery of what really happened during Elizondo his days working within the classified intelligence world. The biggest question when it was all over was whether or not the Department of Defense had proper authorization to destroy the data. And when asked, they were unable to prove it after nearly two months. This is the story behind what really happened these past few years to unravel the entire mystery. So 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 live stream or your podcast of choice. I’m your host, john Greenwald, Jr. And thank you for deciding to today take this journey inside the black vault with me. What we are talking about is, in my opinion, the single most important story that I have ever written on the a tip saga that is the rumored Pentagon UFO study, and Mr. Luis Elizondo himself. Now the reason why I say that is because I believe it, I believe, with what happened throughout this entire saga with me trying to essentially Unravel the Mystery on what really is going on with this program. What ultimately went down is incredibly important. And it actually goes to the heart, the soul of why I do what I do. As you know, I started when I was 15, hammering the government with the Freedom of Information Act. And I believed in two things, transparency, and preservation. Now, although I felt that there were some reasons for withholding information, and I do still believe that, to this day, I was a strong advocate for transparency and preservation. So whenever I hear no matter what the topic is, that something is destroyed or deleted, it’s a punch in the gut, because I truly believe in the preservation of that history, especially with this topic, because they have seemingly been launching an attack about one of their own, one of their former own, where an employee comes out, he says what he did on the inside and they start slinging mud. Is it true? Is it not? I don’t know, as it’s no secret. I’ve been real critical of the man myself. But when it started to get dirty, that’s when it got really bizarre to me. And we’ll go through some of that today. But that is what this show is all about. Now, if you follow me on social media, you’ll see that yesterday, I published this article, I was entrenched in this thing for months. The research itself goes back three years. Now I want to talk to you a little bit about what that story is now and where we’re at. Because if you didn’t read the article, I recommend you do so. But I do understand it’s long. And it’s detailed, but it had to be and that is why it has taken this long for me to ultimately come out with it simply because I had to dot every I cross every t triple and quadruple check what I was coming out with because if I was wrong, I wouldn’t have forgiven myself, let alone the fact But I think a lot of you all would not have done so either just simply because the claim is huge. Yet when it was all said and done, I could not find a reason not to publish this. Now here’s the quick synopsis. Luis Elizondo, the man who says that he directed that secret Pentagon UFO study that we all know is the advanced aerospace threat identification program, or you’ll hear me say a tip. Well, the true value of a paper trail would either prove or disprove his story. Now, if you have followed, not only the black vault, but this entire saga, you’ll know that there have been a lot of challenges and hurdles for this guy to overcome. Now, again, true or not, if you believe him or not, it doesn’t matter. There are hurdles nonetheless. So if he’s telling the truth hurdles, if he’s lying, while they’re hurdles, because he had to get by him. So he had a lot of challenges that were thrown at him. And yet, he just kept marching forward. That was always impressive to me. And as critical as I was for him to communicate with me once I was finally able to get a direct line with him, come on my show and take some of those difficult questions. I admire that. And, and it probably wasn’t the easiest of all things to do, because you have the weight of the Pentagon saying that he didn’t do certain things. Now the big one was that he didn’t play a role in the program. He said he did. But before we get there, that wasn’t the beginning shot. And the beginning shot actually came if you could believe it, through the Freedom of Information Act, even before the December 17 2017 article from the New York Times and Politico that broke the story of a tip and took Luis Elizondo story to the next level. Yes, there was a shot fired prior to that. Now why do I say it? Well,
when Luis Elizondo first came onto the scene in October of 2017. I literally was there watching it live at not there physically, but but on the internet where it’s streamed live, and taking notes. Because the most intriguing aspect to that and it always has been, even despite the mud was Luis Elizondo, because he was the guy that that ultimately was proving something that not only myself, but others had been saying for decades. The government did have an interest in UFOs. They were investigating them, and they were a potential threat. That is something that has been so wildly overlooked from the Pentagon and the Department of Defense and the government and the intelligence community for decades. It couldn’t have been anything else but a lie. That’s why I was such an advocate for for pressing for more information and digging through the Freedom of Information Act. Elizondo proved all of that with that original press conference. But as time went on, those red flags started to appear those questions started to appear. And back to that first what I call shot against Elizondo came on November 27 2017. Because while I was taking notes that day, I had filed Freedom of Information Act requests for information, I believe it was maybe the next day the next morning, but regardless, I mean within 24 hours of Elizondo storming out on that stage, I was going after records. It took till only November a fairly quick turnaround time for the D o t to tell me that the program that Elizondo described, keep in mind, a tip had not been named in October. The name was never public until December. Obviously journalists were working on it, but nobody was chatting about it. There was no public, sizable material that I can bring to you is only Elizondo, his description, which essentially was described as an aerial threat program that was that they were looking at, essentially those aviation threats, those aerial threats that included UFOs. And so that was his description. So the way that I worded it to the do D was just that, that there was a program that was identifying aerial threats. I used Elizondo his testimony it was public and sought after information, using only the description that Elizondo said, That’s generally enough to a FOIA officer. What came back was that the do said, we got nothing. We have no records responsive to your request. Now I have since appealed that I’ve won that appeal since 2018. The end of 2017 going into 2018 won that appeal, it is still ongoing. So despite what I’m about to tell you and in this video, just This particular case is actually still open. And the appeal is is granted. Regardless though, that was a red flag to me, because I thought, Well, look, this guy’s out there talking about it, which means it’s, it’s likely not classified. Why would they have motivation to lie about it? So to anybody who researches government documents, that part didn’t make sense to me. And that was always a red flag. And I never, I never had any problems, even to this day bringing that up, because if he is talking about it, you can establish that there is no classification about the existence of the program. That doesn’t mean that aspects of it portions thereof deal in classified information. But the existence of it was not. So why would they say that there was no records. So that’s why I appealed, and ended ended up winning the appeal. The second shot was the big one. And this is where I just kind of like if you look at what I was saying publicly and stuff like that, and followed the timeline. This is when I backed off, I’m like, Okay, this is going into an area that I did not expect. And this was then in, in 2019, the intercept had published this article,
I was floored when this statement came out. And you’ll find me in the article. You know, I was cited in one particular section, because I was asked for a little bit of detail about what was going on, because I was digging into this. But as skeptical as I was when the Pentagon sent this out, and I know that the intercept wasn’t the first to receive it, but they were the first to report it. I had confirmed it as well to ensure that it was a valid statement. And it was, that’s when I backed off and went okay, this is I don’t mean to laugh about it, but getting really bizarre, because it’s one thing to say okay, that there’s no documents on the program. Sure, that’s fine, whatever, when you start taking shots in an actual person and say no, no, he didn’t work on that program at all. He had no responsibilities on a tip and his entire career at that point was talking about not career but but but post resignation. His whole public persona was talking about his career as the director have a tip and so when that came out, I’m like, Okay, I’m out No, like I don’t want I really at that point didn’t want any part of it. Because I wasn’t there to attack demand. I was there to critique the story. And even though there was a lot of bad rap that came along with that, like all Greenwald’s out to get them truly I wasn’t I was trying to figure out what really was going on what what really happened during a tip and yeah, ultimately, who is this man like? Did he had it? Is this is this a government cover up? Is this a lie? You know, what, what ultimately is it? But more than all else, it was about critiquing the story itself. The man just came along with it. So that was the big one. Now it should be noted that in 2019, when this when this all kind of came about Harry Reid, Senator Harry Reid, former majority leader when Senator when Luis Elizondo was was on the inside, he came out and vouched for Elizondo just weeks ago, in fact, about a month now it is April 26 of this year, Senator Harry Reid restated his endorsement of Elizondo I bring up the 2019 one, just so you know, that he he, although it wasn’t as public as this one, Gotti Schwartz at MSNBC had had, or NBC had had, essentially really put this into the limelight. But Harry Reid’s been supporting Elizondo and his directorship have a tip since 2019. So that is not new, the fancy letterhead with the Harry Reid signature, that is new, I had taken this letter, just as a side note here to the Pentagon, saying, Okay, look, you guys have maintained this position for a very long time about Elizondo, and he hasn’t gone anywhere. He’s continuing to do media interviews and making these claims. So clearly, whatever you guys are saying, it’s not stopping him, and he’s getting international attention. So my aim, and they’ve done it before, was to correct that statement, to have them alter it and say whatever it was that they were going to say, based on new information and new evidence, and sadly, they still post this harry reid letter, maintain that position, even as I’m talking to you today. They have not reneged why I don’t, I don’t know. But maybe that all plays a role into what happened as I was trying to track down a lot of this information in order to prove disprove the Pentagon Elizondo or both, you need that paper trail, because the spokespeople, as we’ve proven will change statements. They did that with me. So they will change their view. Although spokespeople you can cite their answers and there is a legal reason why I get spokespeople, statements, they’re late. They’re
what’s the right word to say this, I can legally cite them in an appeal and they mean something, because the do de has has authorized them to speak on their behalf. So if a spokesperson says something that negates a foyer response, I can use that in an in an appeal. And generally they will, they will take that and in fact, it has worked. I have provable examples of that. So that their word as much as people hate them viciously, and don’t care unless they say something good. But they don’t care what those folks people say. There’s a reason I go for that. And it is because it means something. So that paper trail is the only thing that is going to either prove or disprove what the spokespeople are saying, and what is the quote unquote, official stance of the Pentagon or the Department of Defense. One of those lines of paper trails, one of many would be emails. Now we know that Elizondo worked for the DOD, that has never been disputed, even with people that are highly critical, such as myself and throw everything through a fine tooth comb that was never disputed. What was disputed on the side of the Pentagon was whether or not he had this program. So what I started to do was to do was dig into his emails and dig into the paper trail to prove or disprove what he was saying. Now first up that came out was this voice response that you’re looking at if you’re watching this video, which was all about the emails between Luis Elizondo in August of 2017. I think the thread starts in September, but what you’re looking at is in August, August 9, to be exact. This is the paper trail that got the three original videos to in December 2017. And then the go fast video in March of 2018. That got them reviewed. Now, according to Luis Elizondo, in an interview that I did for this channel, he was unaware that these videos ended up in the public realm. And he was unaware that to the stars Academy had them. And he thought for a bit while I interviewed him, and he and he says that he does not think that he knew that they were publishing them at all in December of 2017. So take that for what it’s worth. But that is Elizondo side of the story. As we’ve kind of learned a little bit more. what he wanted to do was an internal database, tracking these threats. Now, he described them as drones and balloons. But his explanation for that was he used the terminology because he couldn’t inform dopps or on the reality that they were UFOs or, or more accurately now, ua peas, again, take that for what it’s worth, but this was the paper trail to show how it all went down. And so my thought process was Look, if this will add more to the story, then obviously, there’s more emails. I mean, the guy worked for the Pentagon for what over a decade decade at least, or so. So that’s a heck of a paper trail. Something had to be said about a tip is directorship UFOs whatever it may be. So I started digging in. I filed at least eight Freedom of Information Act requests specifically aimed to target Luis Elizondo his email now you can see here because I’ve seen social media chatter on this he Yes, he did have a do D mailbox. Yes, he did have an email account. Yes, he did use it. That’s all kind of a safe assumptions. But I see a lot of people kind of firing at my article saying well maybe he didn’t have one maybe he used private email. No, this was all through a legitimate God email all provable with documentation. So my at least eight cases because I think that there were more but eight for, for me being able to verify for this. I started seeking emails from Elizondo his mailbox that contain some of these keywords on identified a tip OS app, which is one of the other names that’s connected to the a tip program UAP community of interest to the stars delong put off. Obviously you can see where I’m going with that. Obviously you can see that I was seeking out a paper trail to see What was going on? Was he talking with to the stars Academy? Was he talking about unidentified flying objects? Was he talking about uaps? Was he talking about the a tip program? All of that would come up in the course of this request. Now, a couple things of note. When you file a FOIA request, you stipulate a timeframe. That timeframe that I stipulated was the entire career of Luis Elizondo while he worked for the D o t. Hence, that email address I just pointed out to you would be used. I also put language in there that they may have more than one email address, that could be for whatever reason, and I stipulate that just to be safe, just to ensure that I get everything that I am looking for. Something really strange happened, though, you can see this was back in December of 2019. This specific case I use as the example because it’s pretty much the most common sense. 19 f 1903. This was a request that I did for Luis Elizondo emails, all of them that contained the word on identified that was the specific request. There were the final determination in December, said there was not a single one, there were no records responsive to my request, you can see that clear is day after thorough searches of the electronic records and files. of no records. Excuse me, let me start over after thorough searches of the electronic records and files have no records of the kind you described, could be identified. Sorry, got a little tongue tied there. But that was how they said it. There was no records whatsoever. This wasn’t the only case that was getting that others as well. A tip OSS app on identified the one I just read, yeah, all of them were coming back as no records. Nowhere Did they say the box didn’t exist a search, not in a single letter. So I appealed almost everyone, the ones that I had, I felt the evidence based on public testimony, and what had been printed by other major media to appeal. I won every appeal that I submitted when it came to this particular topic, because I had enough evidence, the appellate authority, which is not the action officer that is involved in the foi request, meaning it goes to a higher office or adjacent office, whatever, but it’s not the same. They are the appellate authority that looks at my case and says, okay, Greenwald put up a case. There should be something, there should be no records, it should be a response and not a no records response. So let’s reopen this. They remanded back. It’s called remanding. Back, they remanded back to OSD and they say process this again. So I won all the appeals that I submitted on these cases. Fast forward now to April, April 1 to be exact. And yes, as I noted in my article, the irony is absolutely noted in my head, April 1 2021. I got another no records response on this 19 F 1903 case, where they said there is no records. However, this time, there was new new language. And I’ll read it to you. Please note that emails of former Department of Defense employees are not retained unless they are considered historical records and retained by the national record center. There are currently no existing email accounts for Elizondo for Mr. Elizondo, we believe that search methods were appropriate and could reasonably be expected to produce the requested records if they existed. Now remember those other emails that I showed you about earlier in this presentation? Here. Now note this back to the letter. In regards to the records you forwarded responsive to your FOIA request number 18 fO 644. The defense Office of pre publication and security review office located those records from their records system. those records which we released to you were responsive to your request for all records slash correspondence relating to the DD Form 1910. Sent to slash from Mr. Elizondo and their office. There were no other records located responsive to emails to slash from Mr. Elizondo in their records system. What does that mean in plain English? simply this, what they were saying in the first paragraph I just read you was that everything is gone. They didn’t save Elizondo ‘s emails, it was more they were alluding to that, but I knew the writing was on the wall that they destroyed them. Now, don’t worry, I didn’t assume it. I do do have backup on that claim. So I assume that that that’s where they were going with it. In my appeal, you could probably deduce from this that I used those original emails in my In my appeal, as a basis to prove my case, hey, there’s got to be something responsive to this. They said that it was simply because they got it from dotser. Not Elizondo his email box, but rather the receiving ends, email box. And so that was the only reason why they came up.
Back to confirming that assumption, because to me, it’s clear, but it wasn’t clear enough. Remember, I always talked about triple and quadruple checking this is why, because if I ran to the internet and went, aha, they destroyed Elizondo his emails, I could potentially get bitten in the rear rear end if pie, assuming too much. And so I always try and figure out if I’m, if I’m right, when it comes to assumptions, or 99%, sure, but not 100. I always make sure. It took two months, two months to confirm that this confirm officially that this was saying it was destroyed. Now when I say confirmed officially, I was waiting for approved language to publish in two months, they could not produce it. why that is? I’ll let you guys guess. I don’t know. I will say that I followed up well into the double digits, trying to get those answers trying to get the approved language. I knew by by conversation, that yes, they were gone. And yes, they were standing by that, but I wanted to quote them beyond this letter. After nearly two months, we’re just a couple days shy. Of the two month mark, after I first reached out, reached out for clarification. They still never gave me that language. But I said, Look, I’m done waiting. I shouldn’t be expected to wait forever. This is a final determination and your letter speaks for itself. I’m just trying to give the courtesy that if I’m wrong, and I’m reading this incorrectly, I don’t want to lay down a you know what storm on you guys? Because I essentially allege something that isn’t true. So you need to tell me is it can you at least confirm. And I can fall back on this? Can you at least confirm that they are 100%, destroyed, deleted, however you want to say it, the data is gone. We can’t access the emails. And there’s no backup. And I was given that confirmation that I could then publish this article. But they knew it. I was not going to blindside them. I said, I said this is this is what I’m doing. So if I’m wrong, now’s the time to tell me. And they said no that that that no matter what that they are standing by that. And that was it. So there is no official statement beyond this letter. And what’s that frustrating? You better damn believe it because I again in the double digits was following up trying to get that approved language and trying to be fair, as fair as possible to the other side. And in the process of being fair. I’ve known over the years and over the decades of filing FOIA requests. In order to delete government documents, you need authorization or an authority to do so whether that be a presidential directive to destroy something, but more so what are called records retention schedules, or records disposition schedules. In my attempt for clarification with the do D. I specifically asked for that. They can say whatever they want, in addition to a records retention schedule, but I needed the citation. Now, in short, what those are, are records that ultimately define how long they keep government records based on type and subject matter, along with quite a bit else. But I’m giving you the nutshell. every agency is different. Every type of document is different. There’s very much a public perception Oh, you can never delete a government record. It’s illegal. It’s absolutely legal. So when I knew that Elizondo his box was gone. I wanted the legal authority to do so because either this was a interesting story. Or this was a mind blowing story. Interesting because well, it was legal. And here’s the records retention schedule, but darn it, we can’t confirm Elizondo story or the Pentagon story about a tip and his work. Or it was a mind blowing story. They couldn’t cite one. There’s no authority and his boxes just gone.
It turned out A mind blowing story, in my opinion, will I be proven wrong tomorrow? Because then all of a sudden the do D kicks in with this record schedule that I couldn’t find? Absolutely. That’s a possibility. I’m waiting for it though. Because if if it takes two months for them not to produce that, and then I publish this article, and then like, a day later, they go, Well, you know, why’d you make such a big to do? Here you go, then yeah, I’ll create a fairly big storm about that, because I gave them nearly two months to produce that. But here’s the bottom line, I don’t think they will be able to. Before I published, I spent way too much time going through what you see on your screen here. These are the records disposition schedules for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and all the sub components they’re in. And there’s a lot of them. The sub component there in that Luis Elizondo worked, was this one here, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, or Oh, usdi. I think now it’s Oh, usdi and s, intelligence and security. So I think they’ve changed the name, but regardless, so he worked for this office here. You go through this records retention schedule, there’s no mention of email. However, certain things I feel would apply, and so did Mr. Elizondo, but it wasn’t good enough. What I did feel applied was something that I found after conversation with Elizondo Now, here’s what we determined, as I was asking him questions, trying to figure out in all of these schedules, which by the way, totals a ton of pages, it’s not just, you know, one sheet, you have to go through all these different categories. And it stipulates how long and I’ll show you the part of it in a second, but to try and figure out the categories and confusing as all Heck, and and especially for someone who doesn’t deal with it every day. It was a challenge. So I had to round it down to a couple different things. I started talking to Elizondo about it and really kind of digging into his background, the thing that we that I had determined that then defined where he fit in the schedule, was that he was called a non Capstone official. And that’s important because documents in these schedules differentiate between non Capstone and Capstone. If you’re curious what that means that generally that there are a high senior level position that is permanent. And so those Capstone positions are generally more important than you would see like a low level contractor or something like that. So obviously, much higher retention on something like that, generally permanent, wherein low level contractors would be a much lower amount of time. He was a civilian employee, also defined in the schedules, and he was not a contractor also differentiated in the schedule. Now, based on that and quite a few other things I won’t bore you with I had it rounded down then to something that I felt was to the tee, and it ended up being to the tee, which was found in series 100. For all of you that are taking notes of the OSD records, disposition schedules, subtitled general office records, and here Here it is. Email retention for non Capstone officials. Here’s the description all recorded information maintained an email accounts regardless of classification, for current and incoming non Capstone, OSD employees, civilian or military service members, supported by both D and non D email systems, including personnel on the Secretary of Defense Network who are not designated as Capstone officials. You’ll note the key words that I just went through in conversation with Elizondo to try and figure all of this out. He fit to the tee in this particular category, from top to bottom. The key looked down here the disposition meaning how long do they keep it it is temporary.
It’s cut off annually upon receipt destroy seven years after cut off essentially his cut off on his resignation December or excuse me, October 4 2017. I know that based on his resignation letter, and I also got it later confirmed in writing by the D o t. That means that he’s supposed to be there that the documents are supposed to be there until October 4 2020. For what happened. I couldn’t get a date of destruction. So I have no idea if it was within a day or a month or 30 days a six months, what, two years, three years. Doesn’t matter. Documentation shows October for 2024. They should have kept some people thought emails just are deleted outright. I saw that on social media. To all sorts of theories going on around there, while again, this is 100% pertaining to email accounts, regardless of classification, let me take it one step farther, you can see here, it also applies to email messages and attachments, email calendars, and appointments, email tasks, email chat transcripts, and other communications maintain on D are non D Systems. that acronym is defense enterprise email, I think it is something to that effect. But regardless, it’s D and non D system. So you know, everything. And that’s exactly what this story was about. So those that are firing kind of those skeptical shots at this, just know it is spelled out, I even saw a well known skeptic, one who I actually like one who I hope will do an interview with me not about this. But just because I like his work, immediately dismiss it publicly, because it’s normal or standard procedure or something like that. And it’s like, did you even take 10 seconds to read that, that I that I have spent way too much time addressing that very point. It’s not standard procedure. This, I believe is the procedure seven years. For those again, taking notes. I sent documents to Elizondo after I had established it’s at least seven years, he was also looking at categories that he felt applied. And I want to point out in series 500, that there are different sections, which include intelligence, and special subject files, General systems and policy correspondence and coordination. All of these different sections would apply, he felt to him as well, across the board of what he felt applied. It was a permanent retention. After 25 years after Elizondo retired or the documents, origination date, either one, I believe, 25 years thereafter, it would be transferred over to the National Archives. Yet again, let me stress permanent retention, never to be destroyed. So for those who want to talk about policy, go ahead, because this shows that those records likely, and I’ll say likely, should have been kept permanently. What I can comfortably prove is seven years. And we’re still a couple years shy of when they were allowed to be destroyed. So what happened there? I don’t know. But the fact that the boxes were deleted, and they’ve known it as they were processing my requests, because I was told you’re getting no records responses because the box doesn’t exist. Well, I was told that in the last month, I was never told that in the last couple of years. And in fact, to prove that point even farther, I was not just filing FOIA requests and getting no records and then appealing. And that was it. Rather throughout multiple cases, there were multiple instances of correspondence between me and the Freedom of Information Act action officers, this is one, the blurbs are my own just as a courtesy. But what I did was I was trying to make sure that the no records responses that they were giving giving me were based on searches that were siprnet that were done on siprnet nipper net and j wickes. accounts. Meaning if you’re not familiar with those systems, it’s just the different levels of classification that they can communicate on. So let’s say everything internally about a tip was classified top secret. While that would be through Jay wicks, did they search it? From the action officer, I can confirm that we did do searches correctly, sipper nipper and Jay wicks accounts. And they signed the letter. What does this prove? Why wouldn’t they tell me way back in December of 2019, when I started winning my appeals, why wouldn’t they tell me that it was gone.
And I do have multiple examples. I link them in the article. I have multiple examples that if the government agency that you’re requesting from destroyed records, they keep records of the destruction, so they may not have the records anymore, but they have record of when they did it. The FBI is a prime example of just that. And I offer again examples in my article, but they’ll say we believe that there were responsive records to your request, or I believe they worded like there may be responsive records pertaining to your request, but they were destroyed on July 1 1985. And you see that a lot with like the mj 12 alleged members, you know, not to work mj 12 in there, but to use a related somewhat related example. A lot of those members have had portions or all of their files destroyed. And I’ve got the dates of almost all of them. So that’s what happens when records are destroyed. But in this case, I was communicating with them about how they searched his email box. And yet here he they are confirming, yes, we can we searched all three networks. But by the way, the boxes are deleted. So it’s moot. It’s a waste of time. No, none of that. And instead, I spent all that time filing appeals, the appellate authority within the Department of Defense, who I guarantee you don’t work for cheap. They spent all that time then reviewing my material remanding it back to the action officers. Then those action officers wasted all that time doing all of these searches again, on what, what were they searching? And why wouldn’t they tell me and it wasn’t until April of 2021 where they finally did. One of the other things in their letter and let me go back to that screen really quick. Former d o t employees are not retained unless they are considered historical records and retained by the national record center. What I want to bring up now is a provable undeniable aspect of Luis Elizondo, his background, largely overlooked. I’ve seen it mentioned by a few people but largely overlooked, and that is his his job title when he resigned. And when he resigned, he was the Director of the National programs, special management staff or the NPS, Ms. Now, what is that office? And so when I saw his resignation letter, and yeah, I had concerns on whether or not it was even real because it leaked out and it was kind of found through nefarious ways, but nobody’s ever disputed it and Luis Elizondo himself, I think, has even made reference to it. So and then History Channel published it when I unidentified aired. So, you know, a couple years ago, it was like, Okay, well, then I guess this is real. And that office, I started digging in trying to figure out okay, a tip aside, you know, what, what are these? What is this office? You know, what, what is what is he doing? What was his job title? What was how many people were underneath them? What was going on? Was this code for a UFO office? Was this something else? And at that time, when it first came out, there was nothing if you googled that, that title, you’d only come up to references to Elizondo Joe’s resignation letter, and that was it. There was nothing else. Not that Google is the end all be all. But you know what I mean, you search for Secretary of Defense, you’re gonna come up with 22 billion documents, so it wasn’t like that
at all.
So I started digging in deep. And the only at this point, the only official government documents that I was able to come up with were military corps transcripts from the Office of military commissions on the trial of Khalida Shaykh Muhammad, or KSM. Yes, the 911 mastermind. And if you subscribe to this channel a lot. One of the first videos I did was actually about these documents. And I said them that I’ll say now i’m sure Luis Elizondo has seen a lot and knows a lot, obviously working in the highly classified settings and programs. And in this particular transcript, it was proven that number one, the attorney for KSM, was talking about the NPS, Ms. Because they were the quote SAP access people. Here’s another part of the transcript and NPS ms came up. And the NPS, MS is the office it states the NPS, Ms. Is the office responsible for administering the Special Access Program for the Office of military commissions. And it was a line of questioning and it essentially went into Yes, that is what they do. I confirmed with Luis Elizondo that this would not only was his office, but he was there around this timeframe. You can see October 2017. kind of put two and two together, although he retired earlier that month. Obviously this was something that had been ongoing for years. Other than confirming a yes, that is him. And yes, he was there. He wouldn’t expand anywhere else, which I totally understand. Going back to that if it’s not a historical record, it’s not saved. This is litigation of the 911 mastermind. If they are really going to argue that if Luis Elizondo himself or his office, whichever was communicating with KSM, his attorney and the background of why this came up was that one of the interpreters for the Defense Law SAP access, because they needed special clearance to work and potentially see what might be very sensitive or classified information that they had to select that and then give SAP access to not only the interpreters, but the defense and so on that came up in the trial. If you’re telling me that’s not historical, and something that is involved in litigation and potential evidence that could be that could be called on by an attorney, that that’s not historical, and they just delete it. No way. There’s none. It doesn’t matter if you believe Louise Elizondo at all about his atep story or not, there is no way that anybody can tell me when you look at the actual evidence about what we know for a fact that Luis Elizondo did that his email box would just be wiped clean. And all of that stuff has gone and a tip material should it be there was just crossed a, you know, cross deleted off the face of the map. There’s no way I don’t buy it at all. And those records retention schedule sealed the deal for me. And the lack of ability that they couldn’t cite one also was very telling, because again, those FBI cases unrelated to this can cite those dates when I request them. So something is super fishy around here. One thing that I have shied away from for quite some time is this lady here, who I deal with. And maybe after this video, we’ll never deal with again, not by choice, but because maybe somebody is watching, but I think it should be noted. And what I’m saying here is sizable with documentation and historical fact. Back in 2003, Susan golf who is the Pentagon spokesperson, who is the sole spokesperson for UFO related inquiries from the mainstream media, anything related to Elizondo anything related to the UAP Task Force. And she fields all of that from not only the Pentagon slash d o t, but all the components thereof, the Air Force, the Defense Intelligence Agency, OSD, the US Navy, on and on. She is at this point and has been for some time, the only one that will talk about it. If you now look into her background, and you look that back in 2003, the evolution of strategic influence by Lieutenant Colonel Susan L. Goff, where this comes into play, and I have not talked about this at all, until the last week.
The reason is, is that she and I’ll read it to you just to make sure that I don’t mess it up. And I’ll read the part of my article that deals with this, because this is cause for concern, not only by myself as a researcher investigator, but should be a concern to the general public. Let me read to you what I what I wrote, and then also, in turn quoting her paper, golf’s background prior to commenting on uaps for the Pentagon has not made her popular, too many online UFO Disclosure advocates. In 2003, she authored a strategy research project where she wrote that the quote, orchestrated combination unquote, of public diplomacy, psychological operations, and Public Affairs, is the definition of what is called strategic influence. She adds that the do D need she adds that quote, The do D needs someone with the appropriate position and authority to oversee the policy and to coordinate do D strategic influence activities among God public affairs, military psyop and other military information activities. Do you feel that the person that is the sole person tasked to comment on ua peas? Do you believe that they are more focused on the truth? Or do you believe based on this they are more focused on strategically influencing the public? And that is the biggest concern that I have and have had for quite some time. But I’ve kept quiet on it, because we are forced to work with this individual and it will hurt posing these types of questions, but they need to be posed because after what I reported on yesterday, and what no one has yet been able to disprove and I am open to it. If they deleted the paper trail to either prove or disprove Luis Elizondo, the big fat question mark is Why? Because if it was, if it was not authorized, if there was nothing that legally allowed them to do it, why did they do it? And if there was some type of authority that allowed them to do do this, whether a publication or otherwise a disposition schedule or otherwise, whatever it may be, then cite it. Because after nearly two months of someone who has dug in for three years, and wasted an untold amount of time, let alone inside the Pentagon wasting all that time from the appellate authority to the action officers of the Freedom of Information Act, to the process of of having to in the double digits follow up to the people that I needed to follow up with asking for clarification on this. How much wasted time, money and resources is that all for what strategic influence? What was that the truth? And it just so happened to play out that way? That is the issue that what we are dealing with, that plays into again, the heart and soul and core of why I do what I do with the black vault, because we need the answers. We need the truth, not only because of this topic, and it deserves it, but because of Luis Elizondo and the fact that he deserves it. The fact that if Yeah, I’ll say myself or if anybody else was used in a pawn in a strategic influence operation, call it whatever you want. But if it was not based on truth, and we were just used as pawns to relay that message, what is that saying about this topic? And about how the general public is treated? Now to the powers that be that may be cringeworthy, how could john go? conspiratorial, and the reason is, is because the documentation tells me to be the evidence is there that something is going on? It’s clear for decades, we haven’t had the whole truth I’ve been touting that line for 25 years is since 15. It’s obvious the evidence is there. But what type of strategic influence are they doing now? And who may be suffering in the process.
As always, I am interested in your thoughts, please feel free to post them right down there into the comment box here on YouTube. If you’re watching anywhere else, let me know. Because YouTube’s the only place you should be able to watch to be able to watch this. But if you’re listening, there are tons of audio podcast platforms, including Spotify and Apple iTunes. And wherever you get your podcasts you’ll find the black vault radio, where this presentation and many others go down to audio form. So you’ll miss out on the audio visual part, or excuse me, the visual part of the audio visual presentation, but make sure that you subscribe. And I always aim for five stars. The biggest help you guys can give me is that five star review. But an honest review. So if it’s for two, if it’s less than that, you know, don’t worry about it. And also a thumbs up and a Subscribe here on YouTube. If you are listening and aren’t familiar with the YouTube channel, make sure you go to the black vault.com slash live that will bounce you to the YouTube channel where I do stuff like this all the time or at least as much as I can. And that’s a lot of fun. But as I always say thank you guys for listening, watching and this is john Greenwald jr signing off and we’ll see you next time.
Follow The Black Vault on Social Media:
