John Greenewald: 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 D o t, 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.