John Greenewald: When it comes to government secrets, and
especially those about UFOs, the black ball primarily focuses on
the American government and their connection to one of the
biggest mysteries of our time. But what about other countries?
Let's say like Australia.
Grant Lavac: This briefing paper that was created and shared,
John Greenewald: my guest today is Grant Lovak. And he used the
Australian Freedom of Information Act to access
records about UFOs and UAP Table of Contents. But what really is
going on down under Why
Grant Lavac: is Australia not taking the subject seriously,
when our US ally
John Greenewald: is Grant is about to step into the vault,
they look to tell us all i legislation, 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 live stream or your podcast of
choice. I'm your host, John Greenewald, Jr, owner and
founder and creator of the black vault.com. And I'm pretty
excited about this show because I wanted to do it for a while.
As most of you know, most of you watch this channel. You know, I
talk about the American government and their connection
to UFOs and UAP. All the time. It is one of my personal
fascinations even though I deal with pretty much every
government secret in the book. But I don't really deal with a
whole lot of other countries. But I get that question a lot.
And my guest today, Grant Lovak. Thank you, grant for joining me
all the way from Australia. Thank you. Thank you for being
here.
Grant Lavac: You're very welcome. Look, I appreciate you
giving me some of your time late in the day. I'm it's my morning
here. So greetings from the future. Disclosure hasn't
happened yet. But you never know what will happen by end of day.
But now it's great to be with you. I appreciate you inviting
me on.
John Greenewald: Absolutely. If disclosure does ever happen,
give me a call first. That way I can be the psychic in America to
predict that it happens. So thank you for that. But for
those those who are watching, if you haven't figured it out,
Grant being from Australia, we're going to talk about the
Australian Government what their connection is or isn't to UAP
and UFOs. And the reason grant and to the audience as well why
I love these types of interviews is to be blatantly honest with
you, I am 100% ignorant about what we are going to be talking
about. And and I really I've seen your posts, which is why I
reached out to you. We've been friends beyond that. But I saw
your posts because you have looked into the Australian
Government and again, their connection to this. So before we
get into that, give the audience a little bit of background about
who grant is and how you got into researching the Australian
Government's connection to UFOs.
Grant Lavac: Yeah, so I mean, I always have kind of positioned
myself as just an ordinary bloke that kind of believes in
extraordinary things with a healthy degree of skepticism and
an open mind thrown in there together for good measure. And
I've been fascinated by this topic ever since I was I was a
young kid on 43 years of age now. So growing up as a young
boy in the 80s. My dad, when I was about eight or nine years of
age took me to a photo exhibition, which was a UFO
photo exhibition. And I had never been to any photo
exhibition before and I was just completely mesmerized by these
big black and white blow ups of a famous sightings throughout
the exhibition and one of the photos was the McMinnville photo
from the 50s and I remember just staring at that photo for what
felt like a good 1015 minutes just losing myself in what it
would have been like to take that photo beyond that you know
that farm that ranches farm and and see with both fascination
and terror what what would be in front of you. So that was kind
of what intrigued me from a young age and then growing up as
a teenager Obviously, every Wednesday night at 9pm I'd be
watching The X Files and reading books and watching watching
shows on on documentaries going up but it really wasn't until
2017 Like for I guess a lot of people when the The New York
Times articles came out that that really piqued my interest
and kind of reinvigorate reinvigorated my, my appetite
for it. So my interest has kind of ebbed and flowed a little bit
over the years and I actually have to thank you directly,
John, because when COVID started, I would I was
introduced to Spotify by a friend of mine and I somehow
ended up on listening to Jimmy church and I was listening quite
regularly and you were one of the guests. And so listening to
you speak about your history and experience with trying to hold
government to account and transparent and going through
the FOIA process that really got me quite interested in. Well,
this is a way in which we can engage people that we elect into
positions of authority, and we have a right to information. So
it's important that we be privy to that information. So that was
really the starting piece for me. And then I kind of found UCR
I think, and listen quite frequently to Luis rather and
Michael Medellin, who before he departed now UFO gene, and so
ever since you know, COVID started, I've been really just
soaking it all up and being a sponge on this topic. So I've
tried to throw myself into it as much as I can. And you're not
just the FOIA aspect, as a result of the good work that
you've been doing. So I'm really just standing on the shoulders
of giants like yourself, some great Australian researchers,
Keith bass to field build chalk, Paul Dane, Ross Coltart these
guys, I'm just really learning from them and learning from what
you did through your discovery efforts to try and engage my
elected representatives here in Australia. And and following the
effort that Luis Jimenez at UCR spearheaded with the big phone
home, I had never engaged my elected representatives before,
you know, really this year or late last year. So it was
through the efforts of the big phone home and the work that you
do that I've really got off my ass and thrown myself into the
game rather than watching from the sidelines.
John Greenewald: Well, I appreciate that. And you've
obviously have done that work. And that's, that's why I wanted
to reach out to you for this interview is because I have such
appreciation for people that instead of sitting on the
sidelines, get stand up and start doing something and you've
definitely done that. And you've utilized the Australian version,
I think they call it the Freedom of Information Act. Also, there
are some countries that have variations of the same name, but
similar concept. But for those who don't know, give them a
rundown of the Australian version of the Freedom of
Information Act, and what is it that you can can access? Is it
identical to the American law, or is it a little bit different?
Grant Lavac: Yeah, it's it's actually very comparable to FOIA
in the US. So they typically referred to as just foi in
Australia, even though it's the Freedom of Information Act, fly.
Boy, foi, and pretty much, you know, having a right to
information you can request for for documents, obviously,
obviously, anything that's classified or privacy
information, they'll redact with certain redaction
classifications that you can look up why the the act itself.
But the nice thing, I guess, for me anyway, when lodging a FOIA
request in Australia, is that the statutory deadline for
responses typically 30 days, whereas I know, in the States,
you've got upwards of what, six to nine years in some instances,
so there's a massive backlog issue in the US. We don't have
that that same challenge here in Australia. And you can actually
look at when you receive a FOIA decision and and documents from
the Australian Government, you can identify by the number that
they designated the FOIA it just works on a counter system. And
so there's significantly less requests that have been
submitted to government here in Australia than then obviously in
the US. So it's a much more timely process at the moment,
thankfully.
John Greenewald: So with before we get into specifically the UAP
issue, overall with secrecy, and the Australian Government and
military when you use, I was making the joke with the foi
instead of FOIA, but the Freedom of Information Act, when you
when you utilize that in Australia, what is the consensus
to the researcher is it I'm up for a battle like it is here in
the States because every time I file one, I'm just, you know,
armoring up and you know, get my weapons ready, because I know
it's going to be a hardship. Is the Australian Government, as
secretive as as the American government
Grant Lavac: will put personally I haven't come up against. I
mean, I've only had success on a small number of FOIA requests
and the redactions that have been included, typically privacy
information or or information that's relevant to the initial
request. So I haven't come a cup up against any any specific
pushback on any requests that I've received. I do know that
the responses that you often Get from government and that just
not foyer alone, but also when members of parliament or
Australian senators here, submit a question on notice for for
people in positions of leadership, particularly
Australian Defense, the responses that come back are
incredibly pithy, they're very short and succinct. They, as I
suspect, which is comparable with the US government, they'll
only tell you the absolute bare minimum that addresses your
request. They won't volunteer any information above and beyond
the scope of your inquiry. So that is that that's both a
blessing and a curse. I mean, one of the great things I think
about for and this is really, really why I respect and value
the service that you offer, not just for your own personal
curiosity, but those of us that are, you know, members of this
community is that FOIA is just one important piece of the
puzzle. And, you know, we've only got a few corner pieces of
this 10,000 piece puzzle. And we probably got pieces of multiple
puzzles. And you know, when you receive a foyer response with
documents, there are often those little breadcrumbs in the foyer,
which then will lead you to submit in one or two other FOIA
requests. And Case in point, if you hadn't submitted a FOIA
request for the classified version of ODNI. As preliminary
preliminary assessment, we probably wouldn't have known
about the redactions pertaining to those common shapes. So yeah,
it's it's, it's important that there are folks like you and
others that recognize that they have a right to information, and
they want to and need to know that information. And they take
it upon themselves to invest the time, energy and effort to
submit these requests, because they often do reveal other
breadcrumbs that form part of a much larger loaf of bread over
time. So when you look at the totality of all of the indirect
evidence, the anecdotal evidence, the information that
were provided from government, you then start to have a picture
as to what potentially is going on. I mean, everyone can
speculate as to what exactly you APR. But, you know, FOIA I
think, is an incredibly valuable part of the equation.
John Greenewald: It definitely as it gets a bad rap, at least
here in America and some circles because it never produces
exactly what we want. But it does offer those those glimpses
you use the 10,000 piece puzzle analogy, and I love the puzzle
analogy, the way that I kind of frame it on my end is that you
have that 10,000 piece puzzle, and you start putting it
together and you realize that's just a 10,000 piece to another
puzzle, you know, even bigger, kind of keeps branching out. But
boy, it does offer those those glimpses. I want to take you
back to 2017 When you were saying that you were getting
into it, I know that that that those stories created worldwide
buzz, but in Australia, was it this the same? country wide, if
that makes sense? So like in America, I mean, it was just
explosive, you know, from December 2017, into the
beginning of 2018. There were stories every eight seconds
here. And, and and it was explosive. In Australia. Was it
the same? Or was it hey, look at these crazy Americans. They're
looking at UFOs Yeah, unfortunately,
Grant Lavac: it was the the latter. I mean, with the
exception of the crazy part, I think, there has always been
historically Australia has always followed, the US has lead
on on important topics that evolve over time. But Australia
has been very, very slow on the uptake, and particularly the
Australian media. It was only really as a result of the really
good work that Ross Ross Cortez is doing with not only his book
in plain sight, but the number of documentaries that he's done
on the seven spotlight spotlight program that he he produces that
the Australian media started to take notice. And so now you have
nationally national channels with national reached like
Sunrise program, which I think you've probably been on once or
twice. Yes, I have. Yeah. Yeah. There's the the today show
there's the project, all these various kind of news and current
affairs type shows as well as your breakfast shows. They're
starting to actually take the topic seriously and report on it
when something important happens in the US. So like when the you
know, the the public congressional hearing happened
back in May. That, you know, hit the hit the TV, airwaves down
here under and often, they'll invite folks like Jeremy Cobell
to come on and talk about it because he has. He's well
recognized in the community and it's a thought leadership Much
like yourself, and so on. So the one frustration that I have with
the Australian media and credit to them that they're now
starting to cover this topic more seriously, is that there
are still elements that whenever they do a story, or they cover,
they always throw on The X Files theme at the front of it. And it
really just kind of gets right under my skin. I mean, because
we're past that, you know, this is now we're at a point where it
really needs to be taken incredibly seriously, because US
lawmakers and the US Department of Defense is taking it
incredibly seriously. And that's the big driving factor for me is
well, why isn't Australia taking it seriously when our US ally
and five eyes partner is. And that's not just the Australian
Department of Defense, but also the Australian media, you know,
they're not exercising their journalistic due diligence, and
asking these important questions of Australian leadership, you
know, why isn't Australia looking at this issue more
closely, because our five eyes partner is so there the
frustrations that I kind of have with Australian media, but I do
give them credit that they are starting to cover this somewhat
more seriously than they have in the past and give it more, more
breathing time than then than they ever have
John Greenewald: before. And you kind of lead me to my lead me to
my next question. And that is, aside from the media. Is the
Australian Government taking this seriously? And it sounds
like the answer is no. But can you elaborate on that? What What
are they doing, if anything at all?
Grant Lavac: So well, that's probably a good starting point.
If we if we dial the clock back to the 27th of October of last
year, and I've got a video I can show your audience there. So
following the release of the the ODNI is preliminary assessment
on up on the 25th of June of last year. On a regular cadence
a couple of times a year the Australian government there they
have what is called a Senate estimates hearing where they
talk about government government spending on various programs.
Yeah. Is the government spending it wisely? Are they are we are
we utilizing taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively. And
so at that Senate estimates meeting, Senator Peter wish
Wilson who's a member of the greens party who's recently been
reelected, he was the he was and is continues to be the only
Australian senator that has had the gumption and courage to
raise the topic of UAP and ask questions about it in an
Australian context, which is disappointing, but also
encouraging in the respect that he's asking questions, and he's
pressing folks in the Australian Department of Defense on this
issue. But it's disheartening that his peers have not followed
his lead. So that's why one of my efforts is to continue to
engage my elected representatives to try and
encourage and push them in direction of asking the same
sort of questions that Senator wish Wilson is asking. So on the
27th of October of last year, that's just some background.
Senator Peter wish Wilson was used his allocated time to ask
the then Chief of Air Force Air Force Air Marshal Mel Hatfield
about UAP in an Australian context following the release of
Odeon eyes preliminary assessment. So let me share my
screen. So your viewers can see this just for context, because
it's a really interesting exchange. So I'll just play this
online.
Unknown: Emotional mental helpful to vehicles. I am Paul
and I used to fly airplanes. Not current now, but I think I've
got the information you might need anything to your question?
All right. Okay. Well, right. My question relates to the I know,
we have close ties with the US we share intelligence. My
questions relate to release of the report on the 25th of June
2021. By the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, preliminary assessments, unidentified aerial
phenomena. This is an issue that has been it's been raised in. In
Congress, the Department of Defense has submitted a report
to become a significant matter of public interest. And I
suppose I've my first question is, are you aware of that
report? It
was not formally aware of the report that I'm thinking there
was an article in the newspapers a commentary about that at some
stage, I'm not quite sure of the content of the report.
Okay, I'm just a matter of riches. What What questions did
you think I was going to ask?
Are you going to ask questions? If that aircraft. Sounds like
you're going to ask that UFO.
Well, we'd be very interested to hear your views on this. Look,
yes, it has been reported in the media extensive body language
here and instance internationally.
Grant Lavac: So you could see there that air marshal Mel
Hartfield didn't look so without going into the middle. So
without going into the rest of the video, you can see so, in
Marshall Mel Hartfield was caught totally off guard with
with that line of questioning and I think he probably felt
somewhat thrown under the bus by Maurice Payne, who was one of
the senators at that that estimates hearing that put him
forward on the on the the hot seat to answer those questions.
So essentially, the Air Marshal mental Hartfield was asked by
Senator which Wilson has the Australian Department of Defense
read the preliminary assessment on UAP. And they hadn't they
hadn't even bothered and this was in October of last year. And
as of earlier this year, they still hadn't read the
preliminary assessment. And Senator whish, Wilson had asked
questions, well, does the Australian Defence Force the
armed services have any current reporting or recording protocols
on UAP? Are there any any similar mechanisms like the UAE,
then UAP Task Force? And the question was basically know, the
Australian Department of Defense does not currently have any
mechanisms in place to report or record on on UAP which is very
interesting because the Australian the Royal Australian
Air Force has had almost as long as a history at looking at UAP
or UFO what they call UAS or have historically called UAS in
Australia, unusual aerial sightings. They had a policy
that spanned many decades, and they actually investigated
sightings and reports of UAS from the 1950s through to the
mid 90s until 1996, when they no longer took reports on UAP. And
they no longer investigated it. So it really perplexes me as to
why all of a sudden, there seems to be this, you know, this big
push and bought by the US, our US ally, to take this topic
seriously. Now, ever since Nimitz, and everything that's
happened since then, with all of the reports that are coming out
from military aviators and members of the personnel in the
military, there seems to be this. This this uptick of
information that's been disseminated ever since 2017.
And more and more questions are being asked by US lawmakers on
this topic. Yet Australia is dragging their heels, they're
just toeing the line, like they've done since 1996, where
they stopped looking into this topic, and they just have no
desire whatsoever to to, to revisit it. So their position
has not changed for a good 25 plus years. And I don't
understand why. So that's been the driving motivation for me to
try and get to the bottom through these FOIA requests that
I've submitted as to well, what do you know about UAP? And when
did you know it? And why aren't you having discussions about it
when our usli is? So
John Greenewald: that leads me to two questions before we get
into specifically the documents themselves. My first is a quick
one. Do you think they're being honest?
Grant Lavac: Personally, I don't think they are. I think they
know, I think they're holding a lot of cards close to their
chest. They I think they know more than they're, they're
revealing. And there's a couple of reasons why I think that one,
the stigma and ridicule that has long plagued this topic, I
think, has also long plagued members of the military and
folks that, you know, see something and say something in
Australia. So I think at a an elected official level, or if
you're in a position of leadership in government, there
is this fear of political suicide still on this topic. And
I would say to folks, Australian senators and members of
parliament that are concerned that well, if I talk about this,
I'm going to be, you know, it's going to upset my constituents
and it's going to risk me being reelected. I would say just have
a look at Senator wish Wilson's record. He just got reelected.
And he's been asking questions about UAP in Australian context,
quite frequently now. And it was asked after that hearing in in
October of last knew that I reached out to Senator wish
Wilson's office. And I've been, thankfully in regular contact
with him providing him with updates on what I've been
discovering through FOIA. So I think political suicide is one
aspect of it. I also think that there there is potentially a
degree of embarrassment on the on the side of the Royal
Australian Air Force that the whole reason why and if I show a
document, I'll just show another document that your your audience
can, can look at on just stop this one share the other. So
this is just for, for context. So back in 1993, there was a
briefing paper that was prepared by a gentleman by the Bretton
Beddington he prepared a briefing paper for the Chief of
Air Force. So back then it was called the chief of the Air
Staff. And in this briefing paper pertaining to unusual
aerial sightings policy, there is basically I'll just scroll
down to the appropriate pages here, suggested policy going
forward. So for many years, the Royal Australian Air Force has
been formally responsible for handling unusual aerial
sightings at the official level. consideration, though of the
scientific record suggests that whilst not all UAS have a ready
explanation and that's the bit that really threw me. Whilst not
all UAS have already explanation there is no compelling reason
for the Ardabil F other left to continue to devote resources to
recording investigating and attempting to explain UAS the RW
f no longer accepts reports on us and no longer attempts
assignment of causal allocation of liability. Members of the
community are essentially encouraged to reach their local
police or law enforcement, as well as any UFO civilian
organizations, like the likes of MUFON. So back in 1993, they
were laying you know, setting the stage for the Royal
Australian Air Force to kind of wipe at the hands of this topic.
And in 1996, that's exactly what happened. They ceased taking
reports they ceased investigating it and in 2013,
the unusual aerial sightings policy that they had was
formally terminated. They're just
John Greenewald: Yeah, if I can jump in really quick, just for
in the States. Our military acronym for UAS is unmanned
aerial system or aircraft system, but I know you already
said it. But can you say again, that's not the same?
Grant Lavac: No, that's the UAE exact so UAS now in Australia is
more so referred to the drones. So but but between the 1950s
through to the mid 1990s, UFO in Australia was referred to by the
Royal Australian Air Force's as UAS, unusual aerial sightings.
And it's since now evolved into unidentified aerial phenomena
UAP and even now, unidentified aerospace undersea phenomena UAV
I keep losing track of all the
John Greenewald: days, but it's frequently discussed on this
channel. really damn confusing all that is.
Grant Lavac: And there's something behind that, in itself
is a strategic decision. I think why they always use weed
acronyms. So that was an important document that came out
through through FOIA I think, a number of years ago. So fast
forward to October of last year, and I'll just pull up a another
document for your viewers to see.
John Greenewald: And thanks for the clarity on the UAS. I just
wanted to make it a little less confusing for those going well,
wait a minute, they're talking about drones?
Grant Lavac: Yes, it is confusing. And so I've, I've
refined refrain from including the acronym UAS in FOIA requests
now, because that will capture obviously stuff that's drone
related in this day and age, but I still refer to unusual aerial
sightings. So I'm following the and I'll read out some of the
key elements here so your audience doesn't have to read
it. But following the questions that Senator wish Wilson asked
of Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Mel Hartfield, back in
October of last year, and by the way, we haven't played the full
exchange that was just really the front end of it, to kind of
highlight the distaste that the Air Marshal had for that line of
questioning. You can through the, the Australian Parliament's
website or even my channel, the unexplained rundown, you can
watch that exchange in its entirety. Yeah, but
John Greenewald: I will just so the audience knows I will link
to Grant's video to his channel with that you have the full
exchange in there. Right. So and that's the link you had sent me.
This there's another link that I'll share with Okay, yeah, make
sure I got it. For those that are watching or listening on the
audio podcast version, just check the show notes. So on
YouTube, you'll find them below in the description, audio
podcast, just go to W WW dot, the blackbaud.com. And you'll
see a podcast listing, find grants interview, and it'll be
in the show notes there. So we'll get that linked over.
Grant Lavac: Fantastic. Yeah. So So essentially, Senator wish
Wilson was not satisfied with the responses that air marshal
mail Hartfield gave at that Senate estimates hearing. So he
submitted some questions to refer to his questions on
notice. And so the questions that he posed for the Department
of Defense, the Australian Department of fence to Air
Marshal, Mel Hatfield, has the Department of Defense had the
opportunity to formally review or denies preliminary
assessment. And as I had indicated previously, their
response here was no, they have not what guidance, if any, has
the department sought on the publication of the report, the
Department of Defense has not sought any guidance at all on
the on the publication. So they're probably the two key
questions at this juncture. So essentially, Australian
Department of Defense is saying, No, we haven't read Oh, denies
preliminary assessment. We don't have any interest in it. We're
not going to read it anytime soon. And that's what raised
alarm bells from so why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you want to
know what your US ally and five eyes partner in the strongest,
most advanced and powerful military in the world? What
keeps them up at night, if they're taking this seriously,
and they were not able to identify 143 out of 144 reports
of UAP. That's a success rate of less than 1%. To identify what
they are, wouldn't that keep you up at night and want to know
what your usli is worried about? And being a Five Eyes partner.
The Five Eyes is a collaboration across a number of countries,
they share signals intelligence, so they share data to help
identify potential national security threats, essentially,
to help mitigate, you know, potential threats in the future
as well as strengthen capabilities and mitigate
vulnerabilities essentially. So that was the document that was
released, or the responses to Senator wish Wilson's questions
on notice. There's a another key document, which I was able to
secure through for, and I won't show every document that I had
prepared for today, but I'll just show you, the key we love
John Greenewald: documents, you, you're in the right place to
show that so no matter
Grant Lavac: what, so I'll show this one briefly. So once that
information came back that, you know, the Australian Department
of Defense has no appetite to investigate this issue and has
not read or denies preliminary assessment. One of the questions
that Senator wish Wilson had asked during the Senate's
estimates to Air Marshal Mel Hatfield, was can you check
across the other services, Army, Navy, and so on, to see if they
currently have any reporting mechanisms in place. And so I
submitted a FOIA request on emails and correspondence that
helped inform the responses that the Australian Department of
Defense provided and public publicize that in that they
published in those responses to Senator which worked on that the
previous slide that I showed, and credit to the Armed Services
Australia department fence, they did their due diligence that
they were actually asking the question, Does name Navy army
have protocols? Historically, have they had any protocols?
This question was a one that threw me though, if no protocol
exists for Navy army. Or if no protocol exists, does Navy army
intend to establish service specific protocols for reporting
on UFOs and UAPs? So and he says, I'm on the fence, if we
need to ask this one. And this document, this was an email from
a jean Elliot, who I've actually gone after his emails in a
follow up for your request to see what he has, you know,
corresponded internally on on UAP. So that was one that was
interesting, but it was good to see that at least the Department
of fence had done its due diligence, and and was asking
around to see if if there was any mechanisms in place across
any of the other services. Fast forward, again, to another
document that I secured through FOIA. And I'll provide a bit of
context on this one. Let me just pull this up for you. So it's
good to go. I think this is the one. Here we go. So I had in
when was it, it was on the fifth eighth of April. This year, I
submitted a FOIA request. And I'll just make sure I've got I
can scroll down for you a bit. I submitted a FOIA request to
capture emails for the newly appointed defense space
commander, her name is Catherine Roberts because there were is an
article on Keith bass, the field for folks that don't know Keith
bass to field. He's an incredible researcher. He's an
Australian based researcher. He'd been doing a lot of work on
the UAP UFO topic in Australia for many, many years. And I saw
an article on his blog about this newly appointed defense
space commander, Catherine Roberts. And in her bio on the
on the Australian Department fences website or the Royal
Australian Air Force website. It she comments that she has. She's
an avid science fiction buff. And I thought, Oh, well, I
wonder what her take is. I wonder what her Inkling is on
UAP. So I decided to go after her emails from the 27th of
October, which was the date of the Senate estimates hearing to
the date that I submitted the request. And to my absolute
surprise and delight, I received a very significant series of
documents in response. Now I think it's significant a lot of
people out there that are well versed in following UAP and
Australian context might think it's a bit of a nothing burger.
And that's right, I respect that nothing burger, but I think it
was a something burger, because what we essentially got back if
I zoom out here, and this document was only recently
updated as of the 26th of May of this year. So this was a
document an internal document, a briefing paper for the Chief of
Air Force. Again, then Air Marshal Mel Hatfield that was
produced after those questions were asked of him at the Senate
estimates in October of last year. And after the Australian
Department defense responded to Senator wish Wilson's questions
on notice. There was this briefing paper that was created
and shared.
To Catherine Roberts, the defense space commander who is
vice, she's also a vice Air Marshal. And the table of
contents are quite telling, because there is a section
designated strategic narrative. And there are also some specific
talking points to essentially give the Chief of Air Force and
others in positions of leadership and maybe the Royal
Australian Air Force, a script to keep them on point. If
they're asked questions by maybe the press if they picked up on
this topic, which sadly, they haven't to date, which is a bit
disappointing, or if they're asked any questions from other
Australian Members of Parliament or Australian senators. So if I
come down to strategic narrative, and this is really
what got under my skin, is that this briefing paper, which the
background behind the composition of this briefing
paper, was if I just come down to the next page, background
information pertaining to the strategic narrative was the ODNI
is preliminary assessment. So someone in the Department of
Defense, or the Royal Australian Air Force had read that report.
And the findings of that report helped inform the commentary in
this document, the strategic narrative that the that was
being pushed to the Chief of Air Force is UFO UAP are likely to
be one of three things natural, or other benign phenomena or
other benign phenomena. I have no frame of reference as to what
that is, but confused on that one. Anomalies with sensors or
technologies that are human made, there is absolutely no
reference there to a potential catch all other been that the
ODNI documented or the the UAP Task Force, was not able to
identify 143 of 144, sightings, or reports. So I'm thinking
well, how can how can the Australian Department of Defense
so the Royal Australian Air Force, make a determination as
to what UAP are likely to be or not likely to be if they haven't
even read or been privy to the classified data that's
documented in the classified version of ODNI? As preliminary
assessment? How can they make that determination? And they
can't they can't make that determination, because they
haven't seen any of the data that the US is looking at. And
US lawmakers are looking at behind closed doors that's
really got them concerned and asking questions. So this
really, really raised some questions for me, they, this
strategic narrative has to come from the opinion of the author
of this document. It's an uninformed opinion, that is
potentially informing policy or the position of the Royal
Australian Air Force, the Australian Department of Defense
going forward, which is completely in my opinion, the
wrong approach to take, if you're going to make a
determination on strategic and strategic narrative is basically
Well, this is the story that we want to tell and this is what we
want our allies and folks that may To be on our allies to this
is the line of of talk that we want to take and for them to
believe. So that was the strategic narrative that they
came up with which I question because they haven't even been
privy to any of the the classified data and the Odeon
eyes preliminary assessment, they went on to kind of break
background information was okay. The ODNI is preliminary
assessment does not draw any conclusions on what you APR and
most remain unexplained. Well, that alone should be reason, a
compelling enough reason for you to actually jump into the game
and say, Okay, well FL US ally is unable to identify a lot of
these things. And they potentially could be foreign
adversarial, as they've indicated in the strategic
narrative,
John Greenewald: and if I can just jump in really quick, that
second line there the second on the second line, but same
sentence on what you just read was mainly due to not enough
data or insufficient data, if you scroll to page three, yeah.
And the only reason that stuck out to me is that wasn't
necessarily the case. Unless I'm forgetting about language. I did
a big video on this. And, and honestly, they picked the 144
that they picked, had had some of the most best data available.
So that that's interesting that they have that line in there
that just I'm sorry to jump on you there. But it stuck out to
me. And I wanted to point that out, because during project
Bluebook in the 40s 50s, and 60s, throughout those, that's
what they blamed insufficient data, but a lot of cases that
they couldn't identify had both visual observations and
instrumentation to back it up. So you can't just say there's
lack of data there. And on the contrary, there was a lot of
data and they could not identify it. So anyway, it seems like
they you're absolutely right. This is based on kind of nothing
in somebody's opinion, because that I unless I'm just
forgetting a line in that report. But that's that's not
true. Essentially, the
Grant Lavac: report was screaming, we'd need more data,
we need to be looking at more. We need to be analyzing more
data, more sensitive data, more visual data, more radar data
more, we need more to make a better informed conclusion as to
what UAP could potentially potentially be. This is what
threw me in this briefing paper, the report. So they're referring
to ODNI as preliminary assessment finds no evidence
that UAP or extraterrestrial origin. Oh denies preliminary
assessment made absolutely no reference to extraterrestrial.
Now, it didn't say that. It was it didn't say that. It wasn't it
actually didn't refer to it whatsoever. So why, in my
opinion, and why the mischaracterization to a degree
of Oh denies preliminary assessment and the need to
include this line in background information that supports the
strategic narrative. It's because I suspect that the Royal
Australian Air Force has rough has referred to extraterrestrial
in a lot of its materials prior that document that UAS policy
that that cis brief document, extra the word extraterrestrial
is referred to, I think, a number of occasions in that
document. So they have actually referenced it in documentation
in the past, but they for some reason, they felt the need to
include it in this particular briefing paper now and then it
goes it goes on to report some of the sites some of the citing
the site some of the findings of Odeon is preliminary assessment,
that UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight
characteristics that could potentially be sent to error.
But again, we need more data to help identify what UAP could be.
UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue. So we know that
the US is looking at it because there are potential national
security threats and safety of flight issues for military
aviators. They felt the need to highlight here that if civilians
wish to report UAP they should contact their local police
authorities or get in contact with a civilian research
organization like MUFON. They reiterated their position that
the defense canceled its instruction pertaining to UAS
what it does about reports received and so on canceled that
instruction in 2000. The actual policy was formally canceled in
2013. This is to your point before John UAP, also referred
to as animated animated fight flying objects or in unusual
aerial sightings. But then it gets really interesting talking
points. So this is I believe, designed to keep members of the
Royal Australian Air Force leadership on track on message
if they're asked questions by the Australian media or
Australian senators or members of Parliament. How are you? AP
reported defense defense does not have a policy. Well, we
already know that risk. restoratively are a double,
double AF was responsible for handling reports but ceased
taking them none in 96. After again determining that there was
no scientific or other compelling reason to devote
resources to the recording and investigation of VoIP. Again,
why wouldn't the compelling reason be that our US ally has
not been able to identify 143 144 cases of UAP defense
safety of flight incidents, including those potentially
posed by UfP are handled by the defense aviation safety assert
authority known as data I went after incident reports are what
they call occurrence reports. By data for 10 years, they knock me
back on 10. So I compromised to five and there haven't been any
reports of UAP. And any occurrence reports for last five
years. Senator wish Wilson took that one step further. And
wanted to see well, has there any been anything reported in
the last 10 years? And they said no. And then he went back and
said, well, has there anything been anything in the last 20
years? And they also said no, but he was he was he was basing
his request on a search for unidentified aircraft rather
than UAP. So I suspect, or UAS, so I suspect that may not have
produced any fruit on that front.
John Greenewald: Could they have just done unidentified? I mean,
does it work? It would have made
Grant Lavac: sense to maybe just to try and capture all
information via identified and I've included the keyword and
identified in a lot of my, my, my FOIA requests. Following on
from from from that specifically? Yeah, so there
might be
John Greenewald: so you still have open cases? for that? I
Grant Lavac: do. Yeah, I've got I've got quite a few open ones.
Yeah. Because you just do a
John Greenewald: keyword search for unusual. See what happens?
Grant Lavac: Yeah. And and that's, and that's, as you've
commented, a couple of times what's challenging is because
the acronyms or terminology is always changing. You always have
to adjust your FOIA request to try and capture, you know, what
you think is gonna bear some fruit? And like you've said in
the past, you don't want to be too specific with a four
question. You don't want to be too vague. You kind of find the
Goldilocks zone to try and try and get some some some
information.
John Greenewald: It's a lesson I learned over and over and over,
but, but I was only half being facetious there when I said, you
know, just doing a request were unusual or just unidentified,
because you were saying that the senator had them do a search.
And I'm sorry, aircraft, you right. So that particular
phrasing may not appear that way. But if unidentified does or
or something similar, they just won't do it. And I just had that
incident happen to me a couple of weeks ago with a FOIA
request. So yeah, the least amount of description you can
give the better. And I've gotten to the point of, for example,
just for the the FOIA listeners out there, I was trying throw in
two cents on, on doing keyword searches. But I used to do like
all SAP, for example, advanced aerospace weapon system
applications program, just do advanced aerospace, and cut out
the whole thing, because the acronyms are so darn difficult
to remember that they're likely miss represented in documents
anyway. But generally, when you do those types of just two
words, versus five, you have a much, much better, you know,
better method to to get responsive records. So yeah, if
they accept the request, I wouldn't highly recommend to do
just some of those keywords and see if they kick it back on.
Yeah,
Grant Lavac: absolutely. And these are the sorts of things
I'm learning as I go along the ride. I mean, I've learned a
hell of a lot from from you, and the the live streams and the
recorded videos that you put out a lot of the articles that you
publish, and and just the black vault itself is a great
resource. I mean, I've one of the one of the other topics I'm
fascinated by is the Phoenix lights, which we can talk about
in just a moment. But I've actually looked at some of the
FOIA documents that you've secured historically, back in
9790 97, I think, you know, after the Phoenix lights, so,
you know, that's where I'm still being a massive sponge on this
topic and being a student of fire and learning from, from you
and your real leadership on on FOIA that you've, that you've
been involved with for a number of decades.
John Greenewald: Now. I appreciate that. I'm 26 years in
and I'm still learning. There's no, I don't think there's any
such thing as a FOIA expert anymore.
Grant Lavac: There's, there's no, it's not. It's not a
destination. It's a journey, isn't it?
John Greenewald: So that's right. And I don't think the
journey will ever end. I love the journey, though. But yeah,
it's it's definitely a learning experience.
Grant Lavac: And look, I would say to any folks out there that
that like me are very curious on this topic. But we're also a
concerned citizen and want truth and transparency from those that
we elect into positions of authority. Submit a FOIA
request, if you've got a question. FOIA is much scarier
than it actually is. I think that the thought of submitting a
form request is quite daunting for a lot of folks. It certainly
was for me before I submitted my first FOIA request. But if you
know what you're wanting to ask, and you can frame it in a
certain way that, you know, you're not being overly specific
or overly vague, you're quite direct on what you're after,
then, you know, I've, what I've been really surprised by and
also kind of, you know, thankful that some there are folks out
there that have now started that have been following. Obviously,
the the post that I've been putting out there and the videos
on my channel that have reached out to me privately to ask me
questions or say that they would be interested on collaborating
on a FOIA request if they don't feel confident to submit one
themselves. So I'm really kind of taken aback that, you know,
there are folks that are taking notice of just the the work that
I've been doing, purely from a curiosity standpoint, and the
fact that I've arrived to this information, Australian
taxpayer. So I'm asking these questions, but I wouldn't have
asked those questions if it wasn't for the work of you. And
Luis Jimenez in the big phone home and those sorts of things.
So again, that's where I come back and say, you know, thank
you for inspiring me and motivating me to, to get into
the game.
John Greenewald: I appreciate that.
Grant Lavac: Thank you. So yeah, I'm cognizant of your audience's
time. But I just want to skip through to the really the last
through a couple of talking points, with the US calling UAP
a potential threat to national security should Australian be
concerned. Again, they reiterate that UAP are likely to be one of
three things well, again, how can they determine what it's
likely to be or not likely to be? If they're, if they haven't
seen any of the classified data and they are denied
John Greenewald: or they're not doing anything themselves for
25?
Grant Lavac: Well, they haven't or they haven't looked at this
topic since 1996. You've there's a ton of ton of historical data
in the National Archives of Australia. You know, they
released a lot of their, their reports, case files, and so on,
that are readily accessible and publicly available in National
Archives. But they haven't been looking at any data since 1996.
And they haven't even looked at any of the data that our US
allies collected. And only last week, bit over a week ago, the
new Australian minister for defense he's also the Deputy
Prime Minister Richard miles, had a meeting at the Pentagon
with the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Lloyd Austin, Austin. And
I can bet my bottom dollar that there would have been something
tabled for discussion around this topic. So I've the day of
their meeting, which was the 14th your 13th of July 14 July
for me, I went after I submitted a FOIA request for
correspondence meeting schedules, meeting agendas,
talking points to see if well, is the Australian minister for
defense, the US Secretary of Defense's counterpart, at least
taking notice of the serious interest that the US has on this
topic? And are they at least, you know, trying to find out a
little bit more for themselves so that they don't get caught
red faced? This is the other issue I have. And I know I'm
darting back back bit back and forth here. But that's okay. So
the National Defense Authorization Act that Biden
signed into law in December of last year. One, there is a
single clause in that legislation that mandates that
the new office dedicated to investigating UAP has to
coordinate with allies and partners of the United States to
better understand the extent and nature of the phenomena of UAP.
So, Australia, being a Five Eyes partner and a strong ally of the
US, the US the office, the now new Arrow office is obviously in
due course, it's obviously got a six year, six year mission, it's
going to reach out to its allies at some point and ask questions
about well, can you help us with this UAP issue because we're
having a real time trying to identify it back home. And we
know the US is gonna say we know that you've looked into this
topic in the past because you had a policy from the 50s
through the mid 90s. And there have been numerous reports that
are well documented in the archive in the National Archives
of Australia, that there were reports of anomalous crafts and
objects cited at military military installation bases in
Australia. herald a halt bass on on in Western Australia that was
that is well referenced in ROSS Cortez book in plain sight.
You've got the warmer weather weapons range in South
Australia, which Interesting fact my uncle, my mother's
brother has since passed away. He was the project manager of a
top secret project called reset, which was responsible for
launching Australia's very first satellite back in 1967. And
there were a number of sightings reported at that weapons range
that military base over a decade and so much so that there was
even a civilian UFO group that was created in the region to
investigate those those those sightings. You've also got bases
like Pine Gap in the Northern Territory, which is a joint
operated us Australia joint operated base, where there have
been sightings reported as well. And Glen Ross documents a lot of
these in his book. So if the US is going to come knocking on our
door and say, We know that you knew there have been sightings,
you're over our joint military military installation plan gap.
Can you help us identify or provide some more data on what
you APR if they come back to the US since they are? Yeah, sorry,
folks, we haven't been looking at this issue since 1996. Nor
have we bothered to even inquire as to can we be privy to some of
the classified information in the classified version of the
API's prelim assessment, they're going to be completely red
faced, and they're going to have nothing to contribute to the
conversation, and they're going to be completely embarrassed.
And in the eyes of public perception, I think that's one
of the big fears that the Australian Department of Defense
has in the Royal Australian Air Force. There's this public
perception that if we tell the public that we're going to start
looking at UAP, again, we're admitting that we don't have
control. We don't have air dominance, we don't have control
of our skies. And we're admitting the fact that, you
know, well, we don't really have the control that we, we perceive
that we have and we want the public to have this degree of
trust, that we know what's going on and flying around in our
skies. So that's the other element that I fear as part of
it as well.
John Greenewald: That's in that is, though, it's something that
I've bantered about for a long time here in America is that
national security concern of telling the people we are not in
control. And to my surprise there, they're actually doing
that now. And I only laugh about it, because for so long, I
thought they'll they'll never admit it. And then here they
are. And you're right. I mean, there there is that element of,
oh, we are not in control. And we have to tell our people,
we're not in control. But I am surprised that they haven't
followed the lead and done it themselves. So that's that's
just surprising to me. I'm wondering if that will shift in
the next coming months or years?
Grant Lavac: Well, I hope so. Because this this talking point
is the one that really concerns me as an ally have the United
States offered to us to collaborate on UAP
investigations. No, the United States nor any other nation or
ally have requested or offered to collaborate on UAP reporting
or investigation. This is the real kick in the guts. For me,
defense has no desire to seek collaboration on this issue. And
there was a document that I only just received from the Royal
Australian Air Force. This is the last one I'll show for
Europe for your audience here is make sure I bring the right one
up. So I had reached out to the the new minister, Defense
Minister for the defence Richard miles throughout the month of
June repeatedly asking him the question, well, you know, our US
ally and fynbos partner is taking UAP very seriously, why
isn't the Australian Department of Defense and I've tried to
engage him frequently in a respectful manner via email and
on Twitter. And I received a response back on the seventh of
July from an RJ Danny's the Air Vice Marshal of head of Air
Force capability, saying I don't know if I can highlight it. But
saying defense obviously does not have a protocol for the
reporting and recording of UAP and UFO sightings at this point
in time, and this is a neutral letter, obviously. But I do take
some comfort knowing that this is at this point in time defense
will not be pursuing research into this matter. That's
obviously disappointing. But that gives us some hope that
maybe there is an opportunity for them to review their
position down the road. I understand that the United
States Congress recently held a hearing on UAP and UFO. So
they're well and truly aware of the fact that the view of the US
is looking at it, but they're just considering it a matter of
a foreign government. So they're not wanting to touch this topic.
And that's the big question I have is why Why don't you want
to touch this topic and ask questions, because they are US
allies. And that's why I would really love for members of the
Australian media to exercise their journalistic due diligence
and ask this question of the Australian Department of
Defense, well, why aren't you looking into the issue? Why
aren't you taking it seriously when a US ally is
John Greenewald: in the States, especially prior to the
conversation from the Department of Defense kind of exploding,
where they've got offices, and they're talking about it and
being more open. Prior to that military personnel? Not a ton,
but military personnel, were getting the the mainstream
attention, New York Times ransom stories. So military personnel
were coming forward, is that going on in Australia is the is
the government and military ignoring men and women coming
forward and saying, Hey, look, I was flying here on, you know,
this aircraft, and I saw something is that going on there
as well.
Grant Lavac: So I have anecdotal evidence to support that that I
think, and the Pentagon, to their credit, has now stated
that they're make they're taking a concerted effort to try and
address the stigma and ridicule that's long plagued this topic.
So that they, they're a sensible See Something, Say Something
reporting mechanisms that are available to military aviators
and personnel. I think the fact that there is a lack of those
same reporting mechanisms in Australia, is why people aren't
talking about it. And again, anecdotally, there are folks
that are members of the the Australian Defence Force that
have said something, and they're either reporting it to the likes
of MUFON, because they're the ones that your defense is
saying, well, we don't look at it. But yeah, have a chat with
your police enforcement. I don't know what law enforcement is
going to do about other than take police statement from you.
But have a chat with your local UFO civilian organization, and
they'll take the report. And Ross himself has documented in
plant in his book in plain sight and said on numerous occasions
that he's having ongoing conversations with current and
former members of the Australian Defence Force That Is seeing
anomalous objects, but they're not saying anything about it,
because one, either their fear of being ridiculed the fear of
this fear of the stigma or fear of reprisals, that they may be
jeopardizing their their position, or maybe they have
some form of security classification a nondisclosure
agreement, and they can't talk about it. So anecdotally, there
are a lot of reports coming in from people that don't want to
go on the record saying that I've seen something. But I don't
want to really say something by going on the record, because I
don't want to lose my job, and I want to be made fun of it and be
ridiculed. So Australia, unfortunately, is probably a
good decade or two, behind the US on this effort. Where we are
now is where you guys have come from. And I only hope that
Australia follows the US as lead and eventually falls into line
and talks about this topic. And I think I think there is a
changing of the guard potentially around the corner
because only in the last three days, in Australia, in Sydney,
the there was an event the inaugural it's called the
inaugural Australian Defence science technology and research
summit that was hosted in Sydney as a as a hybrid event Summit,
some in person some virtually. And the whole theme of the
summit was around resilience, the ability and capacity for
human technical systems to quickly adapt and recover from
unexpected interference disruption, adversity, threats
and other stresses stresses to prevail, whether they be
intentionally enacted by an adversary or occur naturally as
a consequence of changing conditions. So the fact that
there is a summit, an Australian Defense Science Technology
Summit and research, some of that's taking place right now.
And there are questions being asked of folks that are thought
leaders and folks in positions of leadership at that
conference. I went on Wednesday, who but there are folks that are
well known in this community in Australia that attended that
conference, virtually, that we're asking the questions that
I'm asking, Why is Australia not taking the subject seriously
when our US ally is and they've mandated that they look into
this topic by legislation that the National Defense
Authorization Act, and hopefully now the intelligence
authorization act when that gets passed. So I do think that there
is going to be a changing tide in due course, it's just a
matter of time. The next Senate estimates meeting that's
scheduled for Australia, I think, is in November of this
year. So I suspect that Senator wish Wilson is going to have a
ton more questions to ask at that hearing. And hopefully at
that point, there are a lot more other senators that are
following his lead and also asking the same sort of
Questions?
John Greenewald: Well, I can't thank you enough for taking the
time out of your day to share those documents. And I'd love to
share all of them. If you're okay with that with the
audience, and I'll put it if you're okay with that, we'll put
a link into the show notes below, of course, full credit to
Graham for getting those documents. And hopefully, you'll
keep me updated when we talk from time to time anyway. But
I'd love to bring you back on the show the next time you get
more documents or that hearing happens, hopefully, you'll come
back and share it with us because as I said, In the
beginning of the show, I'm so ignorant about other countries,
my whole focus when it comes to the UAP issue has always been
the American government. And it's not out of lack of
interest, but rather, it is so complicated to to try and
unravel that mystery with the American government. Oh, God to
tackle another government, it just makes my head explode. So I
kind of put up a wall mentally, but again, not because of lack
of interest. So I can't thank you enough for for joining me
today.
Grant Lavac: Yeah, the pleasure is absolutely Oman, I really
appreciate you taking an interest in what is happening
down under and inviting me to have a chat with you and your
audience. And, you know, I again, really applaud all of the
good work that you do, and you're at the forefront leading
this effort. I'm learning from you, and others so, so continue
to do the great work that you do it is you offer a true, valuable
service to this community. So thank you, for you. And I do
think that, you know, it's not just the US that's taking this
topic seriously. Now, you've also got Canada, another five
eyes partner, you've got Brazil has recently held a hearing a
five and a half hour hearing on on this very topic. So this is
not an issue that's isolated to just the United States. It's
affecting other countries around the world. And hopefully, the
Australian Government gets off its us and takes it seriously
along with the Australian media. So whenever there are updates to
share, I'll be sure to to check in with you and and provide you
with that with any developments.
John Greenewald: Well, I appreciate that. And the kind
words and you're welcome whenever you want. Just give me
a buzz and you are more than welcome to come on. Last. Sorry.
Go ahead. How's
Grant Lavac: that next time? I'm in LA? I know it was there a
couple months back, I promise.
John Greenewald: I was totally bummed when I saw that will
almost be blocked you on Twitter as one for me?
Grant Lavac: No, I had one day in LA and I thought man I know
it's with with the 405 the way it is the traffic would have
taken us
John Greenewald: about a day to drive. So yeah, I totally get
it. Last question I have for you is throw out I know you're
you're active on Twitter, which is where I communicate with you
a lot. How do people contact you if you have a website, your
YouTube channel? I'll make sure that I link it in the show notes
below. But for the audio version if they want to find you on
Twitter, and websites and stuff, how do they do it?
Grant Lavac: Yeah, so you can find me on Twitter just at my
handle at Grant Lovak. I'm on YouTube as well. Just search for
grant Lovak on YouTube. I have a channel called the the
unexplained rundown where I tackle these kinds of questions.
What is Australia doing about UAPs I'm actually just about to
release a brand new video. It's a bit of a passion project, a
deep dive exploration of Kurt Russell's experience of the
Phoenix lights which I have to also again, thank to you, John
for that one because you had a couple months ago, celebrate,
you're recognizing the 25th anniversary of the Phoenix
lights, you had Dr. LendKey tie on your show. And I listened to
that show. And that actually inspired me to research the
Phoenix lights in particular Kurt Russell's account and I've
been very fortunate enough after months of research that I've
actually been able to uncover some some new information
pertaining to these his his encounters, so I won't give it
away. It's nothing earth shattering but it certainly was
intriguing to me being a Kurt Russell fanatic, and a fan of
the UAP and UFO topic. So yeah, jump on over to my YouTube
channel. That's, that's going to be dropped in the coming weeks.
John Greenewald: Very cool. Well, I'll make sure that I
tweet that out for you as well. But keep me updated when that
video drops and grant. Thank you so much again, I truly
appreciate your time.
Grant Lavac: You're very welcome. Thanks, John. Enjoy
your win.
John Greenewald: Thank you and thank you all for listening and
watching. If you can on YouTube thumbs up button really helps a
lot. Make sure you're subscribed to the channel. If you're
watching on the or excuse me, you're listening on the audio
podcast version. Or if you don't know that I have one. It is
listed on every podcast platform under the black vault radio. If
you can consider writing a review I shoot for five stars.
That would be a huge help. But again, thank you for listening
and or watching. This is John Greenewald Jr signing off, and
we'll see you next time.