John Greenewald: That's right everybody. As always, thank you
so much for tuning in and taking this journey inside the black
vault with me. I'm your host, John Greenewald, Jr, founder and
creator of the black vault calm. And thank you for joining me as
we do this deep dive into the release, or at least a partial
release of the classified UAP report. Now, if you haven't seen
any of the news articles, I'm very thankful that quite a few
different media agencies and outlets have covered this now,
where since since June of last year, I have tried to get the
classified version of the UFO or UAP report that was released
last year to the public, the classified version reviewed and
released to the public. That process has taken until this
week, to complete excited to say that I actually got the
declassified version, although heavily redacted. It is still
incredibly important. So what I am going to do today is dissect
it for you guys. We're going to do like I called it a deep dive.
I know these aren't for everyone. But we're going to go
through it page by page and compare it to the public version
that we saw last year. There's a lot of differences. There's a
lot of redactions, as I already noted, and even those redactions
tell a story. So if you haven't seen those news stories, that's
a quick overview of what is going on, and what we are going
to be doing on this particular episode. Now, as you can see
here, I brought up some visuals. For those who aren't aware, if
you are listening to the audio version, I do drop these down to
audio podcasts on every major audio podcast platform, under
the black vault radio. Some of you may be just listening to
that, and not realizing that I do visual presentations as well.
If you're interested in seeing the visuals that I'm going to
often reference through this, go to www dot the black
vault.com/live That will take you to the YouTube channel, you
can go ahead and search for the video there. And make sure you
like and subscribe, because that is a huge help on the channel. I
know it sounds simplistic, and I beat the dead horse with it
every episode. But it really does help the channel grow. So
thank you, we are now over 50,000 subscribers strong here
and in the last week. Thank you to those who have decided to
subscribe, I'm guessing a lot of you that are watching this right
now may be new to the channel. So what you are about to watch
is what this channel is all about dissecting the evidence.
Sometimes videos are longer, sometimes they're shorter. But
regardless, it's about the evidence. And that's what we're
going to be diving into. So let me go ahead and start with the
PowerPoint presentation here. What I want to start with for
those who are either taking notes or just want a little bit
of background on how I did this, a lot of news outlets
erroneously mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. And
although that is what I am known for this particular case was not
that it was through a process called a mandatory
declassification review, very much echoes a Freedom of
Information Act request, essentially you're requesting a
review of a classified document or classified material for
public release. And so that is essentially what we are looking
at here. And that is the result of that MDR request. Now usually
don't do this, but I decided to make the entire process public
when it comes to this particular case. I did it for a couple
different reasons. I did it to number one, show the agency the
interest that the general public had in watching this unfold, and
that was palpable with the different posts and how many
people were watching and looking at it and so on, but also to
show everybody what that process is. And what I was surprised
that was how long it took when I originally undertook this. I was
under the impression that I would likely get something
within about six weeks, six to eight weeks. And that's what I
posted out there. Of course, nothing ever follows through
when it comes to the US government. So those estimates
really kind of fell to the wayside. My follow ups through
this process lasted up until literally the beginning of this
week. I was unaware that they were going to complete the case
this week. And they numbered well into the double digits. So
I was trying to not annoy them to death, but many Have those
follow ups that I would send would just go unanswered. And I
ended up following a filing an appeal last
last month, maybe two months ago, to try and get this
expedited. That appeal was rejected. I actually couldn't
file the appeal until a full calendar year had passed from
the filing because I was appealing the time it was
taking. So I learned learn that part of the process the hard
way. But regardless, I was able to maybe show them Hey, once
June rolled around, which was the year mark, I was going to
file that appeal in hopes to get this declassified. So that I
think, maybe as a speculation, but maybe jump started the
process a little bit. But the agency surprisingly responded
this week. And so my follow up where I had no idea I'd be
getting it, that follow up was met with hate good news. It's in
the mail. And so I practically begged through a telephone call,
I called the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence. And I said, Look, I've been very eagerly awaiting
this, is there any possible way you can send it electronically.
And the rest is history, I was able to do that. And special
thanks to that agency, because even though it was a little bit
of a frustrating process, they were really kind of meeting me
halfway. And they went and scanned it and sent it to me
yesterday. So thanks to them. for that. I want to talk before
we deep dive into the document itself, a controversy that's re
erupted here, in this last cut in these last couple of days.
And this week, since I published this document, obviously, it has
gotten a lot of traction. Now, if you're new to this channel,
you may not be aware, but through the last, you know,
eight months or so, there has been a lot of controversy about
how big the classified report was. That was given to Congress.
And there's been a lot of of speculation, we'll call it that
some of the estimates were 74 pages, 70 pages, 78 pages, 400
pages, all from people that were either claiming firsthand
knowledge, or that they had impeccable, anonymous sources.
And when I wrote the story last year, where although I didn't
publish the report, because I didn't have it yet, my legal
case had had progressed to the point where I learned it was a
17 page document. It was July 16 of last year where I published a
small story that the classified version was 17 pages. I felt
that was newsworthy, simply because there were so many
numbers that were being thrown around. Now, just so you guys
are aware. And before I get to Jimmy's interview this here, let
me get the pen here so I can point 74 pages came from Mr.
Luis Elizondo, out of all of the sources I'm about to mention, I
would say he is probably the most well connected. I have no
doubts that he maintains a lot of connections that he has
talked about. And I thought if anybody was right, it was going
to be him. So when I got the 17 page return, I was a little
surprised. I'm going to come back to Luis Elizondo in a
moment. The 400 Page estimate came from his attorney, Daniel
Sheehan. Daniel said that on fade to black with Jimmy church,
I'll pull up the transcript for you in a moment, because that
really added a lot more confusion to this process as
well. 70 pages was let me see Bob McGuire, he claims to also
have impeccable anonymous sources. I believe this was on
spaced out radio. And in between some of the segments that was
broadcast on YouTube. He seemed very animated, and very
enthusiastic that it was 70 pages. 78 pages came from. Let
me see here. I believe it was Tim McMillan on another
interview roundtable discussion. He works for the debrief. So
there were a lot of different page counts that were being
floated around here. So when I got 17 pages, I thought okay,
what's going on here? The reason I wanted to go back to Luis
Elizondo is I've been accused of not reaching out to him and only
trying to attack him, yet again, those allegations are false. So
just to clear up the record. Last July, I did reach out to
Luis Elizondo, and wanted to explore this discrepancy. I
invited him to add whatever he wanted to add. Sadly, I was
talking to his PR people at the time, even though I was speaking
to Mr. Elizondo as well through through other means. It was his
PR people that kind of take the took the helm to respond to my
request. And I said To speed up the story, he didn't want to put
anything on the record. So I respected that and I moved on.
So just to clear up those allegations, which are
circulating social media that I never went to Mr. Elizondo to
clear this up. I did. And he chose not to respond. I didn't
make a big deal out of it. But since I'm being accused of so
much from the haters nowadays, here in the last few days, about
this controversy, hey, let me clear it up. Right now. I did do
my due diligence. No one will go on the record with me. And to
add even more confusion, Mr. Elizondo is attorney Daniel
Sheehan, as I said, said that it was over 400 pages you can see
in the transcript here on YouTube during his interview,
that it was over 400. Jimmy church is a great interviewer,
he asked some great questions, he brought up the 70, page 78
Page number here, and you can see the response from Danny
Sheehan, that it was a myth that it was part of the mythology. In
in you follow G that has arisen? Again, this is part of that
confusion. So I wanted to bring that up and kind of address the
controversy that I welcome anybody with any knowledge of
this to come forward? Some of you may be eye rolling right
now, why does it matter the length of the report? Well,
you're absolutely right. But sadly, there's a lot of people
coming after me accusing the agency of lying, or accusing me
of working with the agency to circulate something that isn't
true. That's all internet legend and lore. And since some
influential accounts are kind of
circulating that I thought that I would go ahead and address it
here on this deep dive. Moving on from the from the
controversy, because again, it is a 17 page document if you
haven't caught on yet. So that reporting last year was 100%
Spot on. And nobody has brought evidence to refute that. But the
invitations open if they ever do. I want to deal with the
exemptions. First, those redactions when under either the
Freedom of Information Act or an MDR, when things are redacted.
What happens is they have to cite the redaction. And what I
mean by that is that they have to justify them removing
information. So in the FOIA world, you guys have probably
heard me talk about B one, which is national security related
information, or B six, which is personally identifying
information, there's nine total. But those are some of the more
common ones in the process of an MDR. It works the exact same
way. But you don't see the same exemptions. You see other ones,
most of them are going to be tied to an executive order,
which specifically is 135 to six, that was kind of the going
or is the going standard for these types of declassification
reviews and what should remain exempted. You'll also see some
some other references as well. But I want to kind of keep it as
simple as I can because it can get pretty confusing. So from
that letter that I had showed you the release letter, the ODNI
will reference what they are redacting and kind of summarize
it all for you. What the ODNI said was that they were citing
United States Code. Let me see here, chapter 50, section 3024,
which is information pertaining to intelligence sources and
methods. And the National Security Act of 1947, as
amended, also, the chapter 50, section 3605, which protects
against disclosure of NSA functions, and information. This
is probably, you know, some of the maybe spying some of the
decoding of messages, some of the intelligence gathering
around the world. That's what the NSA does. And so the
information that they're bringing in which may touch the
UAP topic, and be in this report, they're going to go
ahead and exempt it to you to break it down even farther,
executive order 13526. They cited for a C, D and G, AC, D
and G Yes, sorry, I get myself Tongue Tied for different
reasons. In fact, there's actually five in the document
itself, so they messed up, they didn't cite one. But regardless,
we'll kind of touch back on this as we go through the document.
That's section 1.4. A pertains to military plans, weapon
systems or operations, C pertains to intelligence active
activities, including covert action, intelligence sources and
methods or cryptology D pertains to foreign relations or foreign
activities of the US, including confidential sources, and G
vulnerabilities are capabilities of systems installations,
infrastructures projects, plans or protection services related
to national security. The fifth that I saw mentioned in the
report, which was not in their letter, was he scientific,
technical, technological or economic matters related to
national security? So we'll revisit that as we go through
the documents. Because, you know, that may seem dry and
boring is hacking. Why is John doing this? Well, it's for two
reasons. One, it is a deep dive. So we're really kind of
dissecting this all together. But number two, why those
exemptions are important is when you go through a document, you
can start to fill in the holes a little bit, even though it's a
black line. Those exemption citations allow you to figure
out exactly what or why they are redacting something. And so that
really helps. They also cite section 6.2 general provisions
of the executive order, I'm only going to read this once, I won't
touch it again, because I don't even understand it. But it is
cited in the document a few times.
Let me read it to you. Nothing in this order limits the
protection afforded any information by other provisions
of law, including the Constitution, Freedom of
Information Act exemptions, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the
National Security Act of 1947. As amended, this order is not
intended to and does not create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural enforceable at law by a party
against the United States, its departments, agencies or
entities, its officers, employees, or agents or any
other person. The foregoing is, in addition to the specific
provisions set forth in sections 1.1, B, 3.1, C, and 5.3 of this
order, don't worry, I ain't going to go back to it because I
don't care too. But I wanted to read it for you, at least for
the audio version, but also, to just kind of tell you guys, they
cite that as well. But to be honest with you, I just don't, I
really just don't get it, there's really kind of no reason
because the other exemptions pretty much make sense. So let's
start going through the 17 pages. What I've done here is on
the left side of your screen here on the display, if you're
watching this, it's going to be the classified newly released
version. On the right side labeled public report, I split
up every single page of that report to coincide with the
classified version. That way, you can visually see how they
took the classified version, and then truncated it to death,
dropping roughly about half of it, and making the public
version. So I kind of line up the sections and you'll also see
some minor word changes, I'm not going to go over all of those
because it's it's just kind of pointless. Obviously, they had a
working version and then likely, you know, polished it up a
little bit for the public. But the classified version in some
areas is just worded a little differently. I will point out
one or two but just know you may find some of those slight
changes that I don't reference. That's why it's just kind of
irrelevant. But I wanted to show you the side by side, and how
much more information is actually revealed here. Even
though there's a lot of redactions, we can read a lot.
Also, a couple things I'll point out about the cover page. This
here is the classification. It is referenced as that section
three, zero to four eye protection of intelligence
sources and methods. I'm guessing this is just a guess
that there is a classification with a code word here. So they
remove the whole thing because it may reveal again, a type of
program prime examples, if you look at the National Security
Agency documents on UFOs because they deal with comment or
communication intelligence, a lot of them have a rubra you MBR
a code word on it. So it's top secret slash ombre. For a lot of
years, Uber was a classified designator and so that was fully
redacted. Over years of fighting, I filed MDR requests
to the NSA very much like I did here and got a lot of those
documents rereleased with Uber revealed. That's what I think is
going on here. Again, that part is a little bit of speculation.
But I That's That's why these redactions are there, you'll see
them every single page. juxtapose that with the public
report. Unclassified designator, obviously not redacted for any
reason, classified by that's going to be a person and
protection of intelligence sources and method again is
three zero to four. But when you go down here, you're talking
about the subsection that protects identities derived from
they also are classifying that if I were to guess this is the
UAP security classification guide that was released last
year to me that I published the reason I say that as UAP related
documents often cite that security classification guide
ODNI may not have realized it was released already. And so
they redacted the reference to it. I will be appealing a lot of
these redactions, when I'm recording this. I'm still
stewing in my brain how I'm going to address some of it. But
just so you know, that's on my on my agenda is to appeal appeal
redactions like this to see what's under there declassify
on, generally, that's 30 plus years into the future. And they
redacted that date for whatever reason. But anyway, just a quick
rundown of what you're seeing there. Here is page two, the
scoping assumptions, you'll see it's very, very similar to the
public report. But there's one thing that I want to hone in on.
And so I'm gonna just go into one paragraph here, this was the
difference. First thing to know 1.4 C, right, that's from the
executive order 135 to six intelligence activities,
including covert action, intelligence sources or methods
or cryptology. Now, we know that the NSA is already referenced
here. So it's not them. There's speculation on whether or not it
is the CIA, a lot of people are making guesses online.
Regardless, this is an agency that was not in the public
report, and that they don't want to tell you about. So again,
whether or not that's the CIA or someone else who knows, just
speculation, but I found it pretty fascinating that they do
have input from another agency that they don't want to tell you
about. Another interesting difference, which may have just
been an oversight, was the classified version had the
Marine Corps in it. And also NASA. Now, if you're watching
this channel in the past, you'll know that I've discovered some
of those NASA briefings, which likely was the UAP taskforce
reaching out to NASA sharing information, and then
ultimately, NASA contributing to the report. Where's NASA? Down
here in the public report, their reference was removed? Was it a
mistake and oversight? I'll let you guys decide. But those are
two clear differences. The Office of Naval Intelligence,
which is essentially where the UAP task force was
headquartered, was listed in the public report. But nowhere to be
found in the classified report. That's minor, again, probably
just an oversight. But something I wanted to at least know two
navies, their navies there on on both versions, but Navy Oh, and
I is not, again, just kind of a kind of one of those things that
you got to point out, but who knows why. Digging into the
executive summary. The executive summary totals one page, just to
kind of dispel another myth that a lot of people talk about, they
feel that the executive summary in total was 17 pages, and the
classified version was much, much longer. That is also
untrue. The executive summary was a one page summary of the
entire report. And then as you'll see, as we go on are the
different sections there of the one minor difference here was in
this paragraph, in a limited number of incidents, UAP
reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics.
The public version put a period there, the classified version
goes into more detail saying including several in which the
and then we got some blackout line there, involving and then
yet again, all blacked out the citations, AE and G, military
plans, weapon systems operations, scientific,
technological or economic matters, and vulnerabilities or
capabilities of systems. So obviously, they are going into
detail about their, their capability here or lack there of
within military operations, public didn't get to see that.
Obviously, we don't get to see all of it. But we get a glimpse
that they have more to tell about this phenomena.
Now we're getting into pages that have a lot more information
available reporting, largely inconclusive public version said
the same thing broke down the cases 144 of these reports at
involved observation with multiple sensors. But when you
look at over here on the classified version just
released, after carefully considering this information,
the UAP TF focused on a data set of blank, probably describing
blank, those blanks being redacted. This is the one
difference here that I'm going to point out that is is kind of
a minor word change. But I think very, very interesting to see
how they tell the public one thing, but also tell Congress
the same thing, but in my opinion, has a much different
tone to it. The public version first, we were able to identify
one report, one reported UAP with high confidence in that
case, we identified the object as a large deflating balloon.
The version Congress Got in only one instance, the UAP, TF was
able to identify the reported UAP with high confidence. In
that case, we identified the object of a large deflating
balloon, the others remain unexplained. This is just a
personal opinion. But I see that as a much softer way to say it
to the public, and a much more negative way to say it to
Congress meaning and only one, like only one, we were able to
do this where the public said, Hey, we were able to do this.
You know, for me, I'd see a tone difference. I know, I'm just
reading it. But for me, I read the tone difference. Again, I'm
not going to do that a lot here in this presentation. But I did
want to notate that because I feel that there's very much a
different message by saying the same thing, but very much a
different tone to that message. In the classified version, you
get down to again, the breakdown of the reports. You'll see here
that in the classified version of these ad reports involve
observations with multiple sensors, public version had a
period there, the expansion says including and redacted. And, and
then more redactions, the remaining blank redaction
observed incidents were captured by and then redacted again, see
tables one and two, put a pin in the tables one and two, because
we're going to get to those. But the area here when you talk
about military plans, weapon systems and operations, the
citation here under a we're obviously getting to the
capabilities of our military. So some of those redactions, I
would say, are acceptable. That's the reason why redactions
are there. It's frustrating, and even laughable when you try and
read it out loud. But when you look at it, you kind of start to
understand where they're talking about our weapon systems
capabilities, our detection capabilities, so on, as you read
through this, and those I would say are acceptable. But not all
are and will will, we're now getting into that section. In
the classified version, not in the public of the 144. US
government reports. We don't know how many originated from
because it's redacted originated from Navy range. Fowler reports,
which provide basic information, such as the time, date,
location, description, and what occurred during the event.
Again, a redacted number reports were from a combination of Air
Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and other agencies. So again, it
was that they had the Marine Corps that wasn't mentioned in
the public version, but they were in the classified version.
Well, this is probably why, because we now know that there
are Marine Corps incidents. And yes, I have filed request to
them for what those incidents may be. Why did they shield that
from the US public, I don't know, in the public version. But
regardless, they did only an a redacted number of the 144
reports contained, and then redacted A and G which again,
military plans, weapon systems or operations, and then
G that I had in my notes, vulnerabilities or capabilities
of systems installations, so the vulnerabilities are going to be
G. So I have a cheat sheet on all of those breakdowns here
too. I thought I had it on the screen, but I did not. So
anyway, you could see how kind of confusing this gets. But it
starts to get into capabilities of UAP and our lack of ability
to either detect or or track or chase or identify what these
are. You'll see here, a lot more redaction, not in the public
report. Although these reports a bunch of redaction the
description of unknown targets, bunch of redaction, that's all
see intelligence activities. That's the exemption
intelligence activities including covert action
intelligence sources or methods. You'll see down here is the
definition of a range Fowler. That's referred to up here and
then there's a footnote citation not sure if you can see that on
your screen. But it says US Navy, US Navy aviators to find a
range Fowler as an activity or object that interrupts pre
planned training, or other military activity in a military
operating area, or restricted airspace. Moving on, you can see
how this kind of chunks together with the public report but
expanded and the UAP collection challenges. This really gets
into our capability. So the redactions are understandable.
Here's something in the classified version. The sensors
mounted on US military platforms are typically designed to
fulfill specific missions often redacted. As a result, those
sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP which can be
and then redacted. These are starting to get interesting
because again, although some are understanding doubly done that
meaning that redactions, others are not. And it's the capability
of UAP. But it kind of is a gray area where it also when we
reveal the capability of UAP, sadly, it will reveal our lack
of ability to either detect, track, identify, and so on. And
so then, you know, for me, I'm mad at that redaction, but can
kind of understand it jumping down here, but some potential
patterns do emerge, we can see a very similar paragraph here. But
below that more information. And this, I believe, is what
resonated most with the general public when it came to what was
redacted. Let me read to you what was revealed the most
common shape described by military personnel and their
reporting was a redacted. See figure one. So we'll get to
figure one with the tables in a moment. military aviators
describe many of these redacted objects as redacted or redacted,
that redacted several sightings were redacted and resembled
redacted shapes, like a redacted or a redacted. Alright, so
here's the frustration, why are shapes redacted? I don't get it,
to be honest with you. But that is the reality behind what we're
looking at, I will be appealing this at length as well. I do not
believe the shape of something would be classified. I don't see
a justification for it. There's no identifying markers. There is
no attribution to any country, military branch foreign or
domestic? Nothing. So there's no connection there that would
reveal sources and methods, nothing that would reveal
anything of a classified nature. So why are they withholding the
shapes? This to me was one of the more intriguing aspects to
this release, why the physical characteristics of something?
Why is that something that they cannot reveal? The citation is
mostly a here, which are military plans, weapon systems
or operations. One may argue that it fits into descriptions
of our own technology. But let me dispel that myth at this
point. You'll see later as well, they could not attribute any of
the cases that they investigated to classified domestic
technology. So why again, are the shapes classified?
This here, let me see here continues the section we were
just on. Let me continue reading observed UAP usually traveled
between redacted and redacted. So likely speeds are being
redacted their altitudes varied for these objects, but
frequently registered between redacted and redacted. So
obviously, the altitude numbers as well redacted mean sea level
so frequently registered between blank and blank mean sea level
or MSL, we have a redacted number of cases however, in
which the observer perceived that the UAP demonstrated
redacted and another in which the UAP was detected. redacted,
feet MSL so obviously redacting another altitude here, which I
am going to argue in the appeal should not be read, should not
be concealed, but rather revealed. Reason being we know
our capabilities, it's public knowledge that we can determine
altitudes of tracks that we see with our equipment. That is not
revealing any classified information. So why don't they
want to tell us that UAP are flying between this height and
that height? I don't know. There may be some military strategy to
withhold that or military reason for national security. Okay, I
just personally don't see it. Feel free to comment below if
you'd like. You may disagree with me, and that's fine. I just
feel that it's not blowing any secret, as their citation is a
military plans, weapon systems or operations. I just don't see
it. Moving on to the section and a handful of UAP appear to
demonstrate advanced technology and 18 incidents described in 21
reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or
flight characteristics public version, put a period there and
the classified version and or redacted. A few of these reports
describe UAP behavior, and then a lot more reaction. Some UAP
appear to remain stationary and winds aloft move against the
wind maneuver abruptly or move it considered speed without
discernible means of propulsion. And a small number of cases
military aircraft systems processed radio frequency energy
associated with UAP sightings, public version put a period
there, classified version as redacted, although there are
redacted. We would redacted recordings of radar displays
suggest these UAP a couple more redacted lines. Citations were
GE vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems
installations or infrastructure. So obviously what the UAP are
doing, we are unable to do what we need to do with tracking to
track and identify them. justifiable redaction. I'll let
you guys decide. Next paragraph in redacted a night a Navy pilot
in a redacted lines in altitude. He noted the winds aloft were
greater than redacted and he was fighting to keep his aircraft in
the airspace redacted was redacted and its position was
unaffected by the redacted what could be there? Is it kind of
interesting, unaffected by what the pilot redacted line object
was redacted. So let me just dissect that for a moment. It's
saying that the Navy pilot was in wins, greater than but they
wouldn't tell us how great and that he was, quote, fighting to
keep his aircraft in the airspace. That's an exact quote
in the document, which means it was a quote from the witness.
But it seems when you read the redacted lines that the UAP
whatever that was, was unaffected. By the I mean, when
did we shoot at it unaffected by what radar jamming? It's a very
small redaction. It's right here position was unaffected by the
mean, it looks like you could probably only fit what 3456
Maybe six characters there. So if it was wins, why would you
redact it? I'm not really sure the citation is a in G military
plans, weapon systems or operations, G vulnerabilities or
capabilities.
So what's there that's another one of those ones that really
doesn't make sense. Other ones do and they're obvious other
ones do not moving on in redacted a navy report
documented, redacted, but then appear to change course and
speed. redacted from redacted. These are longer redactions they
don't look like like speed and numbers, maybe. But it just
looks a little bit longer. Regardless, you can see here
obviously, intelligently controlled. So not a balloon,
you know, not not a trash bag flying in the wind. Drone, you
know, of course maybe. But regardless, you are seeing
intelligently controlled craft that are being encountered. So
just punching that point, moving on in blank are redacted a UAP
exhibited redacted according to redacted the UAP TF has a
redacted number additional reports of aircraft indicating
redacted that appear to redacted. I'm giving you these
kind of rough readings. Again, not only for the audio version,
but to see how how some of this just doesn't make sense that
we're not we should not be encroaching on classified
information here that we should be able to talk about the
characteristics of what they are seeing when we talk about
vulnerabilities okay, I mean, I can understand that, but some of
these characteristics in my opinion should not be redacted.
Moving on to this last paragraph before we turn the page the UAP
TF holds a small amount of data that appear to show you AP
demonstrating acceleration or degree of signature management,
public version, put a period there redacted version, excuse
me classified version comes in with some redacted lines.
However, this and then another redacted line and then it goes
on from there according to redacted during a redacted
incident, the UAP what kind of like what is what is the
descriptor here, which doesn't make sense, but again, redacted.
So during a whatever redaction here incident the UAP from the
aircraft, redacted, shows the object redacted. A 2004 UAP
event reportedly demonstrated redacted 2004 I think we can all
safely assume that that is the Nimitz encounter. So they're
dealing with a couple different incidents here kind of giving a
summation of them and the characteristics of us up and
potentially our vulnerabilities. Moving on, according to US Navy
reporting, during redacted hours in redacted a helicopter pilot.
Now that's new, a helicopter pilot and two weapon systems
officers or Ws O's or Windows, visually observed several,
several key word redacted several what redacted objects
moving approximately and redacted. One of the windows
redacted approximately redacted five redacted objects, which
redacted the widow reported he redacted but redacted. The pilot
and the other WIZO redacted, the redacted objects. So now we've
Okay, so let's dissect this. As silly as that just read 555 What
objects not really sure, but there are five objects.
Obviously, it's mentioned here, can we safely deduce that those
are the UAP that were encountered. So five UAP objects
of some kind, I think that may be a safe assumption. It was a
helicopter pilot. So there's not many of those around, we keep
hearing about the F 18 encounters over the years, but
not a helicopter. So that seemingly is a new case or not
one that's ringing a bell for me. And then talks about what
the weapon system officers, they were doing something but
essentially nothing was was working. So when you read that,
as silly as it sounds, read between the lines, so to speak,
and you can start seeing some some interesting encounters be
revealed.
Moving on to the next section, you can see here juxtaposing the
public report with the classified UAP probably lack a
single explanation that's, that's a given. And so I was I
was glad to see that in there. But you'll see here it comes in
with in the classified version, numerous paragraphs, full
paragraphs, fully redacted. The citations were military plans,
weapon systems or operations, intelligence activities,
including covert action or sources of methods, and D. I'm
sorry, G vulnerabilities or capability. So it's pretty much
like everything that is being cited here. And that is broken
down in two different paragraphs but fully redacted. Now we're
getting into the explanations, the breakdown of the
explanations about UAP are these are essentially the categories
right? What where do they fit not everything is, you know,
unknown for good, so they brought a list of the possible
explanations. In the public report, it was reflected as
well, airborne clutter. These objects include birds, balloons,
recreational unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or airborne
debris, like plastic bags that that muddle a scene and affect
an operator's ability to identify true targets such as
enemy aircraft, public version, put a period there, the
classified version expanded on airborne clutter. This category
can also include an a bunch of redactions, we recognize that
bunch of redaction with the and the rest is redacted. Not sure
what they can redact on airborne clutter, but there you have it.
The next paragraph also under airborne clutter, we have
examples of pilots who stated that they redacted. G would be
which is the citation on these redactions, vulnerabilities or
capabilities of systems. Okay, maybe maybe somehow that's
justifiable, but I just found it silly. The next category natural
atmospheric phenomena. Natural atmospheric phenomena includes
ice crystals, moisture and thermal fluctuations that may
register on some infrared and radar systems public report put
a period their classified report gave another line and a half,
all redacted. Underneath that was a really bizarre deletion
from the public version, which was released in the classified
version. Under natural atmospheric phenomena, although
we cannot definitively classify any UAP occurrences in our data
set as caused by atmospheric phenomena, we also cannot rule
out the possibility that these factors may account for some of
what pilots have observed. Well, of course, it could account for
some that's why it's there. But still, the key part here is that
you could not identify one, not a single one. So is that
vulnerabilities or your what is it? Yeah, vulnerabilities or
capabilities of your system or lack of capabilities? Maybe, but
why would you need to take that out of the report? The public
version, not really sure, interesting nonetheless, that
that was taken out. Next reason US government or industry
developmental programs, some UAP observations could be
attributable to classified US government airspace programs, or
systems under development by commercial aerospace, aerospace
firms. We were unable to confirm, however, that these
systems accounted for any of the UAP reports. We collected public
version, put a period there classified version goes on, we
have
and then insert four and a half redacted lines we have what if
they couldn't, if they couldn't confirm anything as being
classified tech or something like that? What extra
information did the classified version have that we're not
seeing? Not really sure. Next reason for an adversary systems.
A lot of people talked about this, especially in Congress
that they some were saying they thought that that's what it was,
when it came to UAPs. Other UAP other said that it was not China
or Russia. So what is it a lot of speculation there. But within
the report, foreign adversary systems, some UAP, maybe
intelligent collection platforms developed by China, Russia,
another nation or non governmental entity, public
version, put a period their classified version went on, they
could also be a a, what redacted lines worth of redaction
although, and then a couple more redacted lines. In addition, we
add a few more redacted lines after that. So they definitely
expand this, this this section. But we don't know why. We have
no idea why. Even though it doesn't say it here later in the
report, and I'll get to that in a moment. But later in the
report, it does say that not a single incident, they were able
to connect to any foreign adversary system. So obviously,
that is something that although they tried to do, were unable to
do it, and then going going on the other category. The other
category remained exactly the same. UAP threatened flight
safety and possibly national security. That section here was
expanded ongoing airspace concerns. We have in the
classified version, we have documented flight safety
concerns and insert a couple of redacted lines there. And then
it goes on to what was in the the public report. When aviators
encounter safety hazards. They are required to report these
concerns. Towards the end of the paragraph, you'll see some some
extra information, primarily all redacted. Next paragraph, same
deal in and then redacted. A pilot briefly observed a couple
of redacted lines, however a and then redacted. What it's showing
here is that Congress, the Senate, they were getting
additional information about the cases. And what what was going
on the fact that they didn't change that a lot of the
categories and explanations existed, you know, the mundane
explanations, they still couldn't fit anything into those
categories. So what are they redacting? Here? What are they?
Again, it could just be vulnerabilities, and that's
fine. But why aren't they telling us what exactly these
pilots were observing what is so classified about that? Because
they can't fit it into any category? If it was a Russian
technology, drone technology, classified technology, we were
seeing it with classified systems. Okay, maybe some of
that is justifiable, but again, they say none of that was was
doable, they were not able to connect any foreign adversary to
the 143 remaining cases. Why is it really just our
vulnerability, I would really hope not. Next section,
potential national security challenges. You see up top here,
definitely identical, or near identical to the public report,
followed by a pretty big, full paragraph, fully redacted.
intelligence activities, intelligence sources and methods
and vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems all
cited here, and all removed. Explaining UAP will require
analytic collection and resource investments section, top of
which pretty much echoes the public version. We have an extra
paragraph here given the redacted the UAP. TF also plans
to explore how best to leverage the capabilities of non DoD
departments and agencies to enable effective and efficient
transfer of data and redacted among the DoD redacted and the
law enforcement community. So obviously here, I'm not really
sure, citation intelligence activities, intelligence sources
and methods and cryptology. I don't understand where the the,
the sharing of information is something that they wanted to
omit from the public version, maybe some of the systems that
They utilize I can understand that explain some of these
redactions. But why they want that removed the coordination,
not really sure.
Moving on the expand collection section, you'll see again, top
is very reminiscent to the public report underneath that
big fat, black square, all redacted. So definitely some
expanding of the collection. And just to remind you what that
said, the UAP tf 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
collection bias in the data set. So essentially, if they're only
collecting data from military installations, it's going to be
a bias towards military installations, because that's
all they look at. So they're trying to set up ways to collect
information that was in the public report. What's down here,
obviously, was not. Here's another one for you FOIA people
out there. Some of you may find it, briefly. Interesting. But
the FOIA people this is what you look for, increase investment in
research and development. public version have the same paragraph
with one difference. The UAP TF has indicated that additional
funding for research and development could further the
mission objectives defined by a Deputy Secretary of Defense
Action Memo 23 July 2020. Such investments should be guided by
a UAP collection strategy UAP r&d Technical roadmap and a UAP
program guide. This highlighted section here that memo had never
has never and has yet to be released to the public, nor was
it even known. And so this is the kind of stuff that was
removed in the public version, which indicates this is likely a
classified likely a classified memorandum that they did not
want out into the public. My case with ODNI brought its
existence out to the public. I've already filed a case for
this, we'll see if it's declassified. I'm hopeful it is.
It's possible if it is a classified memo, it was
classified because at the time it was written. The UAP research
effort or the task force may have been a classified topic at
the time later, it was obviously revealed. But that is something
that for again, the FOIA people out there, you really look for,
for the UAP UFO crowd. That's just interesting, because
there's more documents, hopefully to come. Now remember,
I talked about the tables and some of the pins I told you to
put in while we were talking about the report, you'll see
nothing here on the public side, because this is all brand new,
this was just in the classified version. And it breaks down UAP
reports by this could be pilots. I mean, again, this is just
purely speculation, but maybe just you know more of these
pilot category, ground observer radar tech operator who knows,
but they have what appears to be four different categories of UFO
observations by maybe sensors is another one, radar only,
whatever the four categories are, and then underneath that
are likely the numbers. So you'll see here the heading in
the table, you see a blue color there for watching visually,
these are probably again those categories, this is probably the
number jumping down here UAP detected by and then it was
redacted unidentified aerial phenomena, redacted headers here
in over half, over half of the 144 reports from US government
observers, redacted unidentified aerial phenomena, then a bunch
of redaction. So this could likely be maybe another table,
the headers classified who knows, but obviously a lot of
information here they do not want you to know. Figure one is
likely the most controversial redaction one that everybody
wants to see I've already briefly mentioned it well here
is likely a visual breakdown of the common shapes that are seen
in these cases. So the unidentified aerial phenomena
head or you can see up here under the figure one, some
redactions here, observers frequently described
unidentified aerial phenomena as likely that that shape, though
and then some redaction here, such as a and then a bunch of
more redaction shaped objects. So for whatever reason, yet
again, they do not want these common shapes revealed, here is
the table where they break that down. And then the less common
irregular shapes, you can do that. You know, speculate on
what is there as well. But how I translate this I was asked by
the hill I got to do an interview with the hill the
other day, how I how I translate this, I was a little surprised
by the question. Essentially, how I translate this to echo the
same definition here. These are just simply a breakdown of
shapes whether they be drawings, photos, Are both of the types of
UAP being seen? Are they photos? Are
they diagrams? Well, there's one of three possibilities. They're
all photos, or screenshots from video. They are all diagrams or
sketches or a mixture of both. If I were to bet $1 Right now, I
would say, a mixture of both. The less common irregular
shapes, same deal, probably maybe a one off encounter or
something very, very minimal, but they wanted to notate it as
well. My guess is it's a mixture of both. I'm veering away from
the report. This slide is not in the report. But I wanted to show
you guys an example of what might be under there. This is a
photograph captured by a Snoopy team that I believe was from the
USS stout, but I was able to get this recently declassified and
released. But you'll see here are photographs that were taken.
This came up in a UAP related case, you'll see here, this is
an obvious drone. So I'm not saying that this is anything but
but it goes under a UAP category. And so would we see
stuff like this under there? I'm not really sure. But it's it's
possible. You'll also see here in that particular case, there
was a exempted photograph here, was it another angle? Was it
another craft? What was it who knows, but you can see that some
they will share when it comes to UAP categories, some they will
not. I will use this in my appeal and my plea for saying
you should not redact shapes and descriptors. So my argument is
in very short, I mean, it'll be a much bigger length in the
appeal. But essentially, if you guys have descriptors,
identification, identifying markings, something like that a
caption that will connect it to a classified system, whatever it
might be. Those are acceptable redactions. However, when it
comes to the shapes, those I do not believe are justified. And
that is what I'm going to hone in on and hopefully get maybe
not if there are captions, maybe not all the captions, but
hopefully the shapes or something that will reveal what
they are, are photographing, or videotaping or whatever they may
be. Here's another appendix that was entirely new. In the
classified version that was released, obviously, you can see
about 50%, redacted here, collection by intelligence
discipline. And it breaks down the way that they collect the
intelligence geospatial intelligence, or, or, in other
words, information derived from an analysis of images and data
associated with a particular location. There's a full agency
that is dedicated to this called the NGA, not the ngi. A, as many
people reference it, but rather the NGA, that's the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency. Not not an agency that's talked
about a lot. But the NGA obviously plays a role in this
in this discussion and in these investigations. And in case
maybe in the live chat right now, I'm sure somebody is
saying, Hey, have you ever hit the NGA with requests? Yes, I
have. years ago, it came back negative when it came to UFO
related information. But given the information gleaned in this
report, I did file last year because they did talk about
geospatial intelligence in the public report as well. They just
didn't have this appendix. You can also see SIGINT or signals
intelligence is broken down. That's the intelligence
gathering by the interception of signals, whether communications
between people or from electronic signals. They also
use human or human intelligence. That is intelligence gathered by
means of interpersonal contact, Massena, int or Mason's
measurement in signals intelligence. I'm going to read
to the exact Department of Defense definition for this one.
This is measurement and signal intelligence. It's the
scientific and technical intelligence information
obtained by quantitative and qualitative analysis of data
collected by specific technical sensors. The data are collected
to identify distinctive features of the source, emitter or sender
and to facilitate its subsequent identification and or
measurement. So that is a breakdown of messenger nascent.
A pet Appendix B
also is brand new, Federal Bureau of Investigation support
of attribution efforts given the national security implications
associated with potential threats posed by UAP, operating
in close proximity to sensitive military activities,
installations, critical infrastructure or national
security sites. The FBI is positioned to use its
investigative capabilities and authorities to support
deliberate DOD and interagency efforts to do Sherman
attribution. In other words, they're calling on the FBI to
help out with this effort, although they were briefly
mentioned, in the public report that mentioned was only a line
or two. However, in this appendix, obviously, you can see
a lot is redacted, but expanded. So obviously, for an
investigator like me, this gives me a new target, even though I
already have hit them with FOIA requests last year, based on
their mention in the report, this shows me that they have a
much bigger involvement in the UAP effort, the research effort,
and whether or not that that continues on after the UAP task
force and this aeoi MSG office that is seemingly still getting
their feet on the ground, the FBI is going to be heavily
involved. I'm a little surprised at that, because there are
investigative arms within the Navy and within the air force
that can do those types of investigations. In fact, even
when you're talking about because the report talked about
it UAVs, commercial UAVs I've gotten NCIS, the Navy Criminal
Investigative Service, I've gotten those NCIS reports
investigating a commercial level drone going into a naval
installation. So I've gotten those before, not UAP or UFOs,
in the sense that we're talking about it. But regardless, they
do that type of investigation. So their involvement of the FBI
was a little bit surprising to me, but maybe they're expanding
outside the walls of the US military. And so they have to
get involved a law enforcement agency like that. So that's
understandable. I was still surprised nonetheless. Here's a
side by side of the public report, which in the public
report was Appendix A, in the classified was Appendix C, the
definition of key terms. Really, the only difference here was the
inclusion of range Fowler in the classified version, even though
you can see here, they kept it as a footnote. Why I'm not sure
I think it was an oversight. But regardless, there is an addition
of likely another word or terminology, a key term, if you
will, that is 100% redacted, from the the word or phrase
itself through the definition, so completely removed. They're
pretty interesting. Maybe the the citation is military plans,
weapon systems, or operations and vulnerabilities or
capabilities of systems. That to me, it doesn't make sense,
unless they have some kind of phrasing that talks about their
vulnerability. Not really sure. So that citation, I'm also
fighting in the appeal. Because I think the definition of
something shouldn't be classified. When it comes to
vulnerabilities or military plans. There are classified
keywords, and there have been in the past that have been
declassified. But when it comes to this, it didn't make sense.
So I'm going to fight that as well. Appendix B in the public
report was Appendix D in the classified version, this was a
breakdown of the Senate report accompanying the intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Again, was was
identical, no changes there. And that brings us to the end.
Hopefully, with that deep dive, it gives you guys an
understanding that even though it's frustrating at first
glance, you see this information, you see how much
redaction there is. And it's frustrating. But very much like
the public report when we got that, after that frustration
that it was only nine pages with the public report, and I was
frustrated as well. You walk away, you take a deep breath,
you come back, sit down, and you start digesting the information.
For me if you guys recall from that video, for those who saw
it, it spawned over 50 Freedom of Information Act request to
about 13 or 14 different agencies and military branches.
My point is, is that at first glance, things can be
frustrating or seemingly worthless. But when you come
back and really look, you now have a partial glimpse into what
is being bantered about in classified material and given to
the Senate and and other members of the House. And when you
digest that, you realize that there is much more to the story,
that they are getting much more to the story, a news channel,
not going to say it now it should air by the time this
drops, but I'll give it in the live chat. If it does. I just
never like to talk about it until it actually airs. So a
newscaster asked me today. What about the senators that have
come out or congressmen that have come out and said hey,
there's really a high likelihood that this is just, you know,
either a classified piece of technology or or a foreign
adversary and you know, everybody's kind of going to the
alien route. But my evidence kind of points elsewhere. Of
course, that's a paraphrased question and, quote,
but there have been those that have come out and said that
there's also been those that have come out and said, No, it's
not that. But regardless, they had asked me today, hey, what do
you what do you how do you respond to that. And my response
is simple. And this is the the value of a document like this,
that even though it is heavily redacted, it shows you that what
those politicians are saying that have that angle, that there
is a high likelihood of either a foreign adversary, or our own
technology, maybe being rumored about and so on. Not a single
case, in the classified version was referenced as being either,
not one. Now, there may be certain logical reasons on why.
But regardless, when you look at that fact, and you see those
politicians telling you, before this came out, telling you, it's
a high likelihood of that, but now we've learned that the
public version did not go into the level of detail detail that
they got in the classified version. And in that classified
version, not a single shred of evidence, will reinforce what
they are saying not not anything, the military was not
able to peg one foreign adversarial drone, or piece of
technological technology, or technological platform to any of
the UAP that were investigated. In addition, they were not able
to peg one single case, on any classified piece of us
technology. That, to me is a fascinating revelation that with
the resources behind the US government and the US military,
they still could not fit the cases into their own breakdown
of mundane explanations of logical explanations. They
couldn't do it, not once. So I think we have to look at that
and see value that even though we can't see under all of the
black that we can't see all under every redaction, we can
start filling in some of the blanks, and then start to
question why why will they not give us the capability of some
of these craft? Now some of you have may have heard me say in
the past, that there is a a high potential that some of these
cases are military tech. And I stand by that that's that's
that's the definition of potential. It could be it's a
possibility. I got a lot of heat for saying that on a Showtime
documentary by JJ Abrams, where I said it's possible that the
2004 incident is a classified platform classified piece of
tech. I still stand by that, even though the military
doesn't. And and I'm contradicting their own words
here. I still think that we have to wrestle with that possibility
that things are being withheld, maybe from a task force that
created this, I believe it was Christopher Mellon, who said
that, that there were efforts within the United States
government and military to keep all of the information from the
Taskforce. Well, if that's true, then we still have a possibility
there. So I've been called out by some of my haters about that,
and wanted to quickly address it, as I don't feel that it's a
contradiction to accept. The report says one thing, but also
the realization that the report could be wrong. Because if if
what Christopher Mellon is saying, and those surrounding
him have told him that the taskforce did not get all of the
information, it is quite possible that a highly
classified platform or piece of technology with was withheld
from them. And so when they create a document like this,
even though it's going to Congress, you really think the
military cares if Congress is misinformed, that when they
create it, and they are not given every piece of the puzzle,
that there are going to be errors. And I think that that's
why I stand by the possibility that some of this is potentially
a classified platform, or a piece of technology that we are
not aware of yet, or even that the task force was being told
about all possibilities, all good ideas, not only from me,
but from a lot of people out there. But at the end of the
day, it's speculation because we just don't know yet. I will keep
you guys informed of the appeal process as well. As of the
recording of this, I have 90 days to respond with an appeal.
I will likely not wait anywhere near that. But I like to take a
deep breath sometimes sleep on it. Read the document a few
times. And you know what, even doing videos like this, allow me
to see things while I'm talking to all of you and to see your
questions that give me ideas on how to fight some of these
redactions and sometimes see things that I didn't see the
first, the second or the 3,000th time I've read something. Doing
this is definitely a help for me, as well. So thank you guys
for sticking through This deep dive.
I don't do this level of detail often, but I feel with this
particular document, it was definitely warranted. And
hopefully it gave you guys an idea that even though it is
frustrating, as I mentioned, you look at the information and
really dissect every character. And it tells a much different
story than just, uh, oh, they're holding it from us. And I'm
really mad. Rather, it tells a story in itself. So hopefully
you guys got some, some use out of that. Please, if you could
help me out. As I said in the beginning of the show, if you're
watching a thumbs up really does help, make sure you're
subscribed to the channel. If you feel so inclined. A lot of
this work is motivated and supported by Patreon
subscribers. If you decide that $1 A month or whatever you'd
like to do, it supports this channel and these efforts
because sometimes it's it's not cheap, and you do have to do
filing fees. On some occasions, in some cases, reproduction,
search charges, all sorts of stuff 100% of all of that super
chats. If you saw any come in on the broadcasting of this 150% Go
to the channel. And hopefully you guys see that when it comes
to the quality of what I try and create for you. So truly, thank
you biggest help is spreading the word. So even though you
decide not to do a Patreon, don't worry, everything still
remains free. Nothing has ever been behind a paywall on the
black vault COMM For more than 25 years since I started.
However, it really does help support the site and allows me
to kind of expand the channel so to speak. So with that, thank
you. I really do appreciate it. I'm looking forward to reading
your comments. If you are listening to the audio version,
any type of review helps on the platform that you're you're
listening on whether it be iTunes, or whatever, whatever it
may be. But also on YouTube, please put your comments below.
Let me know what you think questions I try and get to them.
And maybe we'll do a live stream of a Colin show again. Get your
questions that way. Thank you so much for listening again. This
is John Greenewald, Jr signing off, and we'll see you next
time.