John Greenewald: That's right everybody. As always, thank you
so much for tuning in and making this your podcast or your live
stream of choice. Now what I've done in the last couple of
streams like this is that I've turned them into audio podcasts,
I was always apprehensive of doing that, simply because I do
a lot of visuals. However, the feedback I get is a lot of you
can't sit and watch a YouTube video. And I totally understand
that. And even though there's a lack of visuals, you prefer the
podcasts. So I've been doing that in the last couple. And it
seems like it's been going very, very well, based on the
feedback. So I'm going to do that again. With this one, I'm
prefacing the episode, because some of you watching the video
may be wondering why I read a little bit more, or explain what
you're looking at, even though you might be looking at it. It's
simply for the audio version. So thank you for the patience on
that. But I want to make sure that everybody has access to
this information. Now, what I am doing today is profiling some
records that came through the Freedom of Information Act from
a very trusted website that I am aware of, I don't profile a lot
of FOIA releases that others get simply because I always want to
make sure the material is real. However, this particular site I
am very, very well aware of. And trust 120%, everything is
legitimate. And I have verified the FOIA cases, etc. And again,
prefacing the story in the video with that simply because I want
to give them absolutely the credit where it's due for
getting these particular documents that we are talking
about some internal NASA files specifically, for let me see
here, some emails from the Associate Administrator of
communications for NASA, his name is Mark Ed kind. Now, I
have filed quite a few NASA requests based on emails. Now
I've done some videos on this channel, you've seen some
written articles about me. And interestingly, I never did a
request on Mark Ed guidance,
email address. And so this was kind of a surprise when I saw it
posted. And I thought I would profile it here, simply because
there were some gems inside. A quick footnote on the case that
I filed, it was actually cases there were about 12 of them. And
it included not only Bill Nelson, the administrator, but
quite a few other NASA personnel. Again, not Ed kind,
but quite a few others, NASA had made me aggregate the request,
which means they wanted me to take all of the 12 put it into
one, why I was apprehensive of doing that is it takes a lot
longer. A lot of agencies want to do that, where they put
everything into one case, I'm only giving you guys that extra
tidbit of information, because a lot of you asked me FOIA
questions. And you will run into that sometimes where let's say
you do very similar requests, but you file you know, 510,
whatever different ones, sometimes they will aggregate
them. And it's very frustrating. It also takes a lot longer, in
my opinion. So that case is still pending, I'm eager to see
what comes up. But in this particular release with Ed kind
of again, there are a couple gems that I think you guys will
really like. So here's a little bit of biographical information
about mark. Again, he's the Associate Administrator for
communications for NASA. He joined in January of this year,
so relatively new to the agency. And essentially, I'll read this
background from previously abbkine served as general
manager for the Science Channel part of discovery, Inc, a
position he began in 2015. In that capacity, he was
responsible for all aspects of development, production brand
strategy and day to day operations for the network. So
that's a little bit about his background before he joined NASA
itself. So this was a search by a site by the name of government
attic.org. If you're not aware of it, I would highly recommend
checking it out. If you're into government documents. There's a
lot there very rarely or find UFO information, which is what
we're talking about today. But you'll find a ton of government
material historical material, stuff of high value in my book,
again, a very trusted source and I don't say that often. So if
you're not aware of the site, definitely go there. They post
stuff on a weekly basis. And it's definitely a resource you
should have in your digital Rolodex. So all credit to them
for this particular FOIA release. They posted these
documents with for the weekend, and and that is where you can
download them. If you're wanting the direct link, you will find
it below in the description here on YouTube. And also on your
podcast platform, you will find that as well where you can
download everything. One quick note before I get going, if you
haven't seen videos like this, when I profile documents, I
don't aim for the video to cover 100% of the entire release
number one, the video would be 17 hours long. But number two,
I'd probably bore you to death going over every little nitty
bitty, gritty detail. However, what I hope that these videos do
is inspire you guys to download the documents wherever they may
be, I always try and link them in the descriptions, download
them and take a look, you'll see the documents, so the portions
that I verify and, and and go over and overview on this
channel. But on top of that, you can see a lot more and you'll be
very, very surprised at some of the other gems that you'll find.
Because sometimes I'll miss something all overlook it. And
it's always good to have other sets of eyes on these types of
records. Also, it may give you ideas I know a lot of FOIA
researchers watch this, this channel and and I'll be going
over something later to kind of show you guys a little bit of
what to look for in FOIA requests. But that said, you
know, it gives you ideas, the raw data that lacks editorial,
you know, the you don't take my word for it, look at it, you'll
always get some good ideas from that. So I always encourage
everybody to do that. So let's dig into some of the the
highlights of this particular release. This one is actually
just more for fun and you all out there that like the ancient
alien, advanced ancient civilization theories and stuff
like that may may find this interesting. This was a private
citizen, the name was redacted. For those internet sleuths out
there, you could probably find out who this particular person
is, but I'm not going to say their identity. But they have
posted these pictures publicly. And in addition to doing so they
also wrote NASA and the Smithsonian Institute emails
with the subject line UFO, UAP, alien earthenware, pot, symbols,
cloak drawings, ancient pot type unique and the Pentagon's UFO
report, that's a heck of a subject written by this private
citizen. The reason why this particular document or email
came out in this request, and I haven't said this yet is
government attic filed the request for a keyword search,
which is a very common tactic. It's it's the case that I filed
that was aggregated that I mentioned, very, very similar,
you request a search of a person's email box with certain
keywords, give them a date range, say I want documents or
emails from, you know, the year 2020 or 2021, or whatever your
time frame is, and that's your FOIA request. That is how these
documents came up because the request was for, you guessed it
UAP as one of the keywords. So that subject line, which pretty
much encompasses the whole gamut of UFO related keywords he wrote
in which included not only at kind, which is why this came up,
but you'll see quite a few other names here that you might
recognize, all within NASA or most within NASA. And
essentially he was trying to find help there's private
citizens trying to find help for something that that he has in
his possession. I'll show you photos in a minute. This was the
original in June 2021 email he wrote to the Smithsonian
Institute also looking for help, which I guess forwarded them to
forwarded him to NASA according to him if you read all the
emails, but he says Dear Smithsonian, I own this
fascinating UFO UAP alien cooking pot and posted the
following requests for info three years ago on collectors
weekly. I've now been referred to you. Can you please help your
aerospace people may be able to help along with Anthropologie
linguistical and carbon experts excetera attached as more
information excluding infrared thermal rotating video. Is it
alien communication or just amazingly multi dimensional?
Yes, without further anticipation here, this is the
pot that this guy sent into the Smithsonian and then later to
NASA and to quite a few people at NASA. And you can see for
those watching the video I believe this is what he's
referring to. Are these multiple objects which appear to be
flying in the sky saucer shaped kind of on an axis there. That's
how he believes that this is an alien cooking pot, I guess. So
kind of a fun little find not really a artifact that I've seen
seen before and all the talks about a talks about Ancient
Alien theory and an ancient artwork that depicts UFOs. And
there's some fun ones actually out there. But that being said,
this was another photo, here's how big it was not even a foot
high, then you can see that UFO looking object there. So take a
look at that. For those watching the video. Any language experts
out there, if you can deduce anything from it, the guy
actually posted, I didn't know this, I run a message forum on
the black vault. Here's another cool FIND IN THIS FOIA release.
I had no idea that this particular person posted it on
the black vault. And within the email communications, you'll see
the black vault mentioned right there right into right in this
four year release. That was kind of a fun, surprising find,
especially since it wasn't my FOIA case. And yet, this
particular person had posted the photographs on my website as
well in a public message forum. Again, I had no idea I don't
monitor 100% of, of what people post. So that came as a surprise
to me, as I'm going through is like, what's my site doing in
here? And there you go. So there was a lot of talk internally
about that alien pot, whatever it might be.
Moving on from the fund, Fine, let's get a little bit more
serious. This was a two or excuse me about a three or four
page paper that was written by astrophysicist David Spergel. It
looks like it was not distributed publicly at quick
glance, although some of you internet sleuths out there
again, may be able to find this somewhere a quick glance, I did
not see it. So I believe that this was an internal or at least
something that was distributed a little bit more privately by
this astrophysicist, on his thoughts on UFOs. Now, it's not
every day that you see somebody of his credentials, talking
about UFOs and mentioning aliens, which I'll get into in a
minute. His quick CV and I can't go over it in its entirety. It's
very impressive, but he's the president of what's called the
Simons foundation. He's the co chair of the Wide Field Infrared
Survey telescopes science team. He's a Charles Young Professor
of Astronomy, Emeritus on the class of 1897 Foundation at
Princeton University. And it goes on and on his background is
incredible. I'm going to be reaching out to to, to David
Spergel. And seeing maybe if he might be interested in coming on
this channel and talking about this paper since it's now
public, and out in the open through the the Freedom of
Information Act. And I'll read a little bit about it again, it's
it's quite a few pages long, so I'm not gonna read everything.
But again, the title thoughts on UFOs, written by David Spergel,
distributed internally by NASA, he talks about what are they
meaning what are UFOs and he says, quote, the most
conservative hypothesis that these UFOs are built by humans,
experimental vehicles under development by the US military
or by foreign militaries. In the past famous UFO sites, eg area
51 have turned out to be test sites for advanced technologies.
Some of the triangular shaped objects that are capable of
rapid accelerations and high speeds do seem remarkably
similar to descriptions of hypersonic vehicles that are
currently under development by the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA
and the NSA, the Indian, Chinese and Russian military all
developing their own hypersonic vehicles, DARPA HTV, two had
test flights over a decade ago, so that the recent appearance of
flying triangular shaped objects that can reach high speeds seems
consistent with this hypothesis hypothesis. There is also
extensive work on developing drone swarms by many nations,
including even Armenia, whose properties match some UFO
reports. He then goes into another explanation which is
natural phenomena he talks about ball lightning, or what he calls
St. Elmo fire. Moving ahead on the paper, this is where he
talks about the most interesting and this is actually how he
terms it. The most exciting hypothesis is that some of the
UFOs are extraterrestrials visiting the earth and studying
the planet in its life forms. Aliens capable of interstellar
space travel are not likely to be using technologies that are
familiar to us, eg solar sails or hypersonic air breathing
vehicles, they would only be detectable if they wished to be
seen. For example, they would likely want to miniaturize their
probes and not likely to have familiar looking vehicles. Given
astronomical timescales. Alien life is likely either a billion
years less advanced than human life, or a billion years more
advanced technologically as Clarke's third law states. Any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable,
indistinguishable from magic. So he talks about the alien
hypothesis again, not something that you see every day in
connection to UAPs or UFOs, from astrophysicists, astronomers,
astrobiologists, generally they stick with life weigh out,
they're not down here. So for them to start talking about
that, in these types of internal papers, very encouraging. It was
it was very interesting for me to see, again, I won't read
everything to you. But in his paper, he also talks about the
observables. And essentially asking the questions where, you
know, where they come from, what are they? What is their
duration, the amplitude, the acceleration, the velocities,
how frequently are the events, so on and so forth. And he talks
about that scientific approach on how to look at the UAP issue
and try and solve it. So very interesting paper, I would, I
would, for those interested, download it and read it in its
entirety.
Moving on to another one, this is where the FOIA researchers
out there, I'm going to throw this out to you that it's just
kind of a fun example of what you look for. When you get a
FOIA release. A lot of people wonder, how do I start, you
know, how do I get into it? Well, I told you how this
request started, what would be the next step and the next step
is you go through the documents, you get very much like I'm doing
now. But you look for the FOIA leads, what can be a FOIA lead,
some stuff is just interesting. And there's it's not really a
lead, per se. But it's, it's interesting, nonetheless. Other
things you can go after, for example, this email sent June
8 2021. You can see here at 12:24pm, it was from Randy
cruise. He was the senior advisor to the administrator or
Bill Nelson, for NASA. He was writing market kind who we've
been talking about that was the root of the FOIA request. And
Bob Jacobs, also NASA personnel, gents. I tried to send the short
brief to you on J wicks. On a quick side note, J weeks is the
top secret level communication method used internally at the
government so they can share highly sensitive material. Back
to the quote, I tried to send you the short brief to on J
weeks. However, neither of you have an email address on the
classified side, I have verified that and then it's redacted,
likely some names and some identifying information. You
just don't have email addresses. When you when your schedule
allows, I can bring you to into the skiff on the sixth floor,
and go over the brief with you. Let me know your availability,
and I'll have it set up today would be great. If you can
squeeze it in shouldn't take more than 15 minutes. Randy
cruise. Going back to the FOIA leads, that's all interesting,
right? I mean, it's a cool little story that obviously
Randy cruise he had a classified something a brief of some kind,
maybe a PowerPoint presentation, maybe a document, who knows what
it might be. But he had something that he was trying to
send on a high classified method to to other NASA individuals who
weren't weren't able technologically to receive it.
So instead, Randy crew says, hey, we'll take you up to a
secure room. We can do it that way. What's the lead? And if
you're reading all the lines, the lead now this, this shows
you that there is a brief, it's classified, and it exists. Now
some of that sounds silly. Why do I say it that way? Because
this document now serves as evidence to use in a FOIA
request to say I want this briefing material, all of it,
you can create a mandatory declassification review request.
But let's not get too too, too complicated here, stick with
FOIA, if you're still, you know, could somewhat new, just file a
FOIA request for it. And you can actually cite this particular
document and say, on June 8 2021, then senior adviser to
the administrator, Randy cruise mentioned a briefing document
briefing material that he was trying to send to other NASA
personnel. My request is for all of it. And that's your lead. And
that evidence now can be submitted. And if NASA comes
back and says, hey, well, we have no records and they slough
you off. You can use that in an appeal. And so that's where
stuff like that is very important, where you can easily
gloss over this and go okay, it's an email, they're sharing
some information. That's cool. That's your branch. That's your
branch to another FOIA request to go after because it
solidifies that something exists that you did not get in this
particular release, or at least it doesn't look like that
particular release had it. So you go after it. And so you'll
hear me talk a lot about a tree branch, that that's how I view
this, you know, your releases your, your trunk, and then it
just branches off into all these other requests. That's how that
happens. So a little side note for the for you people out there
for all others that may have been boring to. But at least you
see how, and why you want to look out for stuff like that. So
again, this was June of 2021, I had written a story about a two
stories actually that I'll show you about briefings on UAPs as
connected to NASA, and one of which was right after the UAP
task force was formally announced. In August of 2020.
They meaning the UAP Task Force, reached out to NASA and
requested that they brief NASA on UAPs. And UFOs, including in
that briefing was the director of the International Space
Station or the program manager for the ISS. So that's pretty
fascinating. In my book, that the UAP taskforce went out of
their way to contact NASA and say, We need to brief you guys
on UFOs in UAPs, and in that was the program director for the
space station. In addition, one of the other people from NASA
that was at the briefing or was asked to be at the briefing
worked for Bigelow Aerospace and bass. So I found that as a very
interesting connection, bass being the subsidiary of Bigelow
Aerospace, that one the OS app contract that we always hear
about with the UFOs and UAPs. And now all sorts of other
aspects of the paranormal, it's Skinwalker Ranch, regardless, he
was at the briefing, as well. So kind of an interesting
connection. But that was about September of 2020. So this
briefing material that I'm that I'm talking about in this new
FOIA release. Totally different than that, including a second
story that I wrote that showed that Bill Nelson was briefed on
August 17 2021. And I was able to get the Pentagon to admit to
that, that the briefing took place, they would not place
administrator Nelson there. That's kind of expected, they
generally don't talk about the physical presence. spokespeople
don't talk about the physical presence of a certain someone,
especially the administrator in most cases. And that is true
with this one. But regardless, the FOIA revealed that it was a
briefing for NASA for NASA Administrator, Bill Nelson
himself. So a couple of together, it confirmed my story
I had published before the Pentagon statement came in, they
take they're pretty time. So I gave them ample time to respond.
They didn't. I published poof, I had a new statement shortly
thereafter. So I edited the story. But it essentially put it
irrefutable that it was confirmed that Bill Nelson was
briefed in August. Point being this also was a little bit
different than timing wise than the other briefing. So a lot of
people talking about briefs and briefing material internally at
NASA. So it's very interesting to see as more information comes
out how involved NASA is, in keeping abreast of the UAP and
UFO information that they're keeping on top of it. They're,
they're seeing the classified material. And it's not just the
administrator, it looks like it's probably from the top down.
I won't go over all the documents, like I mentioned, but
you'll also pick up other names that likely were briefed or saw
the classified version of the report. Obviously, Nelson has
talked about it. And we all know that. But you'll see other
scientists as well that had seen it. Another document in this
release
where the talking points to the UAP phenomena as it connects to
NASA. In relation to the release of the UAP report, you'll notice
a lot of this stuff is all around the June 2021 timeframe.
Again, when the UAP report was published by the US government.
NASA was internally talking heavily about UAPs at this time
for that reason. And you'll see in a couple minutes a PowerPoint
presentation that NASA wanted to utilize that news, essentially
for their own benefit. And that's a pretty interesting
slide deck, which I'll get to, but before we do the talking
points, I'm going to read to you especially for the audio podcast
listeners on what NASA was essentially prepared to say
about the UAP issue. The documents will show many other
talking points to related scientific efforts, including
space exploration, the search for alien life out there, I'm
just going to read to you the UAP specific ones. One of NASA's
key goals is the search for life in the universe. Although we
have yet to find signs of extraterrestrial life, NASA is
exploring the solar system and beyond to help us answer
fundamental questions, including whether we are alone in the
universe. From studying water on Mars, probing promising oceans
worlds, such as Titan and Europa, to looking for bio
signatures in the atmosphere of planets outside our solar
system, NASA science missions are working together with a goal
to find unmistakable signs of life beyond Earth. To date, NASA
has yet to find any credible evidence of extraterrestrial
life, but we are not closed to the possibility that such life
exists. And then there's a redacted portion of that line.
Under B five, it's cited as exemption B five, really
quickly, on a side note, B five is essentially internal
deliberation. It's stuff that they're talking about
internally. That may not be finalized drafts, for example,
that are not final reports are generally exempted under B five,
because they're still drafting the report. So they're
essentially deliberating on the inside what to say in the final
report. So that's an example of of what's redacted under B five,
so I was super intrigued by this line, put a pin in it, because
I'm about to solve the mystery for you. You just have to pay
attention closely to the FOIA release, but put a pin in that.
So again, we are not close to the possibility of such life
exists again, the rest of the line is redacted. Back to the
quote, we stand ready to support the rest of the government in
the search for life in the universe, be it close to home,
on the planets or moons of our solar system or deeper in space.
The nature of science is to better understand the unknown.
When we learn of unidentified aerial phenomena, UAP, or more
commonly known as unidentified flying objects, or UFOs. It
opens up the door to new science questions to explore. Most UAP
sightings result in very limited data, usually video recordings
from a single angle that can only be cross validated with
eyewitness testimony. The language of scientists is data.
But without access to an extensive set of data, it is
nearly impossible to verify or explain any observation. The
lack of robust data, including the lack of access to some
existing data, is the central problem for scientific study of
UAPs. It's in a sense, the discovery of technology from
Beyond Earth, or the signatures of technology on other worlds,
would constitute the ultimate bio signature. And that was
written by Karen C. Fox, Senior Science Communications Officer
in the Office of Communications for NASA Headquarters. So those
were the talking points. Now talking points. I've done some
some videos on that as well, mainly on the Pentagon side,
recent FOIA release, I think it was last month of the recording
of this released a bunch of what they call briefing cards on not
only UAPs, but the UAP Task Force and the Navy UFO videos
and a couple other couple other things. And so I'd filed a
request for those and was surprised that they had so many
briefing cards.
So if you're curious about how that agency has their their
press statements as well and their bullet points, make sure
you check out that video. But obviously NASA had their
structure of how they wanted to respond when the UAP report was
out as well. That remember that redacted part that be five,
again, to date, NASA has yet to find any credible evidence of
extraterrestrial life. But we are not close to the possibility
that such life exists and then it was redacted. Well, you will
see in this document here, which was an internal document,
whether it was a mistake or not. They didn't redact it in this
one. There were like three or four other instances where they
did why I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure but here's the
line. To date. NASA has yet to find any credible evidence of
extraterrestrial life. But we are not close to the possibility
that such life exists and might have visited Earth. To me that's
not internal deliberations. And as a bad redaction. I think they
wanted to hide the fact that NASA is not ruling out that
alien life could have or is visiting planet Earth. To me.
That's fascinating to me that they needed to redact it was
fascinating. If they didn't redact it. I don't think I'd
find it as interesting although it's still pretty cool. But the
fact that they wanted it redacted in the Other mentions
of it in this four year release is kind of a mystery to me. I
don't know why they would do it. The only possible explanation
that I can come up with is they had it slightly worded
differently in the other versions. But I don't see a kind
of a difference and the line seemed to fit. So maybe they had
some other different versions, and they considered that a
draft. And they fine tuned it to this, I'm not sure. That's, I'll
be at small possibility. But one nonetheless, in my opinion, this
was a mistake. They wanted it redacted for whatever reason.
And on this one, they messed up that on the June 4 2021, what
they title search for life, techno signatures, and
unidentified aerial phenomena, UAP, slash Unidentified Flying
Objects
UFOs. That document they overlooked it. So kind of a fun
find, you should always read every word in that's why. So I
won't go over all of the key points again, but it's pretty
much identical. There's some other background information.
This was actually if you pay attention to NASA's website was
morphed into a webpage that they have on NASA, talking about UAPs
and essentially, showing their side of the issue. But these
documents show more of their side. And that's why I always
love FOIA versus what the government willingly gives you,
because you get gems like this. And obviously sometimes mistakes
happen. In here are some questions and answers. This is
likely possible questions that they were going to be asked with
answers that they were prepared to give. I am very surprised
there are this many be five redactions on that. I don't feel
or see that this is a draft document. So I don't see why
they would be redacted. Spoiler alert, even though this wasn't
my FOIA release, what I am doing is going after this particular
document, and requiring a review of the B five, I believe I'll
probably be initially denied simply because they've reviewed
it in the last two years. But what then I'm going to do is
file the appeal and say by the publicly available record, the B
five exemptions seemed excessive. B five is also known,
nicknamed by people like me, as the redacted if you want to
exemption. And essentially even though it's its internal
deliberation, and there are things that fit into that
category, it's one that's easily gotten away with if the agency
just doesn't want to give the information out. They go, Oh,
sorry, internal deliberation B five. And it's the redacted if
you want to citation. So in my opinion, I'm going to go after
this because here's another page of the same document, you can
see almost all top to bottom, all redacted, be five for me,
since this is public information, or at least how
they were going to deal with the public. This is something that
is excessive in my book, if it's approved to say it's not
sensitive or exempted, but maybe no press people ask the
questions. And so they don't want to give away NASA's
prepared answers that they were ready to give, again, excessive
use of B five. One of the last things I want to go over with
you is the slide deck that I had mentioned before. One of the
emails it says in one of the attachments, which which was the
slide deck, it says a slide deck with thoughts on how best to
amplify NASA's role with the search for extraterrestrial life
in the context of the upcoming report on UAPs. Again, this was
a slide deck a PowerPoint presentation attached to one of
the emails. I take it like how can NASA benefit from the
exposure that UAPs are getting? And how can NASA inject itself
in that? That was kind of how I was I guess that's what I
gathered from this was was how could they best benefit from
that, that coverage? And how could NASA get involved? Because
obviously they kind of weren't, it was all about the military
and DOD and ODNI and the Navy and so on. So I think NASA
internally was looking to see how they could benefit almost
screwed up there. So the cover the cover UAP planning, and then
you can see underneath here another B five exemption. I
don't know what that would be maybe a tagline of some kind.
Generally under PowerPoint presentation headers, you see a
personnel name, and that's exemption B six. So the fact
that this was B five kind of was a little confusing. but
obviously they didn't want to show me or show us as the
general population, short term catching the wave on the UAP
report.
All that information blacked out, but the title catching the
wave on the UAP. Report not. So again, they're trying to benefit
from the avalanche of coverage that was likely going to come
from the UAP. Report, media. Again, half of it or so, be five
exempted, all redacted. You'll see some names in there that you
did see in front of the cameras, including Bill Nelson Thomas, or
Bouken, I believe is how you pronounce it. Those actually did
a press conference together. And they both spoke, I've done FOIA
requests and already received final responses quite a few
months ago, on Thomas's email box. And some very interesting
gems came out, including the revelation about the Nelson
briefing, etc. I have multiple cases on Bill Nelson pending,
some documents have come in. So again, definitely use the search
engine on the black vault.com. I'll also put some links down
there in the descriptions. So that way, you guys can see some
of those NASA documents that have come out. Ravi coper APU.
That's another one that I've had pending cases on for quite some
time. Some of the other names, again, not recognizable, but
those are FOIA leads you go after that, why are these people
in there? Well, they obviously have something to do with you
APs are talking about it. So you branch off even though a lot of
these people had already hit with FOIA as before, the new
names, you file new requests. So the FOIA people out there, this
is where you start picking up your next leads on where to go.
More redactions here. Here's just a link to some some
information about study to search universe for signs of
technological civilizations on a site called astrobiology.com. A
search for techno signatures around newly discovered
exoplanets. John Luke Margot at UCLA solid science communicator.
So I think that they were talking about people that they
could put up in front of the cameras. So these redactions in
my book were probably mislabeled, but I could be
wrong, it's kind of hard to tell how they were going to hit
social media, Tumblr current and upcoming NASA missions looking
for life. So they were going to again, just kind of ride that
wave, as they said, a Reddit AMA or Twitter spaces with SMEs or
subject matter experts answering questions. Print media set up a
FAQ on NASA search for life that we can point to whenever needed
via social media, etc. Feature evergreen content on current and
upcoming NASA missions looking for life. So they were really
aiming to get a lot of exposure from this cleaning house, need
to update this page, a top page where you search NASA UFO, and
then it gives the NASA address for UFO sighting question and
answers. That is a working URL. So you can type that into your
web address. I won't say the whole long thing, because
there's a lot of characters in it. But for those watching the
visual, just type that in and you'll be able to see NASA's
page on UFOs. Here's a fun slide entirely redacted. So we have no
idea what that one is talking about. Next slide long term
continuing the conversation. So they wanted to not only ride the
wave, but keep it going. How they were going to do that
entirely redacted. Next slide, potential larger activities.
This was kind of interesting. Workshop slash NASA Social, some
redactions there. It was a workshop between scientists
slash slash astronauts slash rocket engineers and science
fiction writers. Again, bunch of redactions, social humans of
NASA vignettes, hoping and then again, it's kind of hard to read
this as a lot of redactions, but just some of the texts hoping to
lean into those redacted, but would depend on what we get,
which is always intriguing. When you see that, a video series,
maybe planning a video series, a series of four to five videos or
recorded shows again, lots of redactions there. So some of
those redactions again, those those are probably legitimate
examples of B five were a series of four to five videos are
recorded shows. They could have been just bounced a few ideas
out there, and they would consider that internal
deliberation, again, accurately fitting into B five. So I know
that some of those side notes get probably a little tedious
and boring. But for the portion of the audience that watches
these about FOIA and stuff. I always just like to add those so
you can kind of see the struggle between trying to figure out
what's legitimate, what's not what's appealable and what's not
and what you can go after. So that's the end of the slide
deck. That was that was the end. There was one blank slide. I
didn't show you guys but that no redactions. It was just to
blank, I think it was a mistake. Other than that, that that was
the slide deck on that the FOIA release itself is quite large.
So there's a lot to read. And there's a lot that I didn't go
over, I wanted to at least show you the highlights. And as I
said earlier in the show, I wouldn't go over everything
because it would be a 16 hour video, I'm already about 40
minutes in and barely scratched the surface. But I hope this is
an encouragement. Encouragement, I guess, to go out there and
look at more, see what's there, see what's available, see what
you can go after, and see those leads. And for those who watch
this, that are using the FOIA, hopefully the side notes work
for you, that you can see what you look for, in addition to
great information, but what you can look for for your next
request and start branching out and digging, and digging, and
digging, because that is what this is all about that. And of
course, it's a team effort, which is why I always like to,
again, give credit where it's due WWW dot government attic.com
Is the website and you can go on there and download all sorts of
stuff. Very, very, very, very in depth. There's a ton of
information on there. And forgive me, I misspoke. It's www
dot government attic.org so.org not.com but.org
Lots of information very in depth website, you'll be able to
download all sorts of information including this
particular four year release. I did Claire it with them of
talking about their FOIA release. And of course, the team
over there was very gracious and said absolutely. But I wanted to
make sure I gave credit to them. So that said, thank you so much
for listening, I'm always interested in your comments. So
make sure you post them below. If you're listening to the audio
version, those five star reviews really, really helped. That's
what I aim for. But honest reviews nonetheless. So if I
didn't hit the five star, let me know why. But those those
reviews are very much appreciated. If you are watching
the video, thank you for doing so. But please, if you can take
two seconds, if that, push the thumbs up button, make sure
you're subscribed to this channel and hit the bell. That
way you are notified when I go live. You're going to see a lot
of new content here through the end of the year. And 2220 22 I
have a gut feeling is going to be a heck of a year. So I'm
looking forward to all of that but again, always interested in
your feedback. Put your comments below and the biggest help of
all, is if you can help spread the word about the channel if
you found this interesting, feel free to share it with others.
That said this is John Greenwald, JR signing off, and
we will see you next time.