John Greenewald: In December of 2017, the gimbal UFO video was
published by The New York Times. Since then, it has captivated
believers and has become a target by the debunkers. Yet
despite the drastic difference in regards to interpretations by
both sides, one fact remains, the video is downright
intriguing. Now, new documents released to the black vault may
reveal that the weapon system officer or WIZO, who encountered
the craft appeared before Senate staffers in 2019. to brief them
on the event. The black vault sought records over the course
of three years, and now new documents have been released.
Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in and taking this journey inside the black vault
with me. I'm your host, John Greenwald, Jr, founder and
creator of the black vault calm. And although I had a little bit
of a different plan for recording today, right when I
was about to start that something popped into my inbox,
and I had to shift gears. And here's why. This actually
continues a story that I first wrote last year, however, the
research has now spanned since about 2019, I believe it was
when I first found reference to it. Now, let me go ahead and
kind of catch you guys up here. Before I get to the new
documents. Just as a refresher, if you didn't see this story, I
had originally published it November 16 2021. And hopefully
you can see it on your screen there. If you're watching on the
video version, or if you're listening to the audio, I'm just
going to read a few things as I go through here. But
essentially, at that time, when I wrote this last year, I had
already been chasing these documents for about two years.
And you can see here I did a video on it. You're more than
welcome to watch that. I'll link it in the show notes below. But
here is kind of the the paper trail that leads up to the
discovery today. And I really don't have all the answers, but
you may be interested in what I believe was just released. But
first, like I said, the background here in June of 2019,
I was going through all sorts of documents, the internal
communications to me are key when trying to understand what
is really going on. Sure, summary reports and project
documents and stuff like that. Yeah, those are all interesting,
but the behind the scenes banter, when you can get it
through FOIA is sometimes gold. And as you can see here, this is
part of that gold. Now in that 2019 request, this particular
email stuck out. And this was written by somebody inside the
Navy. And it was about a inquiry from Politico. So obviously
during the time that they were doing a UAP story. And
internally, you can see here team, please see the below. Can
you please check into it. I noticed on a previous o l a
weekly, there was a brief to some staffers on from a similar
sounding program office. So yes, that that error was in there
grammatically with the extra word. Oh, LA is Office of
Legislative Affairs. So obviously that was the office
within the Navy that was coordinating with Senate
staffers congressional staffers of some kind for a UAP briefing.
So I had filed another request. In this article, I go through
all the case numbers for anybody who wants to fact check, but had
filed another case then kind of branching out from that original
find. So I often you've heard this on this channel before, but
this is why, like in the FOIA process to a tree, and you start
with your trunk, and it just branches off and everything
else. This is a prime example of just that, where the trunk was
those original documents branched off into finding a
little bit more information about the briefing, which is
where at the time, I thought we were on the verge of exposing a
new UAP encounter. Not sure if we've debunked that possibility
yet, but bear with me. So that second FOIA case revealed this
anomalous aerial vehicle encounter brief to S A S. CpSm.
CSMs are professional staff members of the Senate Armed
Services Committee that's sa SC ON 16 January worry of an
unknown date in your should say, an F 18 pilot from VFA 103 met
with sa SC PSM and then a bunch of blacked out redacted here
likely indicating the names. Senate Armed Services Committee,
professional staff members have continuing interest in
unidentified aerial aerial vehicle intercepts that have
occurred in the working airspace off the US coast. And, again, a
redaction so likely a name gave a detailed brief on his personal
encounter. That was it out of that particular FOIA release a
little bit more detail.
But what was indicated here was that it was potentially a brand
new UAP encounter for a couple different reasons. VFA 103 That
is stationed at NAS Oceana, which is off, which is in
Virginia, and they primarily operate off the coast of
Virginia, which is where other aerial encounters have happened.
My friends over at the Dr. The war zone have covered that
extensively. I had cross referenced what they had
uncovered, and VFA 103 was not mentioned in any of those
encounters. So it seemed that this was something brand new.
Still could be. But But again, I'll get to that in a moment.
But that was where I felt, hey, we are on to potentially a new
case. So I filed you guessed it another FOIA request based on
the reference to this briefing. Now, let me go ahead and just
give me one moment here as I switch screens. So here is the
result of that FOIA request in just today. It's dated April 5,
but it was sent to me on April 6, of 2022. I won't read you the
whole letter. But what I was essentially looking for was the
following. All documents pertaining to a January 2019
briefing by an F 18. Pilot from VFA 103. stationed at Naval Air
Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. This briefing was
revealed in FOIA case I gave the case number and was referred to
in the following way. Quote, anomalous aerial vehicle
encounter brief to Senate Armed Service Committee professional
staff members on 16 January, and F 18. Pilot from VFA 103 met
with SAR CpSm SAR CpSm have continuing interest in
unidentified aerial aerial vehicle intercepts that have
occurred in the working airspace off the USGS coast and gave you
a detail and gave a detailed brief on his personal encounter,
I asked that you include all records that pertain to this
briefing, this would include but not be limited to emails,
reports, PowerPoint presentations, letters, memos,
videos, photos, etc. That may pertain to this request, I ask
that you use your best discretion of the officials
search. So the I know I reread a quote that I already read to you
in there. But again, I do that in FOIA is for the FOIA people
out there, I encourage you to do the same. It really gives them
as much detail as possible. And you're obviously citing
something that gives the evidence that what you're
requesting actually exists. So that's why you generally do that
seems repetitive or too much sometimes, but trust me, it's
very worthwhile. You can see here the Office of Legislative
Affairs has identified one document totaling four pages
that are responsive to your request. The redactions, which
we'll get to, but you can see here cited as b one. That's
national security information. You'll also see B five which is
considered internal deliberation. That's a very
tough one to fight it's sad when that comes up. And then also be
six which is kind of that privacy information names.
personally identifying information. Fast forward to the
document. It's a it's a four pages three with content of a
secret, email threat classified secrets, you can see here,
reason being national security information, whatever is
withheld under be one and the redactions are likely what makes
it secret. I'm going to read it for the audio version. It's not
very long, but at least you can follow me along on the video.
And if you're listening, here you go. The subject matter is AR
for 16 January FAA teen pilot brief to Senate Armed Service
Committee, professional staff members on anomalous aerial
vehicle detection event in 2015. Even though the I want to point
this out here you can see it was sent in 2019. For whatever
reason, they had redacted the date on that one FOIA released,
released don't ask me why I have no idea. It's very interesting.
You can see some of these redactions, but obviously now
we're starting to paint a picture here. 2015 event 2019
briefing. Here's the message itself again once classified
secret now declassified, with redactions
Admiral provided for your essay or situational awareness. The
following is an AR for the 16 January unclassified F 18. Pilot
brief given to Senate Armed Services Committee, professional
staff members, regarding an unresolved aerial vehicle
detection event off the coast of Jacksonville in redacted. Not
sure why, if that's a date, we've already established 2015.
And if it's a potentially designator for an area of
operation, maybe it looks too short to me, looks like a date.
So I think that was potentially a mistake, I am appealing this
if you probably haven't guessed already. And I'll go through
where I feel some of this stuff is is silly, but that is one
that I am appealing. Based on the potentially safe assumption
that it is a date. This AAR has not been coordinated with any
outside office or forwarded to anywhere else. And then you'll
see about two little more than two redacted lines. Exemption be
five, that's internal deliberation, not sure why.
summary on 16 January, then redacted as be one national
security information. So whatever they're hiding, they
don't want to maybe know us to know the year, although that was
already established, looks a little bit longer redaction
wise. So I'm not sure what's there, and 16 January. And
actually, let me rephrase that even though this looks like a
one. And you can see a six here, which is likely a name, this may
have been accidentally marked as a national security information.
So forgive me this is brand new to so I'm Hey, I may be
correcting myself here as I talk, because I've already gone
over this a couple times. But it's, as you can tell, kind of
hard to read an area. So I think that that's a one that likely is
mismarked. So on 16 January, potentially a name gave Senate
Armed Services Committee professional staff members his
account of an instance where he detected an anomalous air
vehicle in the warning area located and then redacted.
That's obviously the location be six redaction, which is a name
is currently serving as a pilot in also another be one redaction
national security information likely places that pilot in a
certain area, which they don't want to do during the time of
the incident in and then potentially looks like a be one
redaction. It's horrible. The way that this is compressed,
also looks like the length of a year. So during the time of the
incident in redacted, he was serving as a naval flight
officer in another redaction. The overall atmosphere in this
meeting was very professional. The PSM were genuinely
interested to hear his account of what happened during his era
vehicle detection in redacted. They continue to show interest
in learning more about this types of detections and they are
curious as to the way ahead, the Navy intends to take it. Now a
quick time stamp this is 2019. So again, a lot of things are
kind of unfolding here with the UAP Task Force, which hasn't
been acknowledged yet. Those guidelines that were reported by
Politico first, that were again, kind of around this timeframe,
things happen fast in the UAP world, but but but at this
point, you know, just to kind of timestamp it. That's where there
was kind of uncertainty on where the Navy was going to take it.
Let me continue reading in addition to and then redacted
with no citation to Naval aviators from OSI redacted. Were
also in attendance at this brief, redacted and redacted. So
obviously two names. Both of them had been part of squadrons
based out of NAS OCEANA. While they are no firsthand accounts
of detecting anomalous aerial vehicles, they were very
familiar with the occurrences and were queried by the
professional staff members a few times as to what they had
observed and learned in redacted and then another redaction
clearly a name was serving as a weapon systems officer in
redacted at that time the squadron was participating and
calm to come to x with the and then another national security
redaction as part of the pre deployment workup cycle, towards
the end of one of the night flights. Now, the redaction was
conducted during the ad C period. He in His pilot detected
an air contact via and then a redacted national security so
maybe a weapon system or a sensor of some kind. So via
redacted coming from the east and heading towards the ship
initially thinking it may be a simulated adversary aircraft as
part of the complex scenario. He took a redacted lock to
investigate further, the contact was at approximately redacted
With a stable track file,
the two aircraft determined that it was not a false hit. And they
were able to gain a lock via the and then redacted line and a
half or about a line or so, which further indicated the
vehicle had a redacted it became clear via or via I say it both
ways via and then quite a few redacted lines. The pilot
maneuvered the redacted to maintain redacted lock in an
effort to redacted I, again, doing this for the audio
version. It sounds a little bit silly, but I'm trying to give a
verbal representation of what we are seeing here visually, for
those watching the video. And now for you listening this next
line is going to upset a lot of people. Because this was the
most frustrating aspect of the declassified but heavily
redacted, classified UAP report that I reported on about a week
and a half ago, obviously made worldwide headlines, because
that was something that had never been out before and gave a
little bit more information. The most frustrating aspect, all of
the shapes of the UAP detected through their study, were all
redacted. Well look at here, the next line says the air vehicle
appear to be shaped like and then redacted. And in fact, it's
not a short redaction, it goes on for quite a bit. A pretty big
portion of the page, maybe about 30% or so a third of it, that is
redacted. All be one, all national security information.
So obviously, it goes well into detail beyond just a shape. What
that detail is is unknown. Now beyond this heavily redacted
paragraph, there is one sentence that survived that big old
blackbox for national security reason. And for me, it's
potentially the most intriguing aspect of this whole release.
And it reads in December 2017, a portion of that video was aired
by the press and congressional interest in these sightings
began to grow. If all of this is the same 2015 encounter, so
everything here that we can't read, assuming that they are
talking about the shape, and then potentially other
characteristics. I mean, who knows, there's quite a lot of
information you can fit in there. But assuming they didn't
shift gears, and in this portion of the redacted area shifts
gears to the gimbal sighting and then they reveal this line. In
December 2017, a portion of that video was aired.
It may be safe to say that this entire thing is the pilot of the
gimbal. Video coming forward and giving this unclassified
briefing. Now we know in December of 2017, there were two
videos that were published the FLIR which was the Nimitz
encounter video from November of 2004, published by The New York
Times, that's obviously not this, because we've already made
reference to 2015. And then the gimbal video, and a story that I
wrote quite a few years ago now got the Navy on the record about
that video, it had never been revealed before, that the gimbal
video was shot on 21, January 2015. That fits, that also fits
the comp 2x connection, that training, which let me pull up
here a different article I'm looking at make sure I get the
dates, right, that lasted from January 15 through February 4.
So if this was shot in 2013 2015, meaning the gimbal in
2015 on 21, January, then that fits. And I have I mean I'm sure
somebody talked about it. So just trust me, my brain is fried
with all of these different dates and acronyms and stories
and trying to keep up on all SAP this and a tip that and UAP over
here and UFO over there, and so on and so forth. So it's kind of
hard, but I'm sure someone somewhere talked about the
complex connection. It just didn't really ring a bell to me.
But regardless, you put all those pieces together the
puzzle, it appears that this is likely the gimbal pilot who gave
the briefing, they talked about the video that created the the
congressional interest based on it being published. And so all
of this, but I'd love to see it, because I think you know people
like Mick West who have really dug in and analyze the video.
This information could be key to either confirming what he's been
saying or potentially saying sorry, this additional
information proves otherwise. So that is something that I think
we will fight for through the appeal. And yes, I am
structuring it probably in the next week or so I have 90 days
to do it. So at a time like this, I usually take a deep
breath digest it read all of this a couple of times, see what
I can fight, see what's a lost cause and go from there. So I
want to go back to reading the document for you. But again,
that that really was a key line I wanted to make sure I pointed
out to you. In this email chain that was written to this
Admiral, by the way, if I didn't mention it, the admiral is
unknown. It's just a Admiral because the names are redacted.
But in this email and kind of sexual awareness, situational
awareness briefing to the admiral, they also do a bullet
point list of what the professional staff members were
interested in. So I'm going to read those PSM interest areas to
you. The staffers asked if the object seemed aware of the
redacted or the Navy ships in the area. The staffers also
asked, redacted if he knew if the redacted observe the
unidentified craft via radar as he did. I'm kind of curious what
they're referring to. They're like what else was in the area
that they cannot name? So that's kind of interesting. And they
wanted to see if the objects were aware of against something
that they could not name. So what, during this complex
exercise, was that classified for them not to be able to be
mentioned? I'm not insinuating a conspiracy, by the way on that,
but rather intrigue that they have this, this type of new
sensor weaponry, what do they got out there? Not really sure.
staffers were interested in the shape of the unidentified
object, and how it compared to the redacted objects identified
by other pilots. So other pilots were seeing something that were
identified, but they can't tell you what it was. So that also
was in a very intriguing redaction there that what is
what is the threat to national security that pilots were
seeing, and how did they compare to this other pilots sighting
insinuating potentially the same thing? Obviously, the staffers
are, are good with their questioning. I mean, no
complaints. It looks like they were genuinely interested in
digging.
staffers were interested in the amount of experience redacted
had and the amount of flight hours he had, they were very
respectful of his opinions and thoughts based on his 700 plus
hours of experience at the time. Likely, that's the gimbal pilot,
the guy who filmed the gimbal video, we now know he's got over
700 hours of flight time as experience. Staffers also asked
about the action the Navy took following redacted returned to
the ship to include his deep debrief by the intelligence
professionals and actions taken by the CV W staff, commander of
the strike group, and others throughout the chain of command.
The staffers were disappointed by the lack of action taken by
the Navy. They also wondered what happened to the video
evidence of the encounter. The staffers also asked if redacted
was forced to take a drug test following the incident or was
harassed. A couple things to unpack there. What happened to
the video? So if this is the gimbal, and they've already made
reference to it, what are they talking about? Is there an
extended one? Is there a second incident? So maybe that blacked
out paragraph does talk about another incident? And then it
kind of shifts gears under the redactions. So we don't know.
And that it ends with in December 17. This came out and
created the interest. So are we putting that together? I don't
know. Everything else matches up, though. So it's one of
those. Look, we're working together. I don't have all the
answers. It's why I love to do videos like this to kind of show
you guys hey, this is what we have. This is what we know, this
is what we've learned. And this is what we have no idea about.
And that is one of those things where I think we have just no
idea at this point. The other part was, where did the drug
test and harassment question come from? Other than was that
based on experience? Meaning did those PMS hear that before and
go, Hey, you know, is this a trend? Are they drug testing all
these guys? Did they encourage the drug testing? Did they
discourage the drug testing? You know, what, what what was the
root of that question? Sadly, with these bullet points,
they're just that it's not a transcript, not a quote. We also
don't hear what the pilot said in response to these questions,
which is also very much a shame. Next point the staffers also
asked about the chain of custody of the video of the encounter.
The staffers are genuine generally disappointed that the
Navy does not save any video of these encounters and the chain
of custody is lacking. So that also may play in that the gimbal
clip That kind of maybe was saved as a just that a clip was
the one that came out that leaked out, then later approved
for release a couple years later by the Navy. Is there something
else was there something was there an extended version that
was talked about here that wasn't saved. And I hate to say
it, this actually coincides with the Navy stance, that what they
released in that FOIA request that I had done that that
spanned a couple years. And then again, they did that proactive
release publicly. It reinforces that there's nothing else. Now
keep in mind, this was a classified secret exchange up
until today. So all of this on these types of conspiracies. And
trust me, I'm all for a good conspiracy and cover up. When
you allege something, you have to back it up. And if you don't
have the backed up evidence, we don't know if the Navy is lying.
But sadly, this does reinforce the stance. And when you start
getting evidence like this, what's the more likely scenario
that maybe it's true, they don't have a bigger clip, or that they
are fabricating all this material to throw us all off?
And they have like a 28 minute or 23 minute, you know, gimbal
video, I doubt it. So I feel that maybe we're on to the
reality that whatever we have on the gimbal video wise, is it and
there's not going to be anything miraculously discovered. What
we'll see, I hope I'm wrong. I'm just saying like these, these
are pieces of the puzzle, and we just have to take it all for
what it's worth. Next bullet point overall, the staffers
desired, redacted to spread the word that Congress is interested
in this topic and are willing to hear about their experiences.
Staffers asked all three naval aviators why they had the
perception that the unidentified objects were redacted. The
staffers were shocked that the range Fowler's in 2014 to 2015.
redacted full line. That is the first time a pilot communicated
to the staffers
redacted to a large extent. Pretty interesting there on the
redactions. Wonder what that is. Whenever you see the word
shocked in anything, means there's something good. Of
course it has to be redacted. Next point finally the SSC I
staffer wanted to know the official Navy response and
reaction to these reports and observances be great to know
what the pilot said. The staffers indicated that Senator
Reed, Senator Durbin and Senator Menendez were all interested in
this topic and will likely desire to talk with pilots
directly who observed these unexplained craft. Last one, I
think, no, yes. Yes. last bullet point. The SAIC staffers
indicated there is a low possibility that this topic will
come up during the CMOS posture hearings scheduled for February
to March 2019. You'll see here a bunch of redaction big paragraph
B five, that's internal deliberation, not really sure
what in what could be there. It could be just personal banter to
the admiral a lot of times you do see B five as a redaction.
The B five redaction, as I noted earlier in the video very hard
to fight. But in the same respect, it's also a highly
controversial citation. And it's been bantered about for many,
many years. And Congress is aiming to try and help
redactions utilizing be five and essentially what we call it in
the FOIA world. Some of you may have heard me say this before.
It's essentially the redacted if you want to exemption, there's
no rhyme or reason. And that's why it's so controversial, so
I'm fighting that as well and hopes to get some of it. On
another minor note, I'll go back to the minor note. Here you can
see the the redactions on the names, Navy Office of
Legislative Affairs. You can see there, it's all redacted. But
that's where it came. All the people that were in attendance
are all redacted under be six that's pretty standard. I would
imagine one of the individuals here from oni would be Jay
Stratton. You've heard me talk about him quite a bit. He was
what was then revealed, although I kind of assumed it from 2019.
Very, very involved in the UAP effort with the Navy. It was
then revealed through FOIA that he was the one that originally
wrote some of the UAP statements I got that broke the story that
the gimbal FLIR and go fast were considered an identified and
labeled as UAP. And then recently, in the last couple of
months got a navy document that solidified in black and white he
was the head of the UAP Task Force And he was the guy giving
the classified briefings. So when I say pieces of the puzzle,
you have to really piece together stuff because some of
those documents to piece, all of that together came from the DOD,
and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and NASA, and the Navy. So you're going to put all those
together to create a much bigger picture. So you can see here,
more names,
more names. And just the identifier, there, again, was
secret that was declassified. I always love seeing this. it
dispels the myth, the myth that no classified information can
ever be released through FOIA until it hits I think somebody
said 30 years. That was all bunk. You can see here
declassify on 2046. Yet I was still able to get it. So that
debunks the myth. I always love debunking those types of silly
myths. Anyway, that's it. That's a breakdown of the document, you
can see there's still a lot of unanswered questions. But this
really takes that story to the next level to where we learn a
few other things. Now, that minor note that I referenced, I
want to go back to it very, very quickly and close the video with
this. I don't really have an exact exact answer to this. But
I want to point it out because I think I know what's going on. If
on your screen. You can see I'm going to zoom in here. It gets a
little bit blurry. I'm sorry for the audio version. But hopefully
my point will resonate verbally as well. Look at the difference
in redactions that were utilized and how they were redacted. And
you can see here that this was obviously put in on the copy
that I'm looking at. Likely these redactions were added on
that copy. This redaction is different see how these
redactions are different and the redacted different and red and
much more compressed, and this is much more crisp. That
indicates a multi layer, review process. And redactions being
added by multiple layers of that review process. So likely this
was the first review. It gets copied. And just because I've
scanned millions of documents, this likely was then scanned in
the way that this looks. Then more redactions were added by
somebody else. So whomever did the original one and only
redacted this, somebody decided to redact everything else. So I
bet you in my appeal, I'm going to note that and say that likely
what we are looking at are multiple layered redactions. And
essentially that this information probably passed the
clearance of that first layer. And they didn't have an
objection. But somebody else came aboard and said, Nope,
redact everything. You can see here to the difference, that
these redactions were likely from that first layer, and then
others came after. And you can see that by again, the different
coloring of the layers. And you can see here that potentially
there was a third, where you have these types of redactions
that look like they were part of the scan. But different colored
redactions. And no, they generally don't change the color
based on the redaction itself. Because here is an obvious B six
redaction, which is white, probably that first or you know,
first layer, and there's a B six redaction, which is potentially
a second layer, but in red, different font, and everything.
So I think that potentially, we're looking at if I were to
guess, three layers, the first two layers, they do all the ones
that you see that are better, again, the red and the white,
but very heavily compressed. The third layer comes in you can see
here, another very crisp B five, and a very crisp black
redaction. And I know that that some of you may think I'm going
crazy pointing that out. But I want to do that because it shows
the immense secrecy of the UAP and UFO topic. But on top of
that, how many hands are going into redacting these records?
Now review processes do take place in non UFO and UAP related
cases throughout every agency that's
common, don't get me wrong. But I will say that the redactions
like this, stick out to me on on this particular request as being
abnormal. So reviews, absolutely normal. But let adding layers of
redactions that are likely passing, passing the test
through one and they're allowed to release it, but then it goes
to somebody else and like now it can't release this doesn't make
any sense. All of this is probably Navy information also.
So we're not dealing with other agencies, which is sometimes you
you deal with, so Navy will do a pass on their information. But
then someone else does another layer of air force if they have
information on it. I saw that in the in the classified report
that I got released where 13 different entities had to review
their respective information for release Here is all navy. So Oh
La the Office of Legislative Affairs, navy, navy. Sure, the
Senate Armed Services Committee, the professional staff members
took a role. But they don't do the redactions because they are
not what's called a OPR. They're not an office of primary
responsibility, or OCA, the original classifying authority
of information like this. So likely too much info for some of
you. But for you geeks like me, I love stuff like that, because
again, it reinforces that secrecy. And the very careful
process that they've now developed to release UFO and UFO
related information and UAP related information. So not sure
if we're on that road to disclosure like some people say,
and others have claimed a new era of transparency and all
although I do agree, and it's a good thing that the conversation
has changed. It is like pulling teeth to get records like this.
So that disclosure, and that era of transparency. You can see
from this video alone, why I respectfully disagree.
Hopefully, you guys got some use out of it. Please, by all means,
if you're watching on YouTube, give me your comments below. I
always like reading those your ideas, your responses, please
feel free to post and while you're down there, as you know
not to beat the dead horse, please click that thumbs up
button. And make sure you are subscribed to the channel
sharing is the biggest help. And if you feel so inclined, there
is a patreon link for as little as $1 a month it goes right back
into this website. And trust me every penny helps keep all of
this online and the research flowing. If you're listening on
the audio podcast version, or you don't know there's an audio
podcast version, just know that on every podcast platform,
search for the black vault, radio, most of these
presentations but not all go down to audio form so even
though I use a lot of visuals, I do try and make a effort to to
make all the verbal things that I say makes sense even though
some of you may not be able to see the visuals. And if you're
listening and had no idea had a YouTube channel, I'll give you
the reverse go to www dot the black vault comm slash live that
will bounce you to the visual presentation. And have fun make
sure you subscribe to both and again, any review helps. I
really do appreciate your time. This is John Greenewald Jr,
signing off, and we'll see you next time