John Greenewald: One thing that blows me away about this on
March 29 2019, an online video series called The basement
office dropped its first episode.
Steven Greenstreet: My name is Steven Green Street. I'm a
journalist with the New York Post. Over the next few
episodes, we're going to examine the UFO phenomenon from every
possible angle.
John Greenewald: After 20 videos dropped to their YouTube's
playlist over the course of about two years production seem
to stop. But behind the scenes, the work, never did. Greenstreet
has been busy meticulously putting together puzzle pieces
about alleged paranormal themed government programs and the
people that ran them. Awesome. A tip werewolves, Dyno beavers,
Luis Elizondo, Skinwalker Ranch, James McCaskey, and all sorts of
other breadcrumbs have been under green Street's microscope.
He can't be a year or two off the result, a near 44 minute
full length documentary style video to show that even though
you think you know what this entire story is all about,
chances are, you probably don't. On top of that, it was Stephen
Green Street himself is about to enter the vault to showcase some
of the biggest questions that arise from the contradicting
evidence. So stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the
black vault.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in and making this your podcast of choice. I'm your
host, John Greenwald, Jr. and today I am joined by Steven
Green Street. Now he has just recently launched his new
episode of the basement office. It has been a popular online
series. You've heard a little bit about it in the intro. But
Steven, thank you so much for coming back to the show. And
taking some time with us today.
Steven Greenstreet: Sure, of course, I love being here.
John Greenewald: And and we love having you. We always love your
perspective. Obviously, the basement office, as I said, has
been a hit. A lot of people are watching it. And there was a lot
of anticipation for this episode that just dropped. Now, I want
to stress to the audience. Watch it. And in fact, if you're not
watching this live or the premiere, go ahead and pause the
video because I would encourage you to watch Stephens almost 45
minute break down of all SAP a tip and that entire saga because
I'm not going to have him go over those points. I encourage
you all to watch that. but rather we're going to talk about
the making of it the background and what the reaction has been
in this episode. So Steven, let me take you back though before
you made that episode all the way back to the beginning of the
basement office. Put your mind back there. What did you want to
accomplish with that series?
Steven Greenstreet: Right. So I got into the UFO game back in
spring 2019. So that would be you know, around 18 months after
this big bombshell story started and the snowball started down
the hill. And I mean, honestly how the basement office came
about was a random like, statistician, an analytics
person came up to the video team and they said, Hey, like this
UFO story, people are searching for UFO stuff. Like maybe you
should do something in video about UFOs ongoing. So they came
to me and they said pitch us an idea. And I didn't want to do
like a History Channel show where it was like all these
recreations and like gravitas. NARRATION So my thought was just
two dudes sitting at a desk talking about facts and evidence
about UFOs that was it. And when I when it came to me up until
that point, I was just a spectator. I was just a
spectator to the New York Times article, and I didn't I hadn't
dug into any of this. I just took it at face value. That what
every one in the media was saying at least the basics were
true. Because, you know, sometimes topics they get
politicized were the right you know, appropriate to end becomes
a right wing issue or the left appropriate that becomes a left
wing issue. But this was like a topic where everyone across the
spectrum was very gurjit tating the same story that times CNN,
Fox News, MSNBC, Politico, everyone was like on the basics.
And so when I entered the game, I assumed wrongly mistakingly
that everyone in the world at least had the basics right. You
know, I saw that I started there. Okay. This has been
reported for 18 months. I'm assuming the basics are correct.
So that was my launch pad was assumed the basics are correct
here and go from there. And it was, you know, weirdly right off
the bat, some weird things happen, John. You know, I was
asked, you know, well, you know, for our show, we should get our
own Pentagon statement. So rather than saying CNN reported,
the Pentagon said, or the Times reported, the Pentagon said,
Let's be able to say the Pentagon told us I was like,
Yeah, okay, great. reached out to the Pentagon, and then bam, I
get two bombshells in the same email. I didn't think I was
gonna get anything new at that point. 18 months into the story.
I'm just like, you know, the lobby dial like, hey, Pentagon
just want a statement or about a tip and Elizondo thinks, and
then they write back saying, you know, a tip did investigate UAP
and Elizondo had no responsibilities with a tip. And
so we're just right off the bat. It was a very, like, head
shaking moment, where, how is it possible? How is it possible
that 18 months into this, some random dude in the basement of
the New York Post, sends off a generic email and gets to
bombshells? Why didn't anyone else ask about this? Why was I
the first to get these statements? You know, it was
weird to me. It's like, Wait, surely someone reported this
already. And I spent weeks when not weeks, you know, maybe about
a week and a half, making sure that no one else had reported
that that no one else had the statement. And you know, I
interviewed you about it. To that first video, you're in it.
And it was a shocking thing for the Pentagon to say at that
point. Yeah. And then you know, the Pentagon saying he had
Elizondo had no responsibilities. I was like,
Well, wait. 18 months have gone by and no one has bothered to
ask this or to get this statement. And I worked on a
story for weeks on the Pentagon Elizondo had no
responsibilities. And in the emails, actually, that you FoId
that are on the black pole. You can read my correspondence with
Chris Sherwood, and there was this ongoing thing where he
said, he was like, Oh, we're gonna get you his employment
records, we're gonna send you Elexon as employment records.
And, you know, I was really happy about that, because that's
documentation. Right? I could release a story. And here the
documents here is the employment records that say this or
whatever. And I was waiting on those waiting on those. I had a
story it never launched, it never aired. And then I was
scooped by Keith klore, which, you know, for anyone out there.
It's, that is a unique moment, if I had to like one of them on
and I'm not being facetious, one of the worst, most terrible days
of my life.
was waking up on June 1 2019. And seeing the intercept and
Keith klore released a story that I had worked on for like
weeks and got scooped and like my story just never published.
After that,
John Greenewald: why do you if you don't mind me interjecting?
Why do you feel that that's an important aspect to the story
because a lot of people will argue the government lies. So
who you know, who cares what the government says? In your view,
coming into the topic and seeing what you did? You did get that
bombshell thing you use the word shocked. I think that I use the
same word when you interviewed me because it was shocking. They
had already set up that they were not investigating UAP then
all of a sudden boom, you get the statement that they were Why
was the other part of that important to you? Why did you
feel that was a big story?
Steven Greenstreet: The Elizondo had no responsibilities. Just to
get your point of view at the at the time at the time history
channel was promoting the unidentified show, right. And it
was, you know, it was being advertised and promoted and
everything. And I thought it was a bombshell in of itself that
this story which was snow balling, and was about to
release a big documentary. We're literally in the trailer for the
History Channel show. It says he ran the Pentagon's top secret
UFO program, like literally big green ethnic on screen. And here
I have a statement from the Pentagon saying no. So obviously
that's a big story. And that's important. But on top of that,
it was, it was weird to me that, again, why I was the first one
to get this statement. And it infer what that told me is no
one was picking up the phone. No one was sending an email to the
PA to know it, there was this copy paste since December 2017.
For the most part, a copy paste of the same story. One of the
Times reported this, let's regurgitate it, let's rewrite
it, let's release it, and on and on and on and on. No one was
like stopping and going, let's get into the weeds on this a
little bit. So I was off put by that, but I was like, why am I
the first to get this? In fact, another way, you know, when I
called the DIA when I spoke to James Kudla you know, and I was
asking him about a tip and Elizondo the first sentence out
of his mouth, from his mouth to my ears was wow, I haven't been
asked that in a long time. I haven't been asked about that in
a long time. And I was like, what really? You're phone should
be lit up every day about this. So anyway, I was. So anyway, was
a big story and there was a whole process behind. So at the
time, there was a PR firm handling the promotion for
unidentified and went we first reached out to Elizondo I didn't
we had like, a talent outreach person at the post, okay, whose
talent was finding talent, you know, getting to their
representatives, getting them on the phone. And she said that
Elizondo, she got Elizondo on the phone. And he was talkative,
and happy to talk and Hell yeah, let's do this. I'll do an
interview with you guys who, and then that got shut down like
overnight, the PR firm handling TTSA, or at least the History
Channel show was a big PR firm. They emailed me and they're
like, We understand. You want to talk to Elizondo? What about and
like from there, it was just me in the PR firm. And you know, I
had the this girl call Elizondo back, and it was like not
happening. And this PR firm was like, What do you want to know?
And I was like, Well, I just got this statement from the Pentagon
that says, Elizondo had nothing to do with ATF. And they
replied, he'll talk to you off record about that. And I was
like, Well, I'm not interested in that. I'm not interested in
off record, I want to I want a response. And I would like it
from him. And they were like, Nope, that's not going to
happen. And then they copied and pasted, carried alongs statement
about, you know, he started in 2010, and a tip and, and all
that stuff. And I was like, that's great. But the Pentagon
is saying the opposite of that, like, can I get better? And then
they got, like, angry with me. This PR firm, they're like,
what's your angle here? It doesn't sound like what like
they got really defensive. And and then when it became
apparent, I wasn't getting anything else. You know, I kind
of went with Sherwood and I was like, Look, I need more than a
statement if you have it. Do you have any documentation? Is there
anything I can get sure where it was like, we'll send you some,
some employment records. I'm working to get those I think he
said I'm working to get his employment records. And I was
like, Great, perfect. That's, you know, that helps. And then
close thing dropped and my story died.
John Greenewald: So from there, where did you go with this?
Where are you in the mindset and this is before this recent
episode, but but post, you know, the intercept, you know, got the
scoop. But post that. Where were you at? Were you thinking okay,
the government is really being a pain here. They're obfuscating
Elizondo is lying Where were you at?
Steven Greenstreet: So I was I still had that like, benefit of
the doubt where I, who was I to say that nearly every media
entity on planet Earth was wrong. That's how I felt at that
point. I was just the video dude in the basement of the New York
Post. And so I didn't start off on the right foot I should have
started blank slate you know myself and just started from
there. But I didn't start from there. I started with the
assumption in the benefit of the doubt that everything that's
been reported globally, the basics are true. Now, I was
starting to think that there might be something personal and
I think I even reported this or at least did an interview back
in the day where I felt like people within the Pentagon had a
personal issue with Elizondo and there was like they were out to
get him you know, and Elizondo push that as well. He spoke that
as well. Hello, he been fired filed, a DOD IG complained about
that. So there was a quote from Sherwood, to me about how he's
not really happy with the way they're handling the story. It
was like this break, he broke out of his PEO shell and like,
gave me this line. And I was like, Whoa, what is going on
over at the Pentagon? You know, so there was I did smell
something weird there. And so I just assumed that could be what
was happening. And it didn't surprise me at the time. Because
the headspace I was in was, you know, the basic details are
true.
John Greenewald: And that line he gave you was
Steven Greenstreet: Sherwood, Sherwood, Sherwood told me, you
know, I was, I was going back and forth with him about a two
minute Lozado. And I was just like, look what's going on. I
literally was like, on the phone to share what I was like, What's
going on over there? Like, why is this such a tough thing? I'm
asking yes or no questions. Why can't you give me yes or no
answers? And he sighed and said, I'm not really happy with the
way they're handling the story. The story here, and I was like,
Who? Oh, okay. You're frustrated? I got it. Like,
there's something behind the scenes going on here.
John Greenewald: Yeah. Now, obviously, now you've set up
exploring the story that there's problems in the Pentagon. But
now fast forward. You had again, I don't mean to beat the dead
horse, but a successful run with that basement office. You know,
first you had 20 videos in the in the playlist, people have
been highly anticipating you to keep going. And now you've
you've released your newest video, in a nutshell, why? How
would you describe your recent video?
Steven Greenstreet: My recent video is the culmination of at
least a year plus, of me losing my religion of me. It's the end
result of me asking myself, What if I'm wrong about all of this,
and challenging myself, to prove to myself that I'm not wrong?
Because as you said, I did 20 Plus episodes of the basement
saying one thing, I challenged myself to continue that to keep
going and toeing that line. And I quickly discovered I couldn't
do that video. This new episode is the culmination of what I've
discovered in the last year.
John Greenewald: And when you say challenge your belief were
you set in something and then you had a kind of moment of of
change.
Steven Greenstreet: Yeah, yeah. The I was wrong. And I was I
didn't realize it completely. At the time, the red flag started
to appear. I was immediate lackey I was I was a messenger
boy. I was being groomed to release PR statements to the
masses for disingenuous people that on
John Greenewald: the Pentagon side or outside of the Pentagon,
just to clarify, Lou
Steven Greenstreet: Elizondo. To clarify, I was being groomed in
use that's this is just how I feel this is my opinion, and how
it My interpretation is that there was a buddy buddy thing
happening. A buddy buddy thing happening and where it's like,
you know, Steve's the guy we're gonna reach out to if we have a
message to get out there, Steve, Steve, Steve's one of the guys,
we're going to hit up and support because we want whatever
story to hit the headlines. And I slowly started to realize that
and it wasn't until I got this document sent to me in May 2021,
where I went, Oh, it's just like, my whole world collapsed.
And I was just like, Oh, my God.
John Greenewald: Oh, is that but I have to jump in. You just
flashed? I'm guessing the complaint. Yeah, this is the DoD
IG because you have a screenshot I think of one of the pages in
your video and that's the Yep. Okay. I think that you showed
that in the video. Okay, so this made you have a shift.
Steven Greenstreet: It was. If you go back and watch the show,
all the episodes, you'll see if I'm critical, and I ask critical
questions. So I was always kind of milking that critical side of
myself. But when I got the DoD IG complaint, which was sent to
me, I asked for, I asked for it directly. Tell us on those
representative who said To me, and I was at, you know, and I'll
never forget, it was like may 20 or something. No, maybe it was
June. I stayed up till 3am drinking scotch and just like
rubbing my head. And at one point I called Tim McMillan in
Germany, because I knew he had it as well. And I was I needed
to talk to someone because I was just like, some of this stuff
doesn't make sense to me. Like some of this stuff just isn't
making sense to me. And I needed someone to like talk to talk me
through it. And because they're the story we were told in 2017.
And, and since there were things in this DoD IG complaint written
in his word sign with his signature that I was confused
about and going like, Well, wait, wait a second here. And
that's, that was the beginning. That was it. That was the
beginning of my downfall. That was the beginning of my heresy.
John Greenewald: So what, Wolf? Okay, I've to two questions very
quickly. So it seems like a lot of you have gotten this IG
complaint. I asked Elizondo his team, but but that's shut down.
It was a private communication. So I'm not gonna say I was told
no, I tried through FOIA, it was denied. How many people are
getting this? And why is the second part of that that
question
Steven Greenstreet: was Hold on a sec, I just want to show you.
John Greenewald: Can you send me a copy of the IG complaint
vendor got? Yeah. Like, I assume that was either to Louise
Elizondo, or his PR people.
Steven Greenstreet: So yeah. And they sent it to me. And so as
far as I know, Brian Bender, Tim McMillan me. And I believe the
representative told me, someone at NBC. Also got it. Okay. But
weirdly enough, weirdly enough, like all these random trolls on
Twitter, have come out over the last two weeks claiming shocking
in nearly proving that they also got it. So it's almost like it
was it was sent out to people. Look, it was sent to people they
felt comfortable with it.
John Greenewald: Was there a purpose? Can I ask that? Was
there a reason why they thought okay, Stephen Green Street
serves X purpose. Let's give it to him. What did they want?
Steven Greenstreet: A roll. Look at the look at the episode of
the basement office I released in June of 2021. That's what
they wanted. And that's what I produced. It was a defensive
that Lou Elizondo claims x about the Pentagon and they're after
him, and I have documentation exclusively, showing that
they're after him, you know, and he's running for Congress. And
he's the victim. You know, it was like that kind of, I mean,
the behind the scenes chats were like, Pat's on the back to me to
me. Good job, man. You nailed that one, you know, that kind of
thing.
John Greenewald: I may get lambasted for this question by
some people that are likely watching this throwing eggs at
their monitor. But did you feel or have you felt or do you feel
conclusively that you were being groomed as let's say, like an
asset rather than a journalist for them?
Steven Greenstreet: Yeah. I mean, not groomed that word,
maybe a little weird, but I was being utilized as a go to I was
in the inner circle. I could pick up the phone and talk to
whoever you know, and get the inside stuff. And there there
was this feeling of I was a vessel a he's a guy we can trust
to get our thing out, you know, and that's not uncommon at all,
I mean, whether you're a shoe company or a celebrity or
whatever, you find your for a good PR firm finds their
sympathetic voice in the media and like milks that you know, of
course, and I felt like I was becoming that and it felt gross
and it felt like I was selling out and I the things that I
heard on some of those phone calls, you know, such as so
literally on the phone with representatives with Lou
Elizondo telling me so and so. Oh, so ones over there
complaining that everyone seems to be making money off this
except for us. And, and just like, you know, true behind the
scenes stuff, where it wasn't like this stately Pentagon guy
in a suit on CNN, like, just the facts, Joe, you know, that kind
of thing, but like behind the scenes stuff, just some crazy
stuff, man, look, I'm not gonna, like, reveal some of these
sources, but I was hearing stories about like fortune
tellings and predicting the future and magic and just a
whole bunch of like crazy stuff and ranting and raving and I did
it was bizarre to me.
John Greenewald: It's bizarre to hear with that. I don't want to
keep keep focusing on that, because I don't want you to
betray, you know, again, sources or confidential conversations,
but I can obviously see where you're going. And it's very
admirable. I know. And I've seen people say this on social media,
and I'll tell you the same, it would be a lot easier for you to
have gone on and written that train and stayed on it. versus
going, You know what, this isn't right, this is gross. This is
making me dirty. I, you know, I'm out. I'm not putting words
in your mouth, but rather, you know, good for you, honestly,
because I can see how you could easily have a much better time
in this conversation by staying where you were, but you saw
enough to go elsewhere, which I think is telling Yeah.
Steven Greenstreet: I've said this too, you know, in 2019,
when I released that big story. And then when I released the
first season of the basement office, I had like, what 900
followers on Twitter. And then it was just like, boom, like, I
got this like outpouring of like love adoration, who's this new
guy, the new for this new voice, we love you great job. And like
that can become addicted to that like dopamine fix of like
validation. You wake up every day to dozens of messages of
people saying they love what you do and everything you say, and
all this stuff that can become addictive. And I realized about
a year, year and a half ago, that was disingenuous, it was I
could do it, my life is so much easier. If I don't go this way.
If I just toe the line and keep repeating the statements, and
pushing the fantasy and the absolute delusion if I keep
doing that, who knows, like maybe you know, I'm hosting
coast to coast in five years or something, you know, like, there
was a trajectory. Words, literally word spoken to my ears
from powerful type people within the niche. You could be the new
face of this, you could be the new face of this. You're going
to have your own show one day, and I'm not talking New York
Post, you're going to have your own show one day. These were
things told to me. And I burned all of that to the fucking
ground. All have it. Like kids at the end of the day, it just
there's a feeling I felt in my stomach just all around where it
was like, No, I'm not doing this. Like, if it's not right
in, it's not correct. I'm out. I'm out completely. I'll walk
away. And I walked I'm walking away.
John Greenewald: How did the publishing of skinwalkers in the
Pentagon at the Pentagon either contribute to alter or reinforce
where you were when that book came out later last year.
Steven Greenstreet: Right. So I love that book, man. I love
skinwalkers out of the Pentagon. So what that did was two things.
One was all SAP which was something that I peripherally
kind of understood up to that point. It really lit a fire
under me to like really figuring out what the hell RCEP was. And
I mean, James McCaskey was like the white whale to a lot of
people for the longest time and to like read his story and his
words was fascinating. And I was like, Wait, there's a whole
nother narrative here that got skipped over that no one talked
about really. And it contradicts again, Elizondo story, you know,
so it was like yet another thing and like Caskey is not out there
trying to be a movie star like cat skis not out there trying to
sell shows like cat skis men out there, you know landing massive
book deals and these things so there was also like a level of
Interesting legitimacy to that there was almost like, I just
want to tell my side of the story. And then I'm and
John Greenewald: and more of a self published to, you know that
it wasn't a big book deal from a major publishing house with a
huge advance. I mean, they did it. And they've been ridiculed
from some corners. But to be honest with you, I actually
complimented because they likely could have went out and gotten a
big advance, but they told the story their way, which is also
possibly telling.
Steven Greenstreet: Yeah, and also, look, I'm gonna, I'm gonna
catch some crap from skeptics, but it increased my respect for
George Knapp. Like I am a pain in the ass to George Knapp. I
know I am. I'm a huge pain in his ass. But it I increased my
respect for him. Because after skinwalkers, you know, I went
back my journey through all this was going back to the beginning,
and starting over. And when I did that, I realized I was like,
Holy crap, like, Knapp is actually telling this story that
most of the media didn't even realize till years later. Like,
he's actually out there saying, No, it's this. And here's this.
And here's what happened. And everyone, including myself,
wasn't paying attention. You know, we really didn't notice
the real story here. We've got bits and pieces, but I don't
know, I think at the, the basics, I think George Knapp
should have written the New York Times article. And he even says,
he goes on podcasts. He goes on podcasts lately saying he wanted
to, you know, he, he had this story. He was working on it. And
then he worked it as I was approached, or I was informed,
no, don't release your story. We're going to do it in the New
York Times, because that will help the issue even bigger. And
he concedes that like, he was like, oh, okay, well, that's
kind of a good point. It'll reach a larger audience if you
do it in the times. And then he reads the Times article, and
he's just like, What is this? This is not the story. You know,
this is so weird, in a weird way, like I got the book, get I
respected George Knapp, a little bit more after reading the book.
John Greenewald: I'm definitely not on George's Christmas list.
Sadly, I'm not his favorite person, I still have a lot of
respect for him. But I know he doesn't like me, because I do
have some views about how this all played out that I know that
he doesn't appreciate but there's no hiding from the fact
that he had access, you know, he was getting these documents and
putting them out there. And although I'm not a fan of leaks,
he obviously had access to that material. And I've never shied
away from from that. But do you believe that his access, and
essentially his accuracy, played a role in someone telling him?
No, we're going to do this our way and kick back, because I
can't help but bring up the section of your video where
Leslie Kane on Showtime said that she essentially selectively
omitted certain parts of of the story. And you I know, you got a
lot of flack for this, but really said, Hey, is this the
work of an activist or a journalist? And I think that
that's a very important question here. So to go back to the root
of why I'm bringing this up, is do you think that someone had an
agenda to tell the story a certain way? And if so, who was
that? Or was this just the journalist saying, hey, we want
to do this our way and we want the credit.
Steven Greenstreet: Yeah. So I dug into that, too, to see if
journalists were intentionally hearing about offset and the
werewolves and going, Oh, we're not talking about that. Let's
just report it our way. And I'm not sure I can't say either way.
I shared Leslie's on record statement from the Showtime
documentary, only to illustrate and she says it in her words.
Yeah, my angle. My specific angle with this story was to
give this topic credibility. And that was not the first step in
getting people to accept this. So she's saying My goal with the
article was to get people to believe in UFOs. But beyond
that, I can't decisively say whether they avoided or separate
Intel, but also, it could be that the melon, I mean, melons
on record, and military.com saying literally admitting, oui,
oui intention intentionally are not telling anyone about offset.
We're leaving ourselves out of the story, because that would
have been counterproductive with Congress and in a weird way.
He's right. But still, the whole story should be told. And melon
and Keane go back before the 2017 New York Times article, I
mean, keen, I believe, was invited to sit on the board with
melon of a some UFO company back in 2016. So You know, these
people, when you trace the family tree, these people kind
of connect and know each other throughout the years. So it's,
it's a safe bet to say that some decision was made, hey, let's
just go with UFOs wishes. You know what, let's get some
videos, let's find some videos that I think are important.
Let's release him. And that's the story and that'll be the
story.
John Greenewald: For those listeners for those listening
and watching who aren't aware, the one of the original
journalists, not the New York Times, but with Politico Brian
Bender echoed on Twitter recently that he felt and
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his exact quote was
intentionally misled, that he felt in the very beginning, he
was told things that essentially weren't weren't 100% accurate.
When you read something like that, I mean, obviously, you
have your own personal opinions, but they're essentially being
reinforced here by people that really did dig in before anyone
else dug in. And here we are, X amount of years later, in 2022.
And that journalist who was responsible for breaking the
original story on day one in, in addition to the New York Times,
is saying intentionally misled. How do you interpret that? I
mean, that that takes a lot for a journalist to say, right, or
am I wrong?
Steven Greenstreet: Yeah, it takes a lot. I mean, I'm saying
that I know, it takes a lot to be able to say that, but you
know, it, it has more impact coming from Brian, because as
you say, he was one of the first to break the story with
exclusive information. You know, he he and the times almost
simultaneously released their stories on that day. So it's a
big deal. It's a big deal. And, you know, I know Brian caught
flack because he eventually attempted to walk back some of
those statements later because that that was such a huge thing
for him to say it's one thing for Steve Green Street to say
that but it's a whole nother level for Brian vendor to say
that. And, you know, he since you know, walked that back,
released another pro Elizondo article, and is currently
headlining at a UFO festival. So, you know, perhaps that
initial tweet of his was like a moment of weakness?
John Greenewald: Yeah, I think it was, in my opinion, it was
honest, the way that it was said it was a journalist that just
said, Hey, what I originally posted was not the full story,
even though he he had me blocked for a while, there's no secret
about that had me blocked for a while because of these types of
issues. And he felt his reporting was challenged. I'm
not sure what moment there was where he decided to unblock me.
And I like, Brian, I don't think I don't have any bad blood
against him or really anybody except the anonymous trolls out
there. But regardless, I mean, I think that that was a big,
honest moment, that I think he then had to try and walk back.
I'm not sure what the what the reasoning was for that.
Steven Greenstreet: In his walk back, John in his walk back, so
he initially says, I was purposely misled. From, you
know, I was purposely misled. They didn't tell the whole
story. And then in his walk back, he's like, but I still
consider them credible sources.
John Greenewald: Yeah, I was very confused by.
Steven Greenstreet: And then just like three days later, he
writes, another pro Elizondo piece releases another pro falls
onto a piece. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in a
microcosm, in my opinion, is I think some of these journalists
experience what I experienced, which is you become a minor
superstar. You become a big fish in a small pond, like this like
status, and nuking that status. You know, who knows what the
outcome of that is, and I think Bender, probably didn't realize
that it would get as much flack when he tweeted that. And, you
know, so anyway, so I understand him walking that back, because
like, how do you show up to a UFO festival a week after that
tweet?
John Greenewald: Yeah, I don't disagree there. But going more
broadly, I think then it's clear that there are many more people
other than Steven Green Street and I'm not trying to minimize
you, but rather reinforce the point that you're not alone,
that there are a lot of people that are starting to say here,
again, X amount of years later from October of 2017. When we
all for the first time, learned about Luis Elizondo, we have a
lot of these questions that have come along with him, not only
about his background within the government I personally don't
care about his personal life. I know that other people have dug
into it that I don't care about that. What I care about are the
stories that he's come out with, and said, This is what I've done
for the government. A tip is this, this is what I've done, so
on and so forth. And going back to your episode, you have done
an amazing amount of work. But on top of that, and amazing job
putting together a 44 plus minute piece outlining all of
those contradicting statements and elements. Why do you feel
that there are still a lot of people that want to just ignore
all that? Hey, we're getting, we're getting UFO hearings next
week? Who cares? Don't ask questions. Let's sacrifice
accuracy here. I mean, I even saw one tweet to me directly.
That said, they're not too concerned about accuracy. We can
deal with that later. We have the hearing. I'm like, do you
hear yourself? You don't care? What is an illusion, a lie of
fact, or fiction? You just care about the the hearing? What are
your thoughts on on on that entire issue
Steven Greenstreet: here? It's religious, it's faith based,
it's faith on faith. They move forward on faith, we wait for
the next Domino. It is a religion. It is a faith based
organization. Because a flying saucer currently isn't hovering
outside above my garage. Jesus Christ is also not outside
hovering over my garage. We believe that what we hear and
what we read is true, it's faith. So a lot of those
responses are faith based. And that's fine. You know, that's,
that's fine. Believe what you want to believe it's fun. It
gives your life meaning. That's what religion is all about.
Again, like gives your life meaning and this is what I am.
And this is what I believe, fine. The only issue I have is
an issue anyone would have. If if the Protestant church like
started influencing Congress, or politicians, the media, I would
step in and go okay, well, wait a minute here. Let's, what are
you saying? And what are the big claims here? I'm fine with the
belief. Let them believe whatever they want to believe,
let them be excited, who cares? I'm not out to change that
person's mind. I just want to report the facts to people who
are on the fence or don't necessarily want to be part of a
new religion, you know, so, that was kind of like, I mean, I used
to be part of an Orthodox 24/7 religion with Mormonism. And I
grew up Mormon and my experience leaving Mormonism, eerily
uncannily similar to the last year with me in UFOs, ask
bringing up basic questions to church leaders, you know, like,
Hey, so what about this document about Joseph Smith and his fraud
case in 18? Whatever, and, and the vitriol that I got for even
asking the question, and the hatred and the authorization,
and it was very similar. And then, you know, just and I said
this, just because the religion is false, doesn't mean God
doesn't exist. That's kind of what I'm saying is this current
movement is headed culturally headed by in my opinion,
disingenuous, delusional, narcissistic personalities. But
that doesn't mean the phenomenon is not real. I'm saying who is
your shepherd? Who is the shepherd leading you across
whatever Valley? And I'm saying, that's the wrong path. It's all
there in black and white, the story doesn't make sense. The
facts don't add up. The key players keep backtracking and
for mixing and just changing their story every other week.
Come on, I mean, if we're about data, and if we're about facts,
what are we doing?
John Greenewald: It Do you think it's, it's, it's dangerous, or
just a silly way for some of these people to to operate and
and I'm more focused on those that have viciously come after
anybody that goes against the shepherd that goes against their
essentially, leader, I have used the C word called many, many
times, I believe it's fitting in this scenario. And I should
point out very quickly, you have gotten an enormous amount of
praise for this. So I don't want to make it seem like oh my gosh,
you're just being attacked by every corner. That's not even
close to being true. But rather, you're experiencing something
where the one voice can outweigh the compliments of 1000 and you
multiply that one One voice by 1000 congregation members, you
know that are coming at you. So is this something that's
dangerous? Or do you just think this is a social media thing?
Steven Greenstreet: It's potentially dangerous Look, when
you look at like the Q anon movement, for example, there was
that like pizza gate conspiracy theory where like, a guy showed
up with a gun, and just started shooting into this pizzeria
because like Q and honors, were saying that like, Satanists were
in the basement or something like that. So yeah, of course,
it's dangerous. Of course, it could lead to dangerous and an
organism and group belief groups like this, do tend to attract
mentally ill, low IQ, fantasy prone, angry people. That's just
history. Yeah, that's just normal thing that happens
throughout history. And so while not every Christian is going to
go bomb an abortion clinic. There are people attracted to
that kind of group setting that validates their fantasy that
will react violently. So could it be the answer is of course,
yes.
John Greenewald: Obviously, I want to stress it's not the
majority of people out there. It's a small percentage, but it
to me, I've been concerned about it for some time. I appreciate
your thoughts on it. I've just seen the rhetoric grow, to be
more warlike, you know, banding together Band of Brothers call
to arms. We're in a war, we're in a battle. I won't say some
other exact quotes, because I'm not trying to out anybody. But
regardless, that rhetoric, I hope people really kind of tone
it down a little bit, because there was a time where Q anon
was never thought to show up on the Capitol steps and storm
inside. And look what happened. So these these movements can
grow. And it really is up to the shepherds to speak out against
it. And to be honest with you, I'm not seeing the shepherds
speak out against it. But that's my gripe and maybe a different
show. And conversation. Yeah,
Steven Greenstreet: there is a Trumpian there's a weird thing
happening right now with the faces and leaders of this group.
It almost ageing on this growing vitriol. Yeah. Because that
growing vitriol is a wall that they can hide behind. It's, you
know, in instead of facing the facts, and owning up to things
being transparent. They're being sneaky and childish. And look,
if this was any other topic other than UFOs, it would be a
my opinion, a much bigger deal. But it's kind of a stupid thing.
It's kind of a stupid topic about stupid things, and people
choosing stupid battles with where the end the end prize is
also something stupid. Like, no one's I don't see any win here.
Any big win with whatever silly battles being fought. Right now,
you know, in.
John Greenewald: Right, but, but they're, but they're stressing
that rhetoric nonetheless. And in my opinion, it's growing. And
then that's to where, where are they? And again, I feel it may
be a different conversation. But where I worry that there is that
very, very, very, very small percentage of people that will
put themself in a position where they feel that they've won. And
you see that type of talk online. And it for me, it sheds
a different light on somebody that is going on. I mean, this
has been talked about here in the last four to six weeks or so
about Sockpuppet accounts. And Luis Elizondo himself admitting
that this is what he does. He collects intelligence when he
was asked and confronted with that question. So how many
identities are we dealing with, and I'm obviously getting away
from the danger part, but rather the sneaky part that you just
referenced, that that that there's something that I want to
point out very quickly, that undermine name or excuse me
under my picture here, as those who are watching on YouTube is
my real name under your face here on YouTube is your real
name. We don't hide behind silly you know, acronyms and this and
that and we put ourselves out there and go, This is what we
believe. But that that that Shepherd, so to speak, the
leader of of that movement that is coming out after people like
us, has openly admitted that he's collecting Intel through
alternate identities. That should be more disturbing than
people want it to be. But it but it is, as my dog's getting in on
the show here. But I don't know what your thoughts are. We don't
have to talk about it. But I wanted to throw that out there
that this has become an issue, and it is not getting better.
Steven Greenstreet: Yeah. Yeah. It's a Finish. Look if this was
if the topic if an ex Pentagon official was doing this to
garner support for the war in the in Ukraine, if it was
revealed that an ex Pentagon official had sock puppets
accounts, and he was influencing people to bolster support for US
military presence in in the Ukraine, holy crap, would that
be huge Right? Or pick any other actually important social issue?
Any of them? If this was revealed on that level? Big, but
it's so silly that it's like about UFOs but not even just you
about UFOs. But to protect this guy's lie that he ran a pentagon
UFO program, that's what we're talking about. It's so low on
the things that are actually important in life. That it's,
it's, it's that's why I was laughing just a second ago. It's
almost laughable. And how pathetic it is. Yeah. Fat thick.
It's so bizarre and pathetic. And you know, look at the CNN
the other day. This is fascinating, right? We're you
me, a UFO, Twitter. We're all in this little bubble. And so many
people stay in that bubble. They just live there. And they
inspect zoom, they just think that's their that's reality.
Right? But outside of that bubble, is this the real world?
And you know, CNN tweeted the other day about Congress holding
hearings about UFOs. And they got ratioed. If you look at like
the comment responses from people in the real world, they
were like, the Supreme Court is like nixing abortion rights for
women. And this is what Congress is doing. WTF Congress, what
kind of wackos in Congress are, this is a real issue. We have a
war going on. We have taxpayer money going to that war. I mean,
it was just like the real world and introduction to what's
really happening in the real world about important things.
That's, that's what the rest of the world thinks of this UFO
Twitter thing and this UFO thing, the majority of the
people are just rolling their eyes and the shepherds are not
helping change that at all. You know, it's like it's not
legitimizing it. Chem, not being about it. It's not legitimizing
it. Lou Elizondo talking about it, it's not legitimizing it.
Chris Mellon is not legitimizing and de stigmatizing this at all,
despite what people in the bubble think the real world
still isn't convinced.
John Greenewald: I would only respectfully say that I believe,
for quite some time from the beginning on I don't know what
the turning point was. They were but with the caveat that we
learned later, we weren't being told the whole truth. Right. And
and that's one thing in your video that I think you really
show that not only is the media inept when reporting about this,
but one thing that and I see the normal characters always
responding to this, but right back to the beginning with the
name discrepancy, that although you know, Lou Elizondo was
right, it was aviation, or excuse me, aerospace versus
aviation, what you're showing is, it was probably neither, and
it wasn't really even a program at all, but rather just a
nickname, and so on. And I think you do a really good job doing
that. And again, we don't have to go over it over it here. But
I think that really showed the first indicator that there was a
problem that this wasn't as reported. And even though you
know, I get I get still, three plus years later for posing
those questions. I don't care. I don't have a single regret. It
does not matter who was right or wrong, but rather I knew at that
point, that there was something to this why was the Pentagon
wrong? that intrigued me more? You know, why? Why was there
such misinformation about this? Go ahead.
Steven Greenstreet: Good stuff. This is great stuff. And, uh,
let me start by saying, everyone go back and read Brian benders
December 16 2017 politico article, it's, it's awesome.
It's awesome. Compared to the Keene piece, the Kane piece, the
Leslie Kane piece, it's awesome. There's some great stuff in
there. I think people forgot about now. I think what happened
is the Pentagon themselves is confused. Because you know, it's
established, they're in on the record, look at Ski excetera
read. They were hiding this. We don't want everyone in the
Pentagon to know what the hell we're doing. You know, they say
this like we, you know, like Caskey says people in my own
office right around me they had no idea I was running Skinwalker
Ranch and, you know, read, they were worried it was going to
come to light, they right read writes this letter saying, hey,
let's take this program, special access, which would limit it,
how many people have had access? And it actually says right there
on his letter, nickname, The nickname for the program. He
says it right there a tip. And this was the and then that
letter was, according to those on the inside leaked, the letter
was spread everywhere. So now everyone that doesn't know about
this program was suddenly reading about this program, nick
named a Tim. But this isn't an official document now. Right?
And so they're going to write a summary of this meeting. So let
me write a summary of this meeting. Senator Reid came in to
talk about a tip blah, blah, blah. And suddenly all SAP is
not mentioned. All SAP, isn't that suddenly not mentioned at
all? It's just, they're just basically just we're
regurgitating what Reid says in the letter, a tip is suddenly
created that point. And so I think the Pentagon that was the
first time they a lot in the Pentagon had even heard of this
program, too. And according to some it was a tip.
John Greenewald: So let me ask you, though, aside from the ASA
OS app, a two part of this, the story as you just brought up
from those that are telling this from the inside, say that that
that letter circulates, and people go, Oh my gosh, we can
have this program, and that killed it. What in that Harry
Reid letter would tip anybody off? That there was anything to
do with UFOs or the paranormal?
Steven Greenstreet: Well, it's not the letter. It's from what I
understand is there were a few who knew what it was. I mean, if
you believe, like katzie Kelleher and nap and read stamp
of approval, William Lynn, who the letters addressed to got the
letter went into the meeting going is this about those damn
flying saucers? That's a direct quote from from the book. So
obviously, he had some kind of rumor idea about what these guys
were up to. But also, there was a process, all right, you can't
just get a sap. You can't just hey, can I have a sap? Yeah, no
problem. Here you go. But you can't just do that you have to
go through a process a back and forth and analysis of a program.
What is it all? And remember, at this point, at this point, they
had been set per bass and Perla Caskey been sending the
Pentagon? Some pretty crazy reports, some pretty nutty
stuff, you know, like Skinwalker Ranch, you know, like, there's
a, you know, there was like, hundreds of pages about a
haunted house in Indiana. You know, this is per bass and per
the sources. And so the Pentagon is getting this stuff in, you
know, reviewing and seeing this stuff,
John Greenewald: do you? I'm running out of time, and there
is something I want to cover with you. But really quickly, do
you really think that those reports went to quote unquote,
the Pentagon or just McCaskey? And the second part of that is
if you do believe that the select few outside of James
McCaskey his office saw this, then then the allegation, nobody
deals with this, then the allegation has to become that
the Defense Intelligence Agency, as a arm of the intelligence
community in the military, went to Senator John McCain and lied.
Now I know that a lot of people go well, they always lie. So who
really cares? Now, when you lie to a senator asking about a
primarily unclassified program? And you completely omit all of
that stuff and leave a senator in the dark? What are your
thoughts on that? Because Don't you have to have that
conversation then?
Steven Greenstreet: Okay, yeah. So let me start with that first,
and then I'll go back. So I, again, and this is just my
opinion, is I don't think it was a lie. Like I. When you follow
the breadcrumbs, and you follow the puzzle pieces as they occur
throughout the last decade, plus, you see how the DIA and
how the Pentagon could seriously not know about all this other
crazy stuff Skinwalker the ins and outs of the werewolves, it's
very possible. Not everyone was told in the actual offset
contract, which you can look at. It asks for the dirts
essentially, these technical reports now it doesn't
specifically ask for the ones that were turned in. But those
were the ones that were asked for. We're paying you to produce
this you sent us that that's all we're going with. So I could see
how years later the DIA could go through their paper and go, Oh,
here's a thing called a tip. Oh, yeah. Harry Reid a tip. Yep,
this is it. And here are the reports that were released. And
just going with what they had the information they had there,
it's very clear that information was withheld. And that was
somewhere along that line. Key information with was withheld.
And I have learned to pull back on the gas on late the Pentagon,
I used to be a big Pentagon blamer and something's up and
Susan Goff is up to no good and, you know, these, they're in on
it and stuff. And now I'm just realizing, I'm like, Well, wait
a minute, what if? What if they just didn't know? Like, I mean,
the Caskey is admitting it that he was not telling. And he was
hiding it from them. So that's a possibility. So you know, maybe
there also is confused about all this. Now, I will say that the
official dia documents that were released via FOIA recently
acknowledged in black and white receipt of some of those non
direct reports. I mean, it says, we don't know who prepared that
document, I assume look at Ski. But you know, monthly reports,
come comprehensive reports, we receive this and we're asking
for more. And then when you look at skinwalkers Oh, the monthly
report about Skinwalker Skinwalker. spooky stuff, you
know, so it's, the DIA has documents saying that someone
got those?
John Greenewald: Yeah. And further, I want to continue that
part of the conversation, but I'm running out of time with
you. And I want to get to something very quickly. For
those who are wondering, I have an open appeal for exactly what
Steven just said, and trying to get the DIA to go on the record
on what else if anything on OS app that they are planning to
release. But regardless, I am fighting on an appeal process to
try and get those those very reports. So I don't dismiss it
as much as some people think that I do. I go regardless of of
my personal thoughts. But in the last couple of minutes that I
have with you, Steven next week. Is the UFO hearing. Very
quickly, do you support those types of hearings?
Steven Greenstreet: Yeah, sure. That's great. Look,
John Greenewald: I wasn't convincing. Like,
Steven Greenstreet: look, I've said it for awhile. I think, at
the end of the day, one of the silver linings of all of this is
I think a real problem might accidentally be addressed. We
have a airspace awareness problem, we have an airspace
safety problem, we possibly have a national security issue with
foreign agents flying over infrastructure in the United
States, all real problems. And I think this whole UFO flap and
this whole UFO thing might accidentally address some of
those problems. You know, so if there's hearings about
unidentified flying objects over critical infrastructure, near
misses with commercial airlines, hell, yeah. Let's, let's do
that. I just hope that they're not dumping most of their time
and resources into looking for spooky stuff, because then
that's just all SAP all over again. You know, it was like,
we're making the same mistake again. It's cyclical, man. I
mean, you know, this more than anyone like, back in history,
this is all a cycle, Blue Book and condemnor a report and then
start over and it's this
John Greenewald: is playing out very identically to the mid to
late 60s, there's, there's no, there's no doubt about that. But
I want to take you back to the analogy that you were using with
religion, that even though you question certain I'm
paraphrasing here, but you question certain aspects of
religion doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist. So
translating that to today, the Stephen Green Street that we all
know, know and love here. Do you believe the phenomena, these
phenomena or phenomenon, if you only think there's one aspect is
explainable, given proper evidence, and it's all earth
based? Either drones, technology classified arena material, stuff
like that? Or do you believe there's a chance that we are
dealing with an extraterrestrial connection to some of this?
Steven Greenstreet: Yeah, I I think there are real UFO cases
that are real UFO cases that defy logic and explanation.
There's no doubt and I have privately talked to people who I
really respect who have had really weird stuff happen. So it
the possibilities there. I don't think it's a political issue. I
mean, I would start personal issue. It's personal. There's
something if it's real, it's something personal, and if it's
beyond that, it's something scientific. I just We shouldn't
be lobbying Congress, while like the fairweather politicians, we
should be lobbying like, National Institute of Science
and some of the biggest science in you know, conglomerates in
the in the world. And so yeah, I do believe something's there. I
don't know what the heck it could be. Maybe it's
explainable. I've heard some weird stuff. I saw a weird thing
myself. I saw a weird UFO myself that I can't explain. Even
though there it had some prosaic qualities. I still can't explain
it. Was this the recent one that you had posted? And I had? No,
no, that one was just cool. And then
John Greenewald: you can't lay this on me when I'm out of time.
Steven did an episode on
Steven Greenstreet: this. I saw my, my big triangle. There's an
episode a long time ago in the basement office, season one,
episode four, I go into my UFO sighting with Nick Pope. Okay.
And yeah, I can't look, the only thing about that that was
extremely creepy was the it looked like two sticks, Black
Sticks stuck together like that there was no back or body just
two sticks, blue lights, and no sound flying through the air
like that. And no sound. That was the creepy thing. It could
have been a balloon, but the wind was blowing this way. And
it was flying this way. And a straight line. So that the
feeling I had when I saw that was unique. It was you know that
cold? Kind of like, Whoa, what is this?
John Greenewald: Like a Phoenix lights type of arrangement? Or,
Steven Greenstreet: like a Phoenix lights? way smaller than
the proclaimed Phoenix lights? Object? Yeah, very similar.
John Greenewald: I'll have to I'll link it in the show notes
too, because I don't recall that part of the or that episode,
episode four. So I'll make sure that that's in the show notes.
Is that your only experience? UFO wise, because I know that
you had another one recently. That's what I thought you were
referring to where you felt that it was a certain type of drone.
But, and the reason why I like to dig into stuff like this is
obviously there is this aura that you just think everything
is a drone, and I personally don't think that's how you
think. But that's why I always kind of dig a little bit and
stuff like this.
Steven Greenstreet: Another admission. Another confession is
a lot of folks who are into this topic or who get into this
topic, have a history of already being into this topic, some kind
of history. That was me. You know, when I was a kid, I was I,
when I was 12, I got crashed at Corona by Stan Freeman from the
library and read it all I read but Hopkins abduction books,
intruders like this when I'm like early teens, and I was
always into sci fi and things when I grew up and became an
adult, I left most of that in my childhood. And it really wasn't
until December, really in December 2017 where I was like,
Okay, I guess my childhood is back, you know, I'm going to get
into this. But at the beginning of all of this with me is a
experience that, I think was a dream, which I I've only told a
few people in my whole life, this experience. And I really
mean I've only told a few people. So, again, prefacing
with it that it was a dream, though a vivid one. I'm five
years old, five, or maybe five or six years old. And I'm in
South Carolina, in a home in South Carolina. The vision or
dream or memory starts like this. I'm standing in the
doorway of my bedroom which I shared with my brother, I'm
facing into the door into the bedroom, I can't move. I'm
paralyzed. I'm standing there and I can't move. My brother is
in bed screaming a bright white light is coming through the
window. I hear a hum and this is all being interpreted as in my
five year old brain so I thought it was a fan because my parents
used to run fans is white noise so my interpretation was like I
heard this hum and a white light and then a ghost came out of the
closet and took my brother out the window and then and then I
and then that's the like that's the end of the vision. And it
was a goat in so in my five year old brain it was a ghost because
I it was the Disney ghosts because it had this big white
head with big black eyes. And so my five year old brain at that
point interpreted it as this like ghost and it was weird
later on in as I would grew up memory with a dream with stay
there. And I think I saw someone that Close Encounters of the
Third Kind on. And when they show the aliens in the movie, I
was like, that's the ghost. That's the ghost I saw. You
know, like, I my little child brain had never seen a great you
know, this, these gray aliens are like these these things
before. So I had no connection. I interpreted it as this ghost,
but I remember close encounters. So it was while I was like,
that's a ghost I saw. That's the ghost I saw. Take my brother out
a window. Now. No, that was five at the time. So I could have had
just like some kind of waking nightmare. Or there could have
been a sci fi movie on that my older siblings were watching
that scared me. And it was like, somewhere in my head. And but I
can't remember any other dream that I had when I was five years
old that vividly. I don't think anyone can, but I can still
remember this. You know?
John Greenewald: Have you ever done? Yeah, I can't think of any
that I've ever had. Have you ever asked your brother?
Steven Greenstreet: Oh, yeah. Yeah, I've asked about it. In
fact, weirdly, yeah. And we just like laugh about it.
John Greenewald: So he, I'm sure a lot of people are asking, did
he? Like Does he ever have a dream like that? Or remember
anything? Okay, nothing.
Steven Greenstreet: Nothing. And you know, I you know, when you
research suppose that abductions there are a repeater with so
called repeaters where it's not just like one time usually it's
usually like, more than once. But like, No, I never had
anything like that ever again. Nothing. You know, I talked to
my brother about it was like, Do you were you abducted by aliens
have any memories? And it wasn't like joking. I was like, you
know, ask him it's like, obviously not. You know that.
That didn't happen. One weird thing, though. And this is still
somewhere in my brain is. I remember weirdly, that after
that experience, when I was a kid, I had this distinct
impression that my brother wasn't my brother. I was like,
you know, it was it was like, in the weeks and months after that.
I was like, Dude, I saw you I saw you get taken out a window.
Who are you? Like you it was this kind of like Kid mentality
where I was trying to? I was trying to connect, like, how is
it possible that I saw you get scooped up out a window in yet?
The next morning, you're here. And so as a kid, I remember a
little kid. I'm a little kid at this point. The feeling? I don't
remember the specific memories. But I remember the feeling of
like, how was he here when I saw him go? And that kind of thing.
John Greenewald: I really appreciate you sharing that.
This is my last question, because I've already blown past
the timeframe that you gave me. So thank you for being gracious
with your time. How convinced Are you that was a dream?
Steven Greenstreet: really convinced?
John Greenewald: Oh, so 100%? You just feel it was cool dream?
Yeah, well, I don't cool. But you know what I mean,
Steven Greenstreet: but also, you know, you have to consider
that memory is malleable. And the way I remembered it 20 years
ago, could be different than the way I remember it now. And I
just think this is fresh. And this is new, it could have
morphed. I've told the story. And as you tell stories, little
details drop in and little things happen and evolve and
embellish. So I'm open to the fact that maybe the original
memory or dream that I had, when I was five was totally
different. And my brain is just interpreting a memory is just
remembering the last time you remembered it, that scientists
have shown that a memory is just remembering the last time you
remembered it. It's not going all the way back to your five.
It's just the last time you remembered it. And so yeah, it
could have changed. But I'm 100% Sure.
John Greenewald: All right, that's good enough for me, man.
Hey, again, thank you for sharing that. I really do
appreciate it. And overall, thank you for the work you did.
I really appreciate you digging in to the part where you felt
that you were on the inside but realized, hey, you know what,
this isn't right. And I commend you for that. And I know you and
I will not agree on 100% of everything. But at the end of
the day, we have $100 Bet on at least one debate that we're
having. So I look forward to figuring out who's going to win
that $100 debate and I hope more people do that in the debate
sphere. Yeah, no, no reason to sling mud. Just put your money
where your mouth is. And I have $100 Bet on hopefully what is
underneath those shapes in the classified UAP report. So I'm
trying hard to prove that for nothing else other than that 100
spot that you're about to pay me so. But honestly man, I blew
over my time. Thank you so much for your time and your work. I
hope everybody takes some time to watch your video, you put an
enormous amount of work in that and it shows not only the
research, but the editing as well. Well done. And it's hard
for me to say stuff like that. Thanks, man. I appreciate it.
Yeah. And thank you all for listening and watching. Please
help the show. If you're watching on YouTube, hit the
thumbs up button, make sure you're subscribed to the channel
and of course, watching on the audio version of this, whatever
platform that you're listening on. Make sure you sit and stick
a review on there it helps as well. Thank you so much, Steven.
Thank you all for listening and watching. This is John
Greenewald, Jr signing off, and we'll see you next time.