John Greenewald: 180 days, if you're anything like me, you've
been waiting for this day for at least 180 days. Now it's here.
And what's it all worth the wait? What's up everyone? This
is John Greenewald, Jr, founder and creator of the black vault
calm. And that's right, the UFO or UAP, or whatever you want to
call them report is here. And I'll go over just some of the
key points about it. Because that report, all whopping nine
pages of it is this subject of this quick blast. Stay tuned.
That's right, the UFO UAP report is here. Now, I was debating on
whether or not I was going to do this video. And I thought, you
know what, let's just go ahead and throw something out quickly
update you guys. I'm not going to go over every single aspect
of the report. But I am going to point out a few things. I know
some of you. And I'm surprised because I thought everybody use
social media, but doesn't use social media like Twitter or
Facebook, stuff like that, that you primarily just watch YouTube
and those types of videos. So I thought, you know what, let's
get this video out there and update you guys that the report
is here. Fantastic. So let's get into it. Because I do believe
that. Well, you might be a little letdown if you had high
hopes. Now, if you did see my video about this, if you saw
what essentially was kind of more little speculation and
stuff like that on my part, but but also juxtaposing that with
history, the question mark was, what were we going to get? And I
truly thought that we weren't going to get much, and we
didn't. But what really surprised me he was the fact
that we didn't get really anything at all. Yes, there are
nine pages, but I thought it would be a little bit lengthier.
And what I wanted to see and bear with me here because you
might get mad at me for saying this is I wanted to see
debunking on a small level, because it would show us that
they actually are researching, investigating, and can solve
some of this leaked material that has come out that they
admitted was real, admitted that they were that it was taken by
US Navy pilots, but they would not put a designation on it.
They said it was even being utilized by the task force that
created this report that you're about to go over with me. yet.
They wouldn't say if it was unidentified or not. And I I'll
be the first to say I thought that was part of the plan. I
thought that meant that they were going to take that material
and say, You know what, Senator Rubio and your committee we can
identify this, the media got grabbed ahold of it made a big
thing out of it. But there are some other ones that we can't
identify. But essentially, it would have shown us they are
doing their job. In reality, we heard about no specific cases
whatsoever. It was this broad overview. And as you can see
from the cover page here, preliminary assessment,
unidentified aerial phenomena, with today's date, this was the
cover page. So that, in itself, at first glance, was a letdown
to me, because I truly felt that we would get some type of
admission to cases solved or not. But I thought that they
would go into detail and they really did not. They kept it
very, very, very broad. And that would be my initial reaction to
it. I've read through it a couple times, but obviously,
this is very new to me. We're going to go over it a little bit
together. But it's one of those things you do need to read a
couple of times. I'm not going to read it like I said word for
word. This is page one with the scope and assumptions. What I do
want to point out about this would be this paragraph here.
odni which is the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence prepared this report for the congressional
intelligence and armed services committee UAP TF and the odni
National Intelligence manager for aviation drafted this
report, with input from USD ins DEA FBI NRO nga NSA Air Force
Army, Navy, Navy slash o ni or Office of Naval Intelligence.
DARPA, FAA, NOAA nga odni slash nim emerging and disruptive
technology odni National counterintelligence and security
center and odni National Intelligence council Say that
three times fast, but that is one heck of an alphabet soup
that contributed or allegedly contributed to this report. Nine
pages doesn't seem like it culminated information from all
of those agencies and components, but be that as it
may I at least wanted to point that out to you on also on page
one, the assumptions various forms of sensors That register
UAP generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to
allow initial assessments. But some UAP may be attributable
attributable to sensor anomalies. It's a little
disconcerting that they say, the equipment or sensors generally
operate correctly, I would hope that they would always operate
correctly. But that will probably be a video for another
day. The next page gives us what we always look for we as an
investigators, researchers, essentially the executive
summaries are key to understanding a lot of what big
government reports have. The downside to this UAP report is,
it's really not big at all. So it really wouldn't matter if
they had an executive summary or not. But regardless, the first
information page, we'll call it is just that. So this summarizes
their findings. This essentially takes Well, not in this case,
but a 200 page report, a 500 page report condenses it down to
a couple of pages. In this particular case, the report
itself is obviously even less than nine pages, that was the
total, but it condensed it into a page. So let's go over some of
the key key facts that they wanted in the executive summary.
The limited amount of high quality reporting on
unidentified aerial phenomena hampers our ability to draw firm
conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP. Now I'm going to
tell you right now, from a historical perspective, I
laughed when I read that the first time because that is
absolutely Project bluebook. That that's exactly what they
said they tried to say a lot about the 701. We know now that
that's a much bigger number, but the 701 unknowns in the project
bluebook collection, they essentially said that they felt
a lot of that was due to essentially lack of quality of
evidence, lack of evidence, lack of, of essentially detail. So
right off the bat, they're blaming taking a page from the
project bluebook era and blaming the fact that they just didn't
have enough data, even though that they've been collecting it
for some time. Here's another quote from the report as a
result, the UAP ATF when I say that it's UAP taskforce for
those who aren't aware, concentrated its review on
reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021, the majority of
which are result of this new tailored process to better
capture UAP events through formalized reporting. Most of
the UAP reporting probably do represent physical objects,
given that a majority of UAAP were registered across multiple
sensors to include radar, infrared, electro optical weapon
seekers and visual observation. Essentially, what they're saying
here is as technology advanced, they had better capability, they
also had in turn, better capability to see or at least
capture some type of visual imagery with this UAP phenomena,
what whatever it is, it allowed them to, to essentially do that.
Another point that they put in a in a limited number of
incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual
flight characteristics. These observations could be the result
of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and
require additional rigorous analysis. So this started off
interesting. So they were exhibiting unusual flight
characteristics and they immediately shoot it down pardon
upon blaming potential sensor errors, spoofing, or the
observer or the witness themselves. There are probably
multiple types of UAP, requiring different explanations based on
the range of appearances and behaviors described in the
available reporting. Well, this is kind of a you know, word
mash, where that's kind of a given not all ua peas are going
to have one explanation. We know that so they're just kind of
fluffing this up, in my opinion. UAP clearly pose a safety of
flight issue and may pose a challenge to us national
security. Absolutely. There's the threat word. Yet that's
something I've never shied away from history proves it.
Documentation proves that evidence proves it, witnesses
prove it, there is a potential threat behind whatever this
phenomena is. And they're drilling that in this report,
not a big surprise, because that more than all else will get the
attention of the senate Intel committee, Armed Services
Committee and beyond.
Consistent consolidation of reports from across the federal
government standardized reporting, increased collection
and analysis and a streamlined process for screening. All such
reports against a broad range of relevant relevant United States
government data will allow for some Morphosis sophisticated
analysis of UAP That is likely to deepen our understanding,
what are they saying here, give us more money, we'll figure it
out. And that there in lies. What I have felt is truly
underlying all of this is to get additional funding and
resources. I am not saying that is a bad thing. But what I am
saying is that this up here, justifies this down here. For
those listening to the audio version, this up here is the
potential threat. This down here is give us money and resources,
and we'll figure it out. And I think that that truly is the
root of a lot of this. I would say, talk about that potential
threat. Again, I don't disagree with it. I don't think it's a
bad thing. Some people are using that as a, they're just wasting
money on military spending. No, on the contrary, I support it.
But if this is what had to happen, to get them to look at
unidentified objects, and UFOs, uaps, whatever, then that's, I
think, a win that even though and I'll say it right now, after
I went through the executive summary, even though this is
only a nine page document, that we didn't get case files, we
didn't get visuals, we didn't get photos, links to videos,
evidence denims. And nothing, even though we didn't get that
this is something that actually is beneficial. Because there's
no way around them saying you know what, the UAP phenomena,
it's a waste of time, let's not even focus on it. On the
contrary, this is supporting that they should focus on it,
even though if they're taking from the pages of Project
bluebook, and the Condon report and so on saying well, we could
probably explain most of it, earthly explanations, all that
jazz, we just need more money and resources to do it. So I
consider this a baby step. But at least on the surface, it
looks like a baby step when which is what I feel is is is
the key takeaway for me. A couple other things, I'll go
over really quick and I invite you to read it. For those who
haven't noticed yet, in the description of this video, you
will find a link over to the black vault. When I was
recording this DNI was having a lot of problems with their
website, some were able to download it no problems, others
were getting an error screen. So if you're having a problem,
don't worry, the link down there, my site hasn't crashed,
at least not yet. So go ahead and you can download it from
there.
So what what happens after an executive summary is they
essentially go into more detail about all those bullet points
that I went through to through with you. Now again, I won't go
over every word, but I feel that there's a couple things that do
need to be pointed out. This under the heading of available
reporting largely inconclusive. limited data leaves most UAP
unexplained This, to me is the one of the most glaring errors.
And I want to show you guys why. limited data and inconsistency
and reporting are key challenges to evaluating UAP. No
standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy
established one in March of 2019. The Air Force subsequently
adopted that mechanism and in November of 2020, but it remains
limited to US government reporting. The UAE PTF regularly
heard anecdotally, during its research about other
observations that occurred, but which were never captured in
formal or informal reporting by these observers. Here is the key
part of this entire report that in, in my opinion, is wrong and
fabricated. And here's my proof. I'm going to pull up an article
I wrote back in 2019. This is when I was pushing to get the
Navy's UFO or UAP guidelines that were classified, I was
trying to get them declassified. Now first off credit to Brian
bender of Politico. He broke the story that these guidelines even
existed. So credit to him. What I did was I took those that that
information and filed numerous FOIA requests for what was
called the message to the fleet, which when Mr. Bender had
reported it was in draft form, and tried to get that message in
the process of doing that found that it was no longer in draft
form was issued. But when I tried to get it through FOIA, I
was denied that this was something that essentially was
going to remain classified. But I want to read you guys
something, because this is what was really interesting about
that message. Now in short, that message was essentially showing
the guidelines or at least pointing to the guidelines for
the US Navy and how to report UAP it was instructing all of
those that saw UAP to report them and then again, either had
or pointed to the guidelines for reporting them in the process of
research. The story I discovered this, although the original
headline at Politico and I'm reading my own writing here, so
let me start that over. Although the original headline at
Politico insinuated that the UFO guidelines were quote new.
Subsequent statements released later in May by US Navy Public
Affairs Officer, Joseph gratis shirt to the New York Times said
they were not. Mr gratis sure explained that the guidelines
were an update to an older 2015 directive in response to
multiple UFO encounters around the USS Theodore Roosevelt in
2014. And 2015, he told The New York Times that although some of
the objects could have been commercial drones, Mr. gratis
are also added. We don't know who's doing this, we don't have
enough data to track this. So the intent of the message to the
fleet is to provide updated guidance on reporting procedures
for suspected intrusions into our airspace. So this shows that
the guidelines were already in existence in 2015, based on the
2014 and 2015 encounters, let me go back to that report that
we've been going over, they said that they didn't have a
reporting mechanism until March of 2019. I personally don't
think that that is correct, based on the fact that that was
just a re issuance of Gov guidance that was already
issued, those guidelines had been around per the US Navy for
at least four years prior to this date here. So that's an
extra four years worth of data that they could have potentially
been collecting. Now, maybe they didn't adhere to it, which is
why they re issued it. And I get that. But regardless, for them
to essentially say that in the report, I'm not trying to
nitpick here, I'm just saying there's potential for years
worth of some type of data, even if not everybody was following
it. That could potentially be there. yet. They said that it
wasn't until 2019, just two years ago, little over two years
ago when they had it. My opinion, that's wrong. Is that a
mistake? Quite possibly. Am I mistaken? Oh, it's based on US
Navy official statements that they said 2015. But who knows
maybe that they issued the guidelines, and not a single
person ever followed them or read them? That's a possibility,
too. I won't rule that out.
Jumping along here into the report, here is the number that
the reports that they analyzed. And this was a number that I
think the New York Times said something to the effect of 210.
Here is the number 144 reports originated from US government
sources, at reports involve observation with multiple
sensors, most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted
pre planned training, or other military activity. To me, that's
pretty interesting. I think that's part of the story here.
that'll probably be a tidbit in the future. Why is it always
around training missions and essentially military activity?
That is, I guess, open to interpretation. But the
obviously the the incidents that we have heard about away from
this UAP report, but the Nimitz encounter, they were doing a
training mission, they had new radar, and an instrumentation
that they were testing, same with the 2014 15 Roosevelt
encounters, they were out there with new equipment on on
essentially training missions out there. So is that some type
of you know, common trait? Is there a reason for that? Or is
that you know, potentially just a coincidence. I'll let you guys
decide that I'm not gonna say either way, cuz I don't know.
But it is kind of interesting that that seems to be a thread
here. I'm gonna jump up because I want to read this paragraph to
you as well. After carefully considering this information.
The UAP ETF focused on reports that involved UAP largely
witnessed firsthand by military aviators, and that were
collected from systems we considered to be reliable. These
reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021.
With the majority coming in the last two years as the new
reporting mechanism became better known to the military
aviation community, we were able to identify one reported UAP
with high confidence. In that case, we identified the object
as a large deflating balloon, the others remain unexplained.
The first thing that came to my mind on that with the deflating
balloon was the USS Omaha footage that looked like a
sphere slowly descending, hitting the water and
potentially either you know, popping or just getting lost in
a wave popping then and so on and so forth. Because it seems
like it gets lost, comes back gets lost again. MC West, I
think I'm not speaking for him the one of the last videos, I
think one of his last, he was kind of looking at maybe a flare
of some kind and the sphere looking was part of the glare. I
don't know I'm not an analyst, so I'm not going to pretend I
know. But it was very interesting for them to
essentially bring in some one case that we have no idea what
it is that they were able to identify what that was at this
point is kind of a mystery. I saw some people thinking was
this the Batman balloon? I doubt it didn't look like a deflating
balloon to me. But you know, who knows, a balloon did look like a
balloon. Sorry to upset anybody with that, but a deflating one
that just didn't. But the Omaha footage, you know, potentially
that was that was something that could have been some of the
other points here. And again, I'm even though I've read this a
couple times, just kind of going over it with you here. And I
don't want to speak forever on a nine page document where I'm not
going word for word, but just kind of wanted to give you guys
some reactions. And I'm also curious to your reactions, what
you feel is the most important so go ahead and put any comments
down there. And if you are listening to the audio version,
just head to the black vault comm slash live. Make sure you
subscribe to the YouTube channel because I think the visual
presentations are much more interesting because you can see
what I'm actually pointing to. Here's a paragraph about
potential patterns that they are seeing patterns where again when
I talked about the military sightings in the training
missions. Let me just read you this line. UAP sightings also
tended to cluster around us training and testing grounds but
we assess that this may result from a collection bias as a
result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest
generation sensors operating in those areas unit expectations
and guidance to report anomalies so good on them for for
realizing that there was potentially a collection bias on
the the evidence there.
A handful of UAP appear to demonstrate advanced technology.
This is where it started to get at least a little interesting
and 18 incidents described in 21 reports, observers reported
unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. Some UAP
appeared to remain stationary and winds aloft move against the
wind maneuver abruptly or move at considerable speed without
discernible means of propulsion, and a small number of cases,
Military Aircraft Systems processed radio frequency energy
associated with UAP sightings. The UAP TF holds a small amount
of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration, or a
degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are
necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to
determine the nature and validity of these data. We are
conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough
technologies were demonstrated. So obviously, that's a little
bit more interesting from what they've already tried to blow
out of the water with deflating balloons and lack of evidence.
So we're starting to get into obviously a much smaller
percentage of cases they've collected, but a percentage of
cases nonetheless, back to that original point about a single
explanation. And of course, uaps is just kind of obvious. These
are the categories that they feel uaps could fit into one of
these five airborne clutter. According to them, that would be
birds. I really wanted to see seagulls in that area just to
kind of take a friendly jab at at that entire debate online. If
you don't know what I'm talking about. Then inside joke to the
UFO Twitter crowd but birds, balloons, recreational unmanned
aerial vehicles, or airborne debris like plastic bags that
muddle a scene and affect an operator's ability to identify
true targets such as enemy aircraft. That's category one.
Category two natural atmospheric phenomenon natural atmospheric
phenomena includes ice crystals, moisture and thermal
fluctuations. US government or industry developmental programs
this I found interesting. I really did. Because there is a
big question on whether or not some of this UAP is classified
tech. And some of that argument about well, it's unidentified,
so it can't be well, here is potentially a category that
they're saying that UAP fits into some UAP observations could
be attributable to developments in classified programs by us
entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these
systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected. The
question mark is here. What point and what access did they
have and looking into potential black budget programs, stuff
like the stealth aircraft that was in development for decades
before being acknowledged? Does the UAP taskforce have that type
of access? The fact that they're considering that as a as a
category, yet they were saying that we were unable to confirm
I'm not sure if I lean towards the fact that maybe they're not
as cleared to see all of that And that is a question that I
think we may never have the answer to. And that is would
they have access to let's say the saps, the unacknowledged
saps, the black budget programs, all of that kind of stuff that
we've heard bantered about for decades and decades, would they
be able to access that information and understand that
maybe it's not even an aircraft unmanned drone versus a manned
aircraft or a piece of technology? You know, that's
that that is carried aloft into the atmosphere, whatever that
might be. Again, lots of different possibilities there.
But I found that interesting that they that they had US
government developmental programs in their foreign
adversary system, some UAE UAP may be technologies deployed by
China, Russia, another nation or non government entity. Of
course, that is what we keep hearing about from the Senate
Congress. Whomever is outspoken about uaps is it Russia is
China. Who could it be? So that's not a surprise other.
Although most of the UAP described in our dataset,
probably remain unidentified, to limited data or challenges to
collection, processing or analysis. We may require
additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on,
analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such
objects in this category, pending scientific advances that
allow us to better understand them. The ua PTF intends to
focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a
UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or
signature management, a
whole section on UAP threatened flight safety and possible
national security. We have already gone over that. But they
go into more details, I recommend you you get into that
explaining UAP will require analytic collection and resource
investment. And there is more detail about potentially
standardizing the reporting called consolidating the data,
deepening the analysis and essentially doing that with
additional resources and of course, funding to make all of
that happen. There look looking to expand the collection, they
have a whole section on that the UAP ATF is looking for novel
ways to increase collection of UAP cluster areas when US forces
are not present as a way to baseline standard UAP activity
and mitigate the collection bias in the dataset. Is that a
pathway for them to potentially look at sightings by the normies
out there, the US and me's the people that are not on a
military mission or training mission at you know, 35,000
feet, we're not flying in an FAA team? Are they going to go out
there and ask us questions if we go out there and see what we
would call a UAP. And I think that if they do go down that
route that would allow them to see is this a essentially a
collection bias where it's mostly around military training
areas and so on? Or will this open up a whole new world, to
the Congress to Senate to the UAE, PTF to God, upper
management, whomever? Will it open up that world to show them
this phenomena is happening nationwide, worldwide to
everybody from every background, and it does not discriminate,
who it shows itself to or who it potentially threatens. So if
they open it up to commercial pilots, those that are flying
for, let's say, Southwest Airlines, American Airlines
united, what are they doing here? And I think that i think
that that is a that is one of the bigger steps forward one
proposal reading from the document here one proposal is to
use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured
and stored by radars. I'm wondering what they saw to
actually create that type of a drive and recommendation to do
that. Here's that investment word increase investment in
research and development in the UAE PTF has indicated that
additional funding for research and development could further
the future study of the topics laid out in this report. Such
investment should be guided by a UAP collection strategy UAP r&d
technical roadmap and a UAP program plan. That was
essentially the end of the report. The appendix with
definitions, I don't really count that. But you can see they
define unidentified aerial phenomena they're going
definition, by the way, is airborne objects not immediately
identifiable. The acronym UAP represents the broadest category
of airborne objects reviewed, reviewed for analysis. So not as
I would say sexy as we would all think that that definition would
be a true definition to UAP has been very hard to come by. I got
one about two years ago from the the Navy and it looks like is
it's pretty much all along the lines of this, I'll dig that up
for you guys and link it as well. But airborne objects not
immediately identifiable. I mean, that's essentially what
they've gone towards for some time, but you can see some of
the other terms there. And then Appendix B, this was about,
essentially what the Senate was requesting, from them details
about what they had requested. So there you have it, there are
some initial reactions, I have quite a few other thoughts that
I won't go into yet. Here's my closing one for you guys,
though. And I hope that I hope that you do take a couple
moments to read those nine pages that doesn't take long digested
and read it again. Because the reaction I got from myself, the
second time was a lot different than from the first time. And I
really was let down when I took at first glance of this. The
second time, I was still really let down. But at least I was
starting to pick up that there were tidbits that there were
nuggets that we can find and be encouraged by. But one thing
that I will say and what I even tweeted out today, for those who
were watching with me, and we were all frantically pressing
refresh on the DNS website, and really anticipating this
together
is that this is not the end, right? This this is not,
regardless of this being the letdown, that it might be to
you. Or maybe it's encouraging to you, maybe this is more than
you thought. It doesn't matter what you think this is far from
the end, not only for me, on a personal level, I've been doing
this for 25 years pursuing UFO UAP information with the
government. So I'm not going to stop now. But I hope it
motivates all of you as well. Because even though this report,
I can almost bet for all of you didn't have everything that you
wanted in it. At least this shows us that there is movement,
that the UAP topic is being taken seriously, that it is
being acknowledged that it is being essentially looked at as a
potential threat. And as much as some of you do not like that
word that will pave the way for them, meaning the Senate to look
at this, that is not exciting or extraordinary by itself. But
that is the route. Because once additional funding, I'll be at
maybe a small amount, that additional funding goes in, and
that expansion of the data happens, and they expand it to
commercial aviation pilots. they expand it to just the Jo schmoes
of the world that are seeing UFOs to essentially then really
tackle this from a scientific standpoint, that is what we
should all praise. I'm mad too, we didn't get what we really
truly wanted. But if this is the route to potentially a bigger
program, that will then pave that way for a bigger data set
for them to call on. Hopefully, we the people will have access
to that. But at least those are baby steps forward, forward to
where I'm on the journey with you because I have no idea. As I
said earlier, I'm always interested in your thoughts. If
you're watching on YouTube, of course, post them down there. A
big thumbs up always helps on the video. And of course,
sharing the word make sure you are subscribed to the channel,
turn the notifications on. Because I would bet money
there's probably a live stream coming up sometime in the future
where that toll free line is going to be open. And we can all
chat and have a good time because the last time I did
that, that was a lot of fun. So make sure you do that if you are
listening on the podcast version. This is the first time
I've put more of what I call a quick blast on as a podcast.
Generally these are more long form on the audio, but let me
know what you think about that. If you'd like to see more of
these because there's a lot of videos I do not drop in podcast
form. So if you want to see more, please drop me a line.
It's pretty straightforward contact at the black vault comm
that will come directly to me. And of course if you're
listening on those podcast platforms, I aim for five stars
reviews are very, very helpful. And of course, make sure you
help spread the word on the podcast as well. All of that
said thank you all for listening and watching. This is John
Greenewald Jr signing off, and we'll see you next time.